Monday, February 1, 2010

SCrOTUS Flag and Pledge



Stupid's Pledge

(Pinned to the top until 2/1/10. Please look below for new posts.)

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Dept. of It Takes One To Know One

Wingnut Liz Blaine, at Horowitz's NewsReal blog, hatefully attacks liberals for mourning the Death of Howard Zinn, and then whines about the assholes on the left who did the same to the mourners of Tony Snow.

Leftist Heads Explode Over Howard Zinn’s Death | NewsReal Blog:
Leftist Heads Explode Over Howard Zinn’s Death
2010 JANUARY 28
tags: Howard Zinn, Leftists, News, Progressives
by Liz Blaine


The hatefulness of the Left knows no bounds when a conservative passes away, but when one of their own dies the hallowed halls of heaven are awaiting their savior as they glorify the beloved path he walked. And woe to him who dares question the idol of their worship. Bits of gray matter are clinging to the shards of leftist skulls as they bemoan the passing of Howard Zinn, the Marxist anarchist known for his revisionist history.

Progressive fans are flocking to twitter and leftist media lamenting Zinn’s demise.

“This world has certainly lost one of it’s most profound voices today.”

“Howard Zinn’s passing is the greatest loss to America since Karl Marx.”

“The world is darker without Howard and his voice, now silent, will be missed by all ‘true’ Americans.”


Some tweeters suffer delusions President Obama should have used the State of the Union address as a platform to recognize Zinn, while over at the Nation leftist drivel is spewing like lava from Mount Kilauea as progressives lay blame for his death,

“Howard’s heart gave out after ‘our’ Supreme Court said Corporations were ‘people’ who, therefore, must be included in his ‘People’s History’ Books!"


Throw in a few voices of dissent and an eruption of expletive-enriched emotions splatter across the net.

“Why don’t you shut the f*** up, you ten cent creep? Have you no f***ing class whatsoever? Who the h*** do you think you are, anyway? You’re no thinker. You’re no contributor. You’re just some random creepy a**hole lurking on a web site.”


I don’t know about you, but I love watching progressive heads blasting sky high, so sit back and enjoy the show. Brain matter will be flying as they spasm over the loss of ”the true father of victimology.”

-------

Point? She's proving she's as hateful, heartless, and tiny a person as the people she's complaining about, and she knows it... No other explanation is possible.

Free clue, Liz. If it's wrong, it's wrong. Idiots like you, who bitch about how hateful it was when someone else did it, AND THEN DO A VERY SIMILAR THING,THEMSELVES, obviously think the rules they set for others don't apply to them.

Which in this case, doesn't surprise me. David Horowitz seems to gather hypocrites the way flies gather on shit.

Hateful is hateful, no matter which side of the aisle it comes from. But I believe the heartless reap what they sow...

And as an aside... What is it with these Horowitz folks that almost all (& generally ALL) of their links go to other pages in their own Horowitz universe? "I can prove that all liberals are dumb, because I said so over on this page of the site, and my fellow blogger said the same thing in this post, here." Horowitz, et al are the most self-referential group of bloggers I've ever run into, which suggests to me that they're full of themselves, and that they're hard-pressed to find other people--including other wingnuts--who actually agree with 'em. This isn't the first time I've made this observation...
------

Twitter, too:
repsac3: : Heartless hypocrite wingnut @LizBlaine proves she's heartless hypocrite wingnut (Attack on Howard Zinn, RIP & mourners)

Liz Blaine: @repsac3 "Heartless hypocrite wingnut" - Oh, dude. That is so lame. Don't you have anything better? #badtroll

repsac3: : @LizBlaine: @repsac3 'Heartless hypocrite wingnut' /Don't you have anything better?/ No, that pretty much says it. Want different, act human

Liz Blaine: : @repsac3 All I did was report the facts as they are printed. If you don't like the quotes, go tell your prog friends at the Nation.

repsac3: : @LizBlaine No, what you did was the same thing you bitched about libs doing to TSnow. Kicking folks mourning is just evil left AND right.

repsac3: : @LizBlaine If you want to speak ill of the dead, you can. But complaining about folks speaking ill of the dead in the post where you do it?

repsac3: : @LizBlaine That makes you a heartless hypocrite (to me, anyway... I see you have fans who think otherwise, which doesn't say much 4 them.)

Liz Blaine: : @repsac3 I didn't speak ill of the dead. I called him a 'Marxist anarchist known for his revisionist history.' Show me differently.

No Liz, that's what you did... along with enjoying it, and getting all giddy over the fact that you were hurting others by doing so. (And of course, that's not speaking ill of the man... It's just the Horowitz clan's version of truth, right?)

Like I said, Liz, people like you reap what you sow.... Karma's a bitch.
-------------------
UPDATES: (More Twitter, and a good guess as to why Liz didn't link to the Nation.)

TWITTER (continued):
repsac3: : @LizBlaine sez: Other people who speak ill of the dead are hateful; But when I do it, I'm just speaking truth. http://ping.fm/F3TD2 (Link to this post... WARNING: Please don't use it if you're a Con, or you'll be here all day following the same link...)

Liz Blaine: : @repsac3 I didn't speak ill of the dead. The only vitriol posted is either quotes or comments from leftists. READ! It makes you intelligent.

repsac3: : @LizBlaine I read. I reacted. If you're happy about what you posted, it's all good. I stand by my impressions and posts on the subject.

Liz Blaine: : @repsac3 You are unable to support your accusations w/any citation from my work, yet you stand by them? Emotional reactions don't count.

repsac3: : @LizBlaine Folks at the post have already disputed your "facts" about Zinn. It's namecalling, & little more.

Liz Blaine: : @repsac3 LMAO. Those idiots can't tell the author apart from the commenters. YOU LIE! (Interesting comment, given what I find later about some of her "liberal" quotes.)

repsac3: : @LizBlaine And if you don't think the timing/content of your post is heartless, I can't make you see it. You're gleeful over a dead Lib.

Liz Blaine: : @repsac3 I only reported what you leftists posted. Get over it or tell your buddies at the Nation to STFU if they don't want to be quoted.

repsac3: : @LizBlaine The only quotes I'm interested in are yours, Liz. The progs you quoted (but didn't link, oddly) weren't being disrespectful...

Liz must've deleted this next one (Big surprise, considering SHE LIED!)
@repsac3 I linked them. Check the link for the Nation, it directs to the post there.
about 1 hour ago from web in reply to repsac3

Liz Blaine: : @repsac3 And the last quote was most assuredly being disrespectful. There are others of similar nature in the comments at the Nation.

repsac3: : @LizBlaine I really shouldn't have to explain this, but I meant disrespectful to the dead guy & to those who mourn him.

repsac3: : @LizBlaine And no, the Nation link goes to David's Discoverthenetworks page for the mag. No such quotes there. http://bit.ly/9h72ow

repsac3: : @LizBlaine Found the page myself, and see why you didn't link it. The 'Marx' quote was posted by a Con troll, and the f*** quote was to him

Liz Blaine: : @repsac3 Re-read. Marx is cited throughout the comments. LMAO. You're REALLY trying though. Good night.

repsac3: : @LizBlaine Perhaps, Liz, but the one you chose was posted by a conservative troll. (Kinda hateful, if you ask me...)

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

From TheNation.com; Goodbye Howard Zinn (Can't link to individual comments, but I offer names & dates/times. If you follow the link and read them there, the context--& particularly, who "pontificus" really