Using American Exceptionalism as a Partisan Weapon

In reply to the Callista Gingrich video found at the following post: American Power: American Exceptionalism

(This reply is a revised and extended version of a comment originally posted at American Nihilist on January 23rd.)
---





Like too many Republicans, Mrs Newton #3 is trying to sell a meme about the left that is a lie. I agree with 99% of everything she says in the video. There is no "'great debate' about whether America is an exceptional nation, or just another country," except in a few folk's divisive, partisan, and seemingly fevered imaginations.


Whether one believes man was endowed with inalienable rights by a Christian God or by human nature, the end result--the form of government that makes America exceptional--is the same. It is our American ideals that make us unique in the world, and it is our desire and ability to sell our ideals to others--both immigrants who come here to seek a better life and become a part of this country, and to a lesser extent, those foreign nations who have incorporated some of our American ideals into their governments--that make we Americans unique.

Too often, however, there IS a certain degree of arrogance when talking about American exceptionalism. There are too many who believe that America was a nation chosen by God from among all (or most) others, and that we Americans are a chosen people above those of other nations. They are often nativists who don't want to share and expand American exceptionalism. Immigrants and other groups are demonized and deemed unworthy. "All men are created equal." Except Muslims (American or otherwise.) Except gay folks. Except liberals. That kind of American exceptionalism isn't worth the breath with which it's spoken...

I believe in American exceptionalism... But unlike too many on the right, I'm not particularly threatened if the citizens of some other country feel the same about their ideals and way of life (though I do think they're wrong.) I've no doubt that folks in Israel, England, Russia, and Egypt believe their country and way of life to be exceptional, that it in any way diminishes America or our exceptionalism because they do, or that there is any harm in recognizing that fact, either.

Ed Luce from the Financial Times.

Where's Ed? There he is.

U.S. Place in World Affairs

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. In the context of all the multilateral activity that's been going on this week--the G-20, here at NATO--and your evident enthusiasm for multilateral frameworks, to work through multilateral frameworks, could I ask you whether you subscribe, as many of your predecessors have, to the school of American exceptionalism that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly different philosophy? And if so, would you be able to elaborate on it?

The President. I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I am enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don't think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that.

And if you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality that, though imperfect, are exceptional.
Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we've got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we're not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise, and that includes us.

And so I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity, and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent depends on our ability to create partnerships, because we create partnerships because we can't solve these problems alone.

-- Barack Obama: The President's News Conference in Strasbourg, April 4, 2009

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu

And then there's this, FWIW: "Only one sitting president in the last 82 years has publicly uttered the magical phrase “American exceptionalism”--care to guess who it is?" - Obama Has Mentioned 'American Exceptionalism' More Than Bush - Robert Schlesinger (usnews.com)

Merry Christmas 2011

I became aware of these two videos within 24 hours of each other, and they both make me smile...

At first I envisioned some kinda east coast <--> west coast chick singin' let it all hang out goofy Christmas song video rivalry, like them rappers used to have... (That is what them rappers used to have, yes?!?)

But the fact is, I'd much rather see 'em workin' together, sometime, somewhere... I think they're both phenomenal talents, and I urge anyone unfamiliar to get to know these performers better... (Obviously, this isn't their best work, but for what they are, these videos are pretty great...)


East Coast: Antigone Rising




West Coast: Francesca Valle



For more info:
Antigone Rising
Francesca Valle


Merry happy, everyone... Celebrate, and be joyous.

is The Right To Free Speech Unlimited?

In reply to American Power: Patricia McAllister Fired by LAUSD: Anti-Semitic Teacher Caught on Tape at 'Occupy L.A.' Protest

Here is the story:

(Ironic last line, if ya ask me...)

Dr. Douglas expresses some very definite views on the matter in his post:

"The woman's entitled to her opinions, no matter how sick..."

"I find McAllister's comments reprehensible. But as one who's been the subject of a three-year campaign attempting to get me fired, I have serious issues with concern trolling bullshit like this."

"The district states a principle, yet abandons it because the teacher is untenured. Thus, being tenured creates rights that are denied to individuals not similarly situated. Ugly or not, the woman was stating her opinion, a political opinion, at a political rally while acting in private capacity. The district's decision reaches into the realm of personal space. And it should not. This is tyranny. They fired her because they could, not because it was right. And there's so much more going on there: McAllister taught small children, so perhaps parents would have been upset, as the Times suggests. Fine. Let the parents pull their kids out of class. Or better yet, let them pull their students out of the school altogether."

"Note how McAllister is not misspeaking when she spouts her hatred. It would have come out on the job, sooner or later. And if the kids in her charge are young and vulnerable, transfer her into the higher grades. If students are offended they'll know without having to be force-fed outrage. They can complain fair and square and the school would have been on solid ground in terminating her for racist, discriminatory speech in the classroom, prohibited by statutory regulation."

Donald Donald obviously believes that free speech is an absolute right, and there can be no abrogating the right of someone to say whatever they wish, without official consequence. It's an attractive idea...

But some feel differently...

From: Free speech -- within limits - latimes.com:

"This newspaper ardently supports the right to free speech, even when that speech is controversial, hateful or ignorant. But no right is absolute, and Patricia McAllister, a substitute teacher with the Los Angeles Unified School District, crossed a line with her anti-Semitic comment at Occupy Los Angeles."

"McAllister wasn't at work when she spoke. Though she identified herself as a school district employee, she was careful to note that she was not speaking as a representative of L.A. Unified. And Deasy knows as well as anyone that courts have historically — and correctly — protected teachers' free-speech rights.

But there are limits. As a teacher, McAllister works with a captive audience of vulnerable children. Her comments certainly raise questions about her ability to treat them all equally and fairly. What's more, even if she's been the soul of discretion on the job, as well as kind and evenhanded with all her students, by making herself a public symbol of intolerance, McAllister no longer can serve effectively as a teacher."

"As execrable as her comments were, it might be a different matter if McAllister were, say, a Department of Motor Vehicles clerk. There, she would be dealing with adults who could hold their own, and would have little direct authority over them. It also might be different if she had expressed a controversial opinion that was not an inflammatory attack on a particular ethnic or religious group.

We're reluctant to restrict anyone's ability to express even the most loathsome views openly and publicly. But when a teacher trumpets hateful opinions that could intimidate the impressionable young people she's supposed to be serving, that's not just free speech — it's a performance issue. In speaking out so intemperately, McAllister's ability to do her job was fatally compromised."

I'll note here that I made a similar distinction regarding WHERE someone works as regards another teacher, posted before this story broke (or before I knew anything about it, anyway), saying:

"While I oppose online disputes going offline, there are folks who have a legitimate right to speak to individuals at a person's place of employment, even about online issues--including someone's boss, if that's where it led--assuming the grievance is valid.

Were I a student or parent of a student at LBCC, it's likely that I would request not to be assigned into any of Dr. Douglas' classes, based on what I believe to be bigoted attitudes about African Americans, Muslims, gay folks, and those he deems too far left of center. I wouldn't want to be forced into subjecting myself or my child to someone who espouses such views, and were I a student or parent at that school, I believe I would have both the right and good cause to express my concerns. (Whether it's the right thing to do in a given circumstance is subject to interpretation, of course, and different individuals will likely have different opinions. While I'd speak up if Donald was a teacher or a candidate running for office, I wouldn't if he was a fry cook or a shoe salesman, though I probably wouldn't shop/spend money where he worked even then, just on principle.)

The same principle comes into play in the case of Vicky Knox, who was mentioned by one of the bloggers above. Vicky absolutely has free speech... ...but so do the parents in that school district, whether in support of her or otherwise. Free speech doesn't mean you're protected from having folks disagree with you...or even from folks holding you accountable for what you say..."

The debate is given a good airing in the comments at Libertarian Republican: Nazi-sympathizing LAUSD worker given the Axe by School District, including the following:

Chuck, OCTOBER 19, 2011 1:52 PM:
"Rightfully? Had she not announced who her employer was, thereby associating her remarks with same, you might have a point. Short of that, she has no case to make. If someone working for me was on tape all over the internet saying, "Yeah, I work for Coffer Contracting and I hate me some Jews, and we need to run their asses out of the country.", They'd be lucky to escape getting the shit beat out of them by yours truly, and I sure as shit wouldn't feel compelled to keep paying them to wreck my public image. Any suggestion that it should be otherwise is simply irrational."

Gary, OCTOBER 19, 2011 2:10 PM:
Chuckie only sees the little picture.

What happens when those evil and racist "Tea Baggers" are fired for their hate speech?

KN@PPSTER, OCTOBER 19, 2011 5:58 PM:
Chuck is meta-right -- to the extent that she may have associated her employer with her remarks, they had reason to dissociate from her.

On the other hand, this wasn't just any employer -- it was a government agency. I may not like private discrimination, but it's a right. Discrimination, even against the truly reprehensible, on the taxpayer dime is less justifiable.

And on the third hand, does anyone think that she'd have been fired if she had been speaking in favor of a school bond issue, or in support of same-sex marriage, or for in-state tuition for immigrants?

Even given my earlier statement, I do find the absolutist argument seductive, too. And of course, it all gets tied up in the fact that this woman worked for the government, rather than a private interest, which brings a different degree of scrutiny to bear... Firing her does amount to government censorship of her ideas, and once we grant the government the right to censor her views, an argument can be made that we give them the right to censor any government employee's views, whatever their politics...

Whatever you think about this story now, would your mind change if she had worked for--and been fired by--a private school?... your local pizza joint?...

Does an employer have the right to fire an employee whose outside-of-work behavior reflects poorly on his or her business, and should there be different rules for folks who work for the federal, state, or local government than there are for employees of private schools and businesses?

As long as a teacher keeps his or her disgusting bigotry or other nasty beliefs out of the classroom and off-campus, should there really be no recourse for those who find the bigotry reprehensible, short of removing yourself from the situation--home-schooling or changing schools--assuming that is even possible-- if one is the parent of a student (or the student himself) or finding another job if one is an offended co-worker?

Is there a difference between the freedom to express a thought, and being free of any legal or government consequence after one has done so, and are both embodied in the principle of Free Speech as we understand it?

What about the right of other individuals to speak in opposition to bigoted or other disgusting ideas, including demands that teachers (or anyone) who engage(s) in them not teach (or work) in their community? What obligation does an employer have to their "customers"?

There are limits to free speech... From inciting a riot to libel laws to "free speech zones," it is clear that one cannot say anything one wishes anywhere one wishes without consequence.

I believe that like pornography, there is a line between free speech and offensive speech, and every employee--including government employees--has to avoid stepping afoul of that line, or pass a kind of a smell test when they don't, where "we can't absolutely define it, but we know it when we see it" applies... Firing someone for expressing a conservative, liberal, atheist or Christian viewpoint is different from firing someone for bigoted speech... I trust the American people--in the form of juries, and the judges we elect or appoint--to understand the difference, and to get most of these questions right (though yes, there will be mistakes and decisions with which folks will disagree, just as with every other aspect of our imperfect judicial system.)

As tempting as it is to say all speech is and should be free of legal or government consequence, it's just not realistic... There have to be circumstance-specific standards, and a means to limit the exposure to/of those who refuse to abide by them. One size does not fit all, and each situation should be judged by it's own merits and the standards that apply to it...

Thoughts?

---
Also talking about it:

American Power: Patricia McAllister Fired by LAUSD: Anti-Semitic Teacher Caught on Tape at 'Occupy L.A.' Protest

Free speech -- within limits - latimes.com

The Devil's American Nihilist Henchmen: Online Disagreements and The Offline World We Live In...

Libertarian Republican: Nazi-sympathizing LAUSD worker given the Axe by School District

Reason Guilty of Anti-ANTI-Semitism: Sub Teacher Fired - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street (video)

Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street from Steven Greenstreet on Vimeo.

A Bigot's a Bigot, no Matter how Small (That is to say, ethically small)

"While the term [ebonics] is avoided by most linguists, it has gained a certain amount of salience outside of academia (such as on Internet message boards), often as the object of ridicule, particularly when it is inaccurately parodied as more different from Standard American English than it really is. Black American linguist John McWhorter argues that the use of Ebonics as a term does more to hinder black academic achievement than to help it, in that considering an ethnic group's slightly-different speech to be a completely different language from English serves only to widen the perceived divide between whites and blacks in America." - Ebonics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep... That's for sure...

Does Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters.org speak (and presumably, understand) the same language as the rest of us?

Cokie Roberts on Downgrade: "The Problem That We Have Here Is the Constitution" - NewsBusters.org - Noel Sheppard

ABC's Cokie Roberts said something on national television Sunday that made her colleague George Will shake his head on camera.

During a "This Week" discussion about the recent credit rating downgrade by Standard and Poor's Roberts said, 'The problem that we have here is the Constitution of the United States of America which actually does require people to come together from different perspectives" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

Am I the only one left wondering whether some of these wing nut types speak the same language as the rest of it... When you watch that video, isn't it obvious to you that when she says --

"This group of people in New York [Standard and Poor’s] is actually talking about more government rather than less government, Congressman. In fact, the reason they like France and Great Britain is because they’re parliamentary systems where the majority gets what it wants no matter what.

And the problem that we have here is the Constitution of the United States of America which actually does require people to come together from different perspectives whether it's divided government or not. We have divided branches of government under any circumstance."

--she's saying the Constitution of the United States of America is a problem for those who prefer the parliamentary systems of France and Great Britain, where majority rules, no matter what [that group of people in NY - Standard and Poor's], and NOT that the Constitution of the United States of America is a problem for America itself, which seems to be the meme this Sheppard wingnut is trying to sell??

What the fuck is WRONG with these people?

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/08/07/cokie-roberts-problem-we-have-here-constitution-united-states-america#ixzz1UOdy5Rzt

ADDED: As I was following the other links attached to this nonsense via Memeorandum, I came across this wingnut site, which features this prescient quote: "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SPEAK IN SUCH A WAY THAT YOU CANNOT BE MISUNDERSTOOD." -- KARL POPPER (I might add the word "willingly" in there between "be" and "misunderstood" for circumstances like this one (because yeah, I believe this is just another manufactured rightwing nontroversy ginned up to attack "the lib'rul lame stream media"), but it's a good quote nevertheless, with or without my added word...

How Clinton Handled His Debt Ceiling Crisis Better Than Obama: A few choice lines...

A few choice lines for the Obama White House and elected Democrats in general to remember, going forward:

Clinton would have none of it. “If they send me a budget that says simply, ‘You take our cuts or we’ll let the country go into default,’ I will veto it,” Clinton said at the time, calling Republican tactics “economic blackmail.”

Instead of attempting to negotiate over the cuts, Clinton simply vetoed both bills. “America has never liked pressure tactics, and I would be wrong to permit these kind of pressure tactics to dramatically change the course of American life,” Clinton said. “I cannot do it, and I will not do it.” The government shut down.

Still, even though Clinton enjoyed political and economic advantages that Obama does not, his no-compromises strategy had some clear advantages. Unlike Obama, he refused to let the threat of default set the national agenda. Because he would not enter into negotiations over the debt ceiling, the issue barely roused the public consciousness. On November 9, 1995, a senior administration official told the Washington Post, “Our position is it does not matter what they put on this legislation, we are not going to accept anything but clean bills because we will not be blackmailed over default. Get it? No extortion. No blackmail. What you hear are their screams of complaint as they realize we are not, not, not budging on this.”

Quotes from How Clinton Handled His Debt Ceiling Crisis Better Than Obama | The New Republic

"Never negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them."

The Tea Party’s War on America - NYTimes.com

Recommended on the first paragraph alone... Call these folks whatever "civilized" names you (or they) want, but the next time a bunch of elected officials say "give us what we want, or the whole country gets it," (default, ruined lives, economic meltdown, or whatever it is they'll hold to everyone's head the next time), perhaps it'd be worth remembering that to negotiate with people who are threatening folks only encourages them to do it again, with more dire threats, and for even higher stakes.

Never again.

The United States does not negotiate with folks threatening harm to others to get what they want.

Period.

Investigate Pamela Geller...

"We are stockpiling and cache weapons, ammunition and equipment. This is going to happen fast."- Pamela Geller's anonymous Norwegian commenter, in 2007

Who was that guy (or "those guys"--the writer did say "we," not "I") in Norway "stockpiling and cache weapons, ammunition, and equipment" back in 2007? Was it Anders Breivik, or will it be the next rightwing extremist(s) who commit(s) violence somewhere in Europe?

The Best (Not-So-New) Thing In The World (Faith)

I have little to add to this, except to say that it gives me hope, and bolsters my faith...

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

How Many Responsible Counter-Jihad Bloggers Are Out There, Anyway?

In response to this list*, (the content of which seems pretty intelligent and nuanced to me, for the most part), I offer the following (three, currently, though I'll be glad to add more if anyone can point me to any) blog posts by right wingers that--at least in these posts--seem to have a handle on the difference between being opposed to violent muslim extremism (islamism, islamofacism), and being opposed to muslims and the Muslim faith (islam, itself).

1) A Responsible Anti-Jihadism? - Josh Travino - The New Nixon (From 2009, but prescient)

2) On Islamophobia and Right Wing Extremism - Rusty Shackleford - The Jawa Report (Unfortunately, not all of the writers at The Jawa Report share his thinking'... and if you REALLY want to be depressed about the nature of folks, read the comments of the post, where Rusty is accused of all manner of rightwing / muzzie-lovin' treasons, just for writing the post.)

3) Atlas Shrugs Blogger Pamela Geller an Inspiration for Terrorists - Dean Esmay - Dean's World (This post first appeared in the list cited above. A little rooting and reading on his blog showed that this "progressive" is actually not a progressive at all... Since I included this post here, I did not repeat it below.)

4) ...
(Because I'm really hoping there are more than three, out there...) ((To be fair, I have not done much of a search, as yet... These three kinda fell into my lap, and I was impressed enough to write this post acknowledging them. If/when I have one for #4, this blurb will become #5, and so on, until I find at least as many "responsible anti-jihad bloggers" (to coin borrow a phrase) as I have hateful ones.))
-------------------

*That list, in case you'd rather not:
In response to Norway attacks, right-wing bloggers suddenly demand nuance - The Plum Line - The Washington Post

Balloon Juice - “This rhetoric,” he added, “is not cost-free.”

Booman Tribune ~ Pam Geller Compares Herself to John Lennon

Little Green Footballs - NYT: US 'Counter-Jihad' Bloggers Heavily Influenced Oslo Terrorist

Daily Kos: Norway killer found inspiration in American anti-Islamism

Rightbloggers Discover the Real Victims of Norway Mass Murderer Breivik: Themselves - Runnin' Scared

Anders Breivik's Christian Terrorism in Norway: Are Pamela Geller and other anti-Islamist bloggers responsible? - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine

UPDATE: What I said above about these bloggers saying the right thing "in these posts, at least" was dead on... Josh Trevino, from the #1 link above, was the same asshole who advocated killing everyone--including American citizens, and even including a Jewish holocaust survivor--EVERYONE, who took part in the Gaza aid flotillas, likening them to Nazi sympathizers... Yes, REALLY!: Former Bush Speechwriter: Shooting People On Gaza Flotilla "OK" Because Participants Are Like Nazis. He's still an example of better rightwing thinking on Muslims in the post above, but it only goes to show that even a fucked up broken individual like him can have moments of clarity and a soul worth saving... But what a fucktard... (Just reading that shit he spewed about people who believe Israel has no right to blockade another country, makes me want to shower. Guess all that macho talk makes him feel more like a man... Which, if you've seen him... Well, let's just leave it at that...)

The Growing Scourges - Rightwing Nationalism? Islam? How about Extremism...

Found at the small dead animals post, Oslo: The Christian Response, (but also quoted approvingly here, too):

From today's Toronto "Red" Star editorial:

'The best catharsis Norway can have is to expose a mass murderer for what he is, to publicly refute his twisted ideology and to bring him to justice. The light and air of a public courtroom are the best disinfectants. This case matters to other European countries as well. Rightwing nationalism is a growing scourge that can inspire a lunatic fringe.'

Can you imagine them writing the following?

'The best catharsis America can have is to expose mass murderer Nidal Hasan for what he is, to publicly refute his twisted ideology and to bring him to justice. The light and air of a public courtroom are the best disinfectants. This case matters to European countries as well. Islam is a growing scourge that can inspire a lunatic fringe.'

Nope. Me neither."

In both cases, the ideology of the killers needs to be examined and discussed. But Breivik's murderous acts were not the product of nationalism (or even "rightwing nationalism") any more than Hasan's murderous acts were the result of Islam.

Both were the result of extremism, each of their own variety. Yes, rightwing nationalism / Islam were factors in the stories, but only in the sense that Anders Breivik and Nadal Hasan claimed to be acting in furtherance of those ideologies, but in both cases they had created &/or were influenced by others who had bastardized what these ideologies are actually about and how they are put into practice by their more mainstream adherents.

Now obviously, I'm not all that familiar with Islam, but I do know that the Muslim faith is one of the great religions throughout the world, practiced by millions of people, and that it is a fraction of Muslims who are extremists in word or deed.

I know even less about rightwing nationalism, but I can imagine and empathize with those who see their country and it's traditional identity slipping away. (I find it far easier to imagine and empathize where "old Europe" (or old anywhere) is concerned; the USA started out a nation of immigrants, and still is.) While I'm staunchly opposed to bigotry--also a function of being an American and of our being a nation of immigrants, I think--I don't have much of an issue with countries maintaining their heritage by limiting immigration and demanding a degree of adherence to the customs and laws of the land. The key is, the laws must apply to all fairly. If a country chooses to limit immigration, they should limit immigration from all countries, not just certain ones. If a country chooses to limit (or allow) religious expression or adornments in schools, the laws governing such things should apply whether one is a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, or any other religion.

Obviously, it's far easier to say than to do, and I'm sure accommodating the needs of one faith will sometimes require more than accommodating the needs of another. I can only say that there is value in living and letting live, sometimes. You're not losing anything if another faith gets an accommodation you do not need or want, and in my opinion it's a little petty to bitch, if that is the case. While the analogy is by no means perfect, there is some value in treating religious accommodation the same way many schools, etc treat accommodations for disabilities. The child with dyslexia isn't getting something extra that your non-learning disabled child isn't getting; both children are getting the same instruction, based on their needs. By the same token, some children have needs that cannot be met in a normal school setting, and it is neither discriminatory or a privilege to have them attend elsewhere, whether that need is specialized instruction due to a physical or mental deficit, or the ability to worship several times during a school day, as required by one's faith.

Bigotry is a problem (and yes, I think that some of the folks being criticized a a result of the Norwegian killer quoted them have said and done bigoted things. That doesn't make them responsible for what the guy did, but it isn't out of the question to talk about what they're saying or to criticize it, either. The fact is, Breivik's quotes and claims shined a light on these anti-muslim/counter-jihadist writers, and there is nothing wrong with talking about their words and ideas.)

The real problem though, is extremism, whether one is an islamist terrorist, a leftwing ecoterrorist, or a rightwing nationalist terrorist. People who commit acts of violence or large-scale vandalism in furtherance of a political outcome are dangerous, and need to be opposed and stopped. (Small-scale vandalism ain't so hot either, but there's a vast difference between spray painting a sign or breaking a window, and blowing up a building or a bulldozer.) There will always be bigots and separatists and people who want to force you to think, act, and believe as they do. Ugly words and ideas can inspire ugly acts, but they are not the cause of those ugly acts. That doesn't mean one cannot criticize the ugly words and ideas--indeed, I believe one has an obligation to do so--but it's foolish to attribute one person's ugly thinking for another's ugly deeds.

Herman Cain figures out the Constitution forbids him to discriminate against Muslims

Then:

(More info: EXCLUSIVE: Herman Cain Tells ThinkProgress ‘I Will Not’ Appoint A Muslim In My Administration | ThinkProgress)

Now:

(More info: Cain Rewrites History: I Said I Would Not Be Comfortable With ‘A Terrorist In My Cabinet’ | ThinkProgress)

He does not care. He feels the way he feels... (...even if it is bigotry toward muslims--who're all terrorists, y'know) he's feeling.)

And as far as Sharia law in US courts...

While there have been few if any cases of US courts deferring to religious law, religious arbitration "courts" do exist, including those that include Sharia for Muslims, or Halacha (Halakha) for Jews. (Even Catholics subscribe to Cannon Law which, like Sharia and Halacha, does not replace US secular law, but acts along side it.) Such religious arbitration is voluntary for all parties (though of course, there can be in-group pressures to adhere to what the rabbi or imam decrees, even if your position does not prevail.) But where these religious laws are substantially in conflict with US law, US law prevails.

I'm not surprised that the Constitution does not allow the majority to vote away the right for a minority to have their religious arbitration, especially where the majority is singling out one religion's legal arbitration, rather than ALL religious arbitration. (This is likely the same reason the Dutch hit Muslims and Jews alike when they banned ritual slaughter of animals, preventing halal and kosher butchery, in one fell swoop. There had been an exemption for jews and muslims for many years, but no more...)

The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.


He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776

Early America Declaration of Independence Quiz

Annual Repost of Julia Ward Howe's Mother's Day Proclamation

Mother's Day Proclamation
by Julia Ward Howe
(1819-1910)

Arise then...women of this day!
Arise, all women who have hearts!
Whether your baptism be of water or of tears!
Say firmly:
"We will not have questions answered by irrelevant agencies,
Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage,
For caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country,
Will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."

From the voice of a devastated Earth a voice goes up with
Our own. It says: "Disarm! Disarm!
The sword of murder is not the balance of justice."
Blood does not wipe our dishonor,
Nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil
At the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home
For a great and earnest day of counsel.
Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace...
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
But of God -
In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality,
May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient
And the earliest period consistent with its objects,
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace.

(For lighter fare, check out my other retread from Mother's days past, Mother’s Day: 5 Things (still) Worth Knowing.

Something Someone Else Said (A Brain Rage meme)

Acknowledging that I'm once again "borrowing" from one time fellow blogger and lifetime honorary nihilist* JBW, his "something someone else said" blog meme, my post.(Fair warning, Webb... This prolly won't be the last time I use the meme or otherwise put your brain on display on one of my blogs. I get why you're not blogging these days, but dude, you got skills, yo. And if you're not gonna make use of 'em, I'm gonna get 'em out there as best I can... 'nuff said.):

"Personally, I am simply against torture. In all instances. I don't care if it gave us Bin Laden's location. Torture is absolutely morally abhorrent, in the same way as rape, and something completely contrary to the standard of human dignity appealed to by America's greatest thinkers.

This post might as well be titled 'Rape Works!' and include a story about how a raped woman got pregnant." - Richard Booth, May 3, 2011 9:51 AM comment at the American Power post, Waterboarding Works!

*We're not really nihilists... Some just think we are...

Merry Christmas, Happy Winter Holiday

All my best to all who pass this way, and all who love them... May Christmas be as sacred as your faith and reason allow. Whether you find yourselves at midnight mass or going out for Chinese, may you celebrate with friends, family, food, and fun.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm letting those I disagree with be just as wrong as they want to be for the next 24 hours or so... Life's too short, and my faith calls for peace, love, and joy 'round now... May everyone reading these words get all of 'em, to overflowing...

Merry Christmas, and God bless...

The Right to Hate: A Study of an Accusation of Racism

As folks more than likely well know, I have something of a political difference of opinion with Dr Donald Kent Douglas, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Long Beach City College, in California. Over the last several years we have discussed and debated many an issue, but we've seldom come to any agreement. Perhaps we are just set in our beliefs, or perhaps each of us is honestly convinced that their own political philosophy really is better than that of our opponent. Whatever the reason, Donalde and I are often at odds.

On occasion, and moreso recently, Donald Douglas has posted screeds or portions of screeds in ebonics, a faux black dialect.

“Black heritage. Whoo hoo! That is teh awesome. I goin' be try'n escpe from de massa's house to be goin' to dis heah black her'tge trail. Y'sm sir!" - Donald Kent Douglas

While I cannot be certain of his reasoning, I believe he does so in an attempt to belittle and treat as ignorant urban black people--especially Obama supporters--for whom he has contempt, due either to their politics or their failure to achieve as he has.

Pardon my own slang here for a moment, but my daddy done tol' me dat Mr. Charley goin' t'own my po' llittle black ass if I didn' knows how be writin' in stan'rd English ... know what' I'm sayin'? And with a steady hand, mofo!. Miss Rondell's from Tupelo, Mississippi, but she might as well be from another world. And she don't seem so po' herself, considerin' all those ocean cruises she be talkin' 'bout. But I better be careful here, yo! Jes' be's messin' wit' dis heah stuff an' I be gettin' attacked as RAAACIST!! - Donald Kent Douglas - American Power: Obonics

Whatever his reasons, I believe that in adopting this "ebonic" persona (and including references to drugs, gangs, fried chicken, lack of education, a slave mentality, etc, and also posting photoshopped pictures of Obama as ... well... see for yourselves--examples of both Donald Douglas' "bigotronic" linguistics and photoshops also appear here. I invite you to judge for yourselves whether Donald Douglas is crossing the line.), Donald Douglas is perpetuating bigoted stereotypes about black people... and about conservatives.

Needless to say, posting my opinions about Donald's bigoted blog entries and commentary has not made Dr Douglas happy. And after a person using the screen name ThePaleScot posted this comment on someone else's blog to the effect that Donald Douglas was more swarthy than most folks with the surname Douglas and the given name Donald--names common in Scotland--along with the fact that this person has subsequently posted comments on my blog AND that I refused to renounce, denounce, and repudiate ThePaleScot for his comment because I'm not convinced that what he said was an expression of racism, Donald has decided to allege white supremacy on my part, which is kind of ironic, given the posts above opposing racism that lead Donald to make his specious charge. But nevertheless, accompanied by a Black Flag video and lyrics about the coming 'White Minority', as well as a really really bad photoshop of me in a Klan cap, posted in the American Power blog sidebar, Dr Donald Douglas is pushing the RAAAAACIST!! meme in an effort to discredit me. (People familiar with Dr Douglas are no doubt aware that many of his posts decry these exact kind of "raaaaacist charges" when made by "the Left," and that he recently posted a link to his friend Troglopundit's blog, highlighting a post critical of bloggers and others on the right making specious charges about racism, which again, makes Donald's retaliatory allegation against me kind of ironic. But hypocrisy is as hypocrisy does, I suppose.) What follows is my response to the most recent of Donald Douglas' posts making this charge, originally posted at American Nihilist. (I have little doubt that it won't be the last, or that it's even possible that Dr Douglas will use this very post to allege white supremacy, the next time.):
---

Regarding American Power: The Right to Hate

Donalde seems to believe that his calling me a racist somehow makes me an actual racist, like his words are magic, or something. Looking at what appears below, no other explanation is possible. When you look below the surface of his specious charge of racism, there is nothing there to support it. I invite you to carefully read his post:

Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt refused to sign anti-lynching legislation in the 1930s. Typical for leftists.

This is the kind of sweeping generalization that frequently gets Dr Douglas in trouble. "Leftists" don't typically do anything, any more than "Rightists" do. This bullshit racism charge isn't a right wing thing; it's a Donald Douglas thing.

There's no justification for what Roosevelt did, except to say he was a man of his time. There were a whole lotta Democrats and Republicans on the wrong side of civil rights for black people, and all too few Democrats and Republicans on the correct side. (For instance, Donald neglects to mention that the two NAACP members highlighted at Donald's "justifications" link below as having tried to persuade President Roosevelt to sign anti-lynching legislation were supporters of Roosevelt. One of 'em even worked in his administration. So why aren't these folks considered "typical leftists" by Dr Douglas?)

I've been having a go 'round with Reppy's white supremacist blog, where he writes: "I only repudiate hate and such when I think something is hateful."

American Nihilist has been called a whole lotta things (mostly by Dr Douglas here, and mostly as speciously and "fact-free" as this), but "white supremacist" has never before been amongst them. Does Donalde provide any evidence that American Nihilist is anything but friendly to folks of all races? Of course not. He can't. He's just doing exactly what he accuses "the Left" of doing, and yelling "RAAAAACIST!!" at the top of his lungs, hoping no one will notice he has no reason to do so. (This is far from the first time that Dr Douglas has simultaneously condemned and committed an act. Hypocrisy seems to come naturally to him. (Not because he's half-black, not because he's a conservative, but because he's Donald Douglas.)

The one thing Donald does offer is a single line from a comment I made: "I only repudiate hate and such when I think something is hateful." Follow the link. Read the comment. Ask yourself whether you feel any different. Do you repudiate whatever folks tell you to, or do you also think for yourself, and only call hateful that which you actually believe to be hateful? Donald continues his screed by saying

"That's what lefties do.,"

but I believe that that's what most people do. They don't give into the pressure of others and repudiate whatever folks tell them is "eeeeevil." Rather, they think for themselves, and make up their own minds.

In a different part of that same comment stream at my blog, I told Donalde that "I think you believe the denial itself is the smoking gun that proves folks guilty. There is no shame or wrongdoing in denying a thing that isn't true, Dr. Douglas. A Denial isn't itself a smoking gun." The same thinking applies here. Donalde doesn't talk about what it was I failed to repudiate, only that I failed to repudiate it, as though that itself makes me a racist. It's hogwash.

Deny the hate and spin long, rambing and insane justifications for it: "That ordinary people did these things is deeply disturbing; that they manufactured a social rationale for their acts is more disturbing still"

I don't even know what Donalde is accusing me of here--there's no connection between his description of the folks who supported lynching back in the 30's and my blog--but this is the chunk that contains the "justifications" link I mentioned earlier. Check it out, and read about those "typical leftists" who were on the correct side of history.

Reppy's Motto:

Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

-- Robert C. Byrd, letter to Sentor Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944.

Like I said, Donald Douglas has got to be getting pretty desperate to suggest that I have anything in common with segregationists, including the thinking of 1940's era Robert Byrd. The whole post pretty pathetic, but it's a good example of how far Donald Kent Douglas will go. (Needless to say, I've got screen shots, just in case he ever comes to his senses and realizes that this post reveals a whole lot more about who he really is than it does about me.)

Previously: American Power: White Minority

I'm sorry, but who posted the white supremacist Black Flag video, and all the lyrics? Yeah, for all his bluster about American Nihilist being a hate site, that was Dr Douglas, on his blog. Make of that what you will.

AND FROM ST. BLOGUSTINE:
"Your unconquerable strength is in your ability to express the truth. They despise you for it. Let them!"

And despise they do.

And what is a Don Douglas post or comment without a little dab of self-worship? No wonder he believes conservatives can do no wrong. He fancies himself a God, and since he's a conservative... well, it just stands to reason, right?

In the end, Donald Douglas is just mad because I believe that posts like these are offensive, both to the black people they malign and to everyone who believes that engaging and encouraging such tropes about black folks is wrong. Donald doesn't like that I had the temerity to call him on this crap. Now if you ask me, calling Donald out for engaging in bigotry against black people makes me a pretty bad white supremacist, but you're free to come to your own conclusion about that. So, I understand why Donalde is angry, but the answer to his problems isn't lashing out at me with specious charges of racism for saying that his "bigotronics" posts are offensive. The answer is cleaning up his own house and not posting such things, anymore.

The choice is his to make.

Other posts, related:
American Power: Anti-Intellectualism and the Marxist Idea
Faith maintenance - Acephalous
American Power: It's Come to This: Progressives Reduced to Racist Slurs Against American Power
ThinkingMeat - More hilarity and hypocrisy from Donald Douglas
American Niiiiihilist: The Pale Scot Affair

Dr. Fred Gottheil and Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians: A Statement of Concern

This stands a good chance of being my last post about Dr. Fred Gottheil and his role in fighting discrimination against women, gays and lesbians in the Middle East, or his role in attacking academics (by which I think he means liberals) for not replying to an e-mail he sent them, and thus standing up against said discrimination. That's not to say I won't respond to other posts on the subject, or that I'll stop trying to collect signatures on Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern, posted and hosted at the following link: Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians Petition (If you're reading this post--and we both know you are--and haven't yet read/signed the Statement of Concern at the PetitionOnline site, I respectfully request that you pause at the end of this paragraph and go take care of that now. The remainder of this post will still be here when you get back. OK, go. Thanks.)

For those who aren't familiar with the story: Dr Gottheil, an economics professor at the University of Illinois, stumbled across a petition written by Dr. David Lloyd back in January, 2009, which was critical of certain policies of the Israeli government, and was signed by about 900 academics, including many from the US, and even a few who taught at Dr Gottheil's university. (900 US, other Academics: "divestment and pressure" against Israeli "apartheid" - Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid). Displeased, he got to wondering whether these same academics who were so willing to criticize Israel would also be willing to criticize countries in the muslim Middle East for their violations of human rights. So, he wrote up his Statement of Concern, a four page document criticizing various human rights abuses perpetrated against women, gays and lesbians in the Middle East, and e-mailed it to 675 American academics culled from the 900 who had signed the "Israeli Apartheid" petition, asking them to reply back to him with the word "YES," indicating that they supported his Statement. The results were disappointing. 27 professors sent back a "yes," 3 or 4 more sent back "no"s (as well as nasty words about Dr Gottheil, he says), and the rest failed to reply at all. Dr Gottheil attributes the lack of response he received to anti-semitism and "sanctimonious bigotry."

From the outset I found aspects of his story questionable. First off, the initial stories were posted on far right fringe sites like FrontPage Magazine, that I've never found particularly credible. These are people who see Islamofascists and communists throughout much of our population, including in our government. They obviously don't live in the same America I do. I take everything they say with big grains of salt and a whole lotta skepticism.

And then there was the story, itself...
Why didn't the first stories about what happened include links to either petition, rather than thumbnail descriptions of each by Dr. Gottheil?
Why is it that he never released the names of the 27 academics who did sign his statement?
What about the list of people he was accusing? Rather than this vague slander of academics (which I'm pretty sure, is being used here as a code-word for "liberals")? Before jumping to any conclusions, shouldn't we try to get their side of the story, allowing them to explain why they didn't sign the statement? (Still curious about that, I intend to start writing these folks, to see if anyone on Dr Gottheil's likely list wants to speak for themselves.)
What about his methods, and how they may've affected the return rate? How did Dr Gottheil contact these 675 academics? How does he know they received and read what he sent? Did he follow up with them, and if so, how?
Since he was comparing his return rate to that of Dr Lloyd and his "Israel divestment" petition, why isn't there any discussion how either man gathered their signatures, or how long and hard each man worked on the gathering process? Did either of them enlist any help? (Fellow professors, a human rights or sociopolitical education organization, or even a public website)? What about each man's history of working on these issues? Had either of them gathered signatures, written anything, or otherwise been involved with divestment in Israel/human rights in the Middle East before? What is the history of the issues, themselves? How much infrastructure is already out there (knowledge about the issue, campaigns already in place, ???)?

In short, I thought that Dr. Gottheil's/FrontPage Magazine's/the rightwing blogosphere's explanation of "sanctimonious bigotry" and a double standard, as well as any suggestion that there could be no other explanation, was short-sighted and foolish, and displayed a willingness to accept that correlation proves causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc), no matter what.

The questions above--many of which have not been answered, to this day--show that there are many possible reasons why these academics might not've returned Dr Gottheil's e-mail, and that there is insufficient evidence (at the very least) to show that the circumstances surrounding the gathering of signatures on each petition were sufficiently similar to make a valid comparison between the two. Signing one petition but not the other is NOT evidence that one cares about one issue more than the other. There are many reasons why one might've done that that have nothing to do with anti-Semitism, anti-imperialism, or support for Muslim dictatorships (e-mail ended up in spam folder, unread, e-mail thrown away unread by recipient, because they didn't recognize sender address, e-mail thrown away by sender after reading as hoax, or spam, or right-wing trick, or belief that private e-mail campaigns with no public website are ineffective, or... well, the possibilities are endless...) And, there are many explanations for why one petition might've received more support than the other that involve the way the signatures were solicited, rather than any animosity toward Jews, or love of third world citizens. (by a friend vs by a stranger, via e-mail vs in person or via a website, backed by a human rights organization and/or political educator group vs backed by no one, gathered by several people vs gathered by one person, petitioners asked to sign repeatedly (if necessary) vs only being asked once, with no follow-up, ... the list goes on and on...)

Unless Dr Gottheil or any of the right wingers propagating this meme can eliminate or at least account for all of the other variables, or can at least compare two sufficiently similar petitions and circumstances, they cannot claim that anyone has shown any double standard in this story.

Just the same, I also conducted an experiment. In the last week, I contacted just about every blog I could find that covered this story, and tried to post a comment at the post discussing it, asking that the bloggers and their readers sign onto Dr Gottheil's Statement of Concern, which I had posted on PetitionsOnline.com. These were bloggers who obviously cared about this issue, because they had posted about it. And because the comment would be posted on their blogs--and in a good number of cases, had to be approved by them, as blog moderator, BEFORE it would appear), it was highly likely that they would see the comment inviting them to sign.

This is the comment I posted (It did vary occasionally, based on the content of the post or other comment(s), but this is the text I used as my template):

Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern is now posted at PetitionsOnline.com, and is accepting signatures from anyone willing to speak out against human rights abuses in the Middle East. As you're obviously interested in the story, I urge you to step up and sign it: Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians Petition

Of course, we'll be counting on everyone here to reply to this request.

Here's how I did:

Blogs that posted my comment (alphabetical order by blog name):

01) Media Backspin: An Experiment Exposes Academia's Double Standards Against Israel (Moderated)

02) BarkGrowlBite: LEFTIST DOUBLE STANDARDS (Moderated)

03) Look No Further - Big Citizen (Moderated)

04) Leftist Professors and Double Standards - THE BLACK KETTLE

05) Love of the Land: What Kind of Academic Signs These Anti-Israel Petitions? (Moderated)

06) SEE MUSLIMS..MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE CATCHING ON TO YOU…. - Canadian Kuffars (Moderated)

07) carnage and culture: Australian Muslim cleric calls for a beheading. Who cares?

08) An empirical test for academic hypocrisy

09) American Thinker: What Kind of Academic Signs These Anti-Israel Petitions? - Comments (Moderated)

10) What bias? Contrary

11) An experiment in Academia | Wolfville watch (Moderated)

12) Elder of Ziyon: A unique experiment on anti-Israel academics

13) Shameless hypocrisy watch: “What kind of academic signs anti-Israel petitions?" - Los Angeles Middle Eastern Policy - Examiner.com

14) Leftist Professors and Double Standards - First Thoughts | A First Things Blog (Moderated)

15) Leftist Professors and Double Standards - FrontPage Magazine

16) Leftist Professors and Double Standards Part II | FrontPage Magazine

17) fousesquawk: An Academic Petition You May Never Have Heard Of (Moderated)

18) GeeeeeZ!: Larry Elder REALLY tells it like it is.........

19) An Empirical Test for Academic Hypocrisy - Grendel Report (Moderated)

20) Hummers & Cigarettes: Academia: Sanctimonious Leftist Professors (Moderated)

21) I Beg to Disagree: Academic Criticisms of Israel: 96% Hypocritical (Moderated)

22) The Day In Israel: Mon Sept 20th, 2010 : Israellycool

23) Academic Bigotry: Israel and the Social Justice Farce - The Lesbian Conservative (Moderated)

24) Leslie S. Lebl: Disrobing the Left (Moderated)

25) Lumpy, Grumpy and Frumpy: "They are sanctimonious bigots at heart" (Moderated)

26) True Catholic : Re: AUSTRALIAN MUSLIM CALLS FOR BEHEADING - WHO CARES?? SUCH A DOUBLE STANDARD!

27) The Fall of Human Rights | No Left Turns

28) Reverend Rubicon: Leftist Professors and Double Standards

29) XDA: Thoughts of the Day

30) “Fellow academics” call prof “master of the obvious.” | Right Wing News

31) Prof calls fellow academics ‘sanctimonious bigots’ | San Francisco Examiner (Moderated)

32) What's the difference between a highly educated bigot and a lowly uneducated bigot?

33) Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… Social Justice Advocates vs. Israel (Moderated)

34) Our Man in Palestine - The Daily Beast

35) Considerettes - Conservative commentary served up in bite-sized bits - Social Justice Advocates vs. Israel (Moderated)

36) Leftist Professors and Double Standards Part II - THERESE ZRIHEN-DVIR, Regard d'un Ecrivain sur le Monde

37) Australian Muslim Cleric Calls for Beheading -- Who Cares? - Larry Elder - Townhall Conservative

38) Trees For Lunch: A Form of Bigotry You Seldom Hear of

39) Villainous Company: Quantifying the Hypocrisy of Lefty Academicians

40) Prof calls fellow academics ‘sanctimonious bigots’ | Washington Examiner (Moderated)

41) Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Not Everyone Likes the Jews
---

Blogs that failed to post my comment, or actually deleted it from their blog:

1) American Power: 'Sanctimonious Bigots' – Leftist Professors and Double Standards - 9/25 - *** Dr. Douglas has added several posts to his blog since I submitted my comment, so I reluctantly have to assume that he has rejected my comment asking he and his readers to step up and sign Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern. As he is both a conservative and an academic in the field of political science, I'm most disappointed in his obvious lack of concern for the human rights of women, gays, and lesbians in the Middle East. Given the chance to reply (figuratively, anyway) to Dr Gottheil's e-mail plea--a plea we can be almost certain Dr Douglas received and read--he chose not to step up, just like those "leftist" (and likely "nihilist" or "demonic," too) professors that he posted about failed to do. Double standard? You decide. ***

2) The Baltimore Reporter: Sally Quinn: Obama Went to Church Because Americans Are Bigots - 9/27 - *** - The Baltimore Reporter (blog) fails to approve my comment. Apparently, standing up for human rights in the Middle East is more of a rhetorical bit of self-indulgent pleasuring themselves than an actual, y'know, ideal that they strive to live up to. Meaninglessly denouncing the "evils of liberalism" for being hypocrites on this issue, while similarly being hypocrites themselves is just so much easier. And, in refusing to post my comment, they not only do nothing about the issue of human rights abuses in the Middle East themselves, they don't allow their readers to make the choice to do anything, either. Nice going, wingnuts. ***

3) DUFF & NONSENSE!: Humbug and humbuggers! *** Disappointingly, as of 9:20 AM on 9/25/10 (less than 12 hours later), this blogger seems to've deleted my comment, as well as the Blogger backlink to this post. How should we judge that, when evaluating this conservative's commitment to human rights? Duff sure seemed to care when it was liberal academics who weren't stepping up, but when it's his turn to speak out, he chooses not to do so himself, or to allow any of his readers the opportunity to do so, either. Hypocrisy? You decide. ***

4) It’s all about the hypocrisy Full Metal Cynic - 9/28 - *** - Given that there is a new post at this site, and my comment is still being held for moderation, it's lookin' like the chances of it's getting posted are pretty slim. It is indeed, all about the hypocrisy, I guess... ***

5) American academia: Condemn Israel, love Muslims | Liberty Pundits Blog *** 9/26 *** - It seems that Liberty Pundits here flagged my previously posted comment for review. Y'all see what I posted at all these sites... Is a comment asking folks to sign s Statement of Concern about human rights in the Middle East, at a post about that very same Statement, critical of the fact that a whole lotta previous folks didn't sign onto it, somehow off topic or offensive? Or is it that Liberty Pundits hates liberals (and/or muslims) more than they love supporting God given natural rights for all mankind? Hypocrisy? You decide. ***

6) Prof calls fellow academics ‘sanctimonious bigots’ - 9/25 - *** Rachel at 'Thoughts From A Conservative Mom' here, obviously doesn't really care much about the rights of muslim women or gay folks, because she chose not to allow my comment about signing Dr Gottheil's Statement of Concern to appear. Not only didn't she reply to Dr Gottheil's plea (very much like those "sanctimonious, bigoted" academics failed to do), she doesn't want her readers to reply, either. Let human rights be someone else's problem, I guess... Sanctimony and hypocrisy walk hand in hand, sometimes... ***

7) education teacher : As if we needed more proof that liberal academics are usually hypocites and bigots

While I did do pretty well on the comment end of things -- Of 48 conservative blogs/bloggers total, 41 posted vs 7 who refused -- I didn't do so well on gathering signatures from these conservatives (or their readers, even)... As of this post, I have a total of nine signatures. And one of those nine belongs to me. Very disappointing.

Now by the same logic that says folks who sign a statement critical of Israel but do not sign a statement critical of muslim countries are hypocrites and are showing a double standard, what are we to make of right wing bloggers who publish posts critical of leftwing folks who don't sign a petition, when they themselves also fail to sign the very same petition? Are they hypocrites? Are they showing their own double standards? Is this proof that right wing bloggers don't care about the human rights of women and gay folks in the Middle East?

No, of course not. Just as with the academics, there are all kinds of possible reasons these right wing bloggers failed to sign, that have nothing to do with bigotry, or not caring, or double standards of any kind.

And that's the point.

Guess who else failed to sign the statement online? Dr Fred Gottheil. That's right, the man who wrote and e-mailed the statement to these (liberal) academics--but none of his friends, co-workers, or fellow conservatives--refused to sign his own statement here online, where everyone could see it. He also refused to distribute the statement to anyone else, or do anything further in support of the issue he claimed to care so much about in his statement. What are we to make of that, I wonder? What was his motivation for writing the statement in the first place, and how do you think his motives might've affected how he conducted his experiment--methods that I've already called into question above (research bias), and how he interpreted the results he received (Was there confirmation bias)?

Had Dr Gottheil really wanted to gather signatures opposing human rights abuses in the Middle East--rather than "proving" the rhetorical point he came in with--he could've and would've done a far better job trying to get those signatures than to send out a single "cold call" e-mail to a bunch of strangers and not even do any follow-up to make sure they received and read what he sent them. It seems to me that he wanted these academics to fail his little test, and wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles, they did. The only surprising thing about it is that anyone is trying to attribute these facts to causes other than Dr Gottheil's methods and motivations, and that they're presumably trying to do so with straight faces.
---

My previous posts on the subject:
9/21/2010 - Wingnuts & Moonbats: Dr. Gottheil, Where's Your Petition? - My initial questions on first reading Dr Gottheil's story.

9/21/2010 - What'd I Say?: An Open Letter to Dr. Fred Gottheil, regarding his "Statement of Concern" - More questions for Dr Gottheil.

9/22/2010 - What'd I Say?: More questions for Fred Gottheil, regarding his Statement of Concern - After the release of the Statement of Concern at FrontPage Mag, repeating the questions Dr. Gottheil failed to answer.

9/23/2010 - What'd I Say?: "If Fred Gottheil doesn't reply to my unsolicited e-mails, it's proof that he doesn't care about this issue." - My initial theories, and the transcript of a three part e-mail exchange I had with Dr. Gottheil, based on my e-mailing him the previous two posts.

9/23/2010 - Wingnuts & Moonbats: A Statement of Concern Calling for Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians - Dr. Fred Gottheil - My first attempt to get people to sign onto Dr Gottheil's Statement of Concern, posted on my blog. Many visits, but no comments, either in support or opposed.

9/23/2010 - What'd I Say?: Dr. Fred Gottheil and the "sanctimonious bigots" commenting at the Washington Examiner - More theory, and my first realization that all these rightwing folks complaining about the "academics" haven't actually done anything about this issue themselves, except bitch about folks not like them, and claim to be superior.

9/23/2010 - What'd I Say?: Attn Conservatives: You've (figuratively) "received the e-mail" from Fred Gottheil... How have YOU replied? Kinda the same post as above, better written, and submitted to a different blog.

9/24/2010 - What'd I Say?: In Reply: Why Dr Fred Gottheil's "experiment in Academia" didn't yield valid results - My first thoughts about comparing the number of signatures on the two petitions, and theories/facts regarding why one got more replies than the other.

9/24/2010 - What'd I Say?: Was I really unfair to Dr Gottheil? - My response to the suggestion that I'm being unfair to Dr Gottheil. No one has as yet tried to explain how... (including the blogger who accused me) ...but you're welcome to give it a shot, if you'd like.

9/24/2010 - What'd I Say?: Dr. Gottheil's "Statement of Concern" is now posted at PetitionsOnline.com... - The announcement of the PetitionOnline.com posting of Dr Gottheil's Statement of Concern Calling for Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians, and where I kept track of it all.

9/26/2010 - What'd I Say?: Still talking about Dr. Gottheil, at GeeeeeZ! (blog), this time

9/28/2010 - What'd I Say?: In Reply: Did Dr Gottheil's motivations taint his methodology? - Experimenter bias, confirmation bias, correlation/causation fallacy

10/1/2010 - This post, which will hopefully be the final one. I'll keep trying to collect signatures on the online petition, but I feel confident that I've pretty much buried any notion that Dr Gottheil actually proved anything about the Left, or the Right. (If ya ask me, all he proved is that he's either not particularly good at the scientific method, or he's a propagandist. I leave that for each reader to decide for themselves...)

Those who still wish to buy into his "results" anyway, ignoring all the facts to the contrary, are welcome to do so. There will always be some with perfectly good eyes who nevertheless refuse to see... They are likely beyond my helping...
---

Miscellaneous Links:
900 US, other Academics: "divestment and pressure" against Israeli "apartheid" - Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid

Democratic Underground - Here is the text of the Statement of the Concern - Democratic Underground

FrontPage Magazine
---

To peruse all my other commentary on this subject, previous and since, click here.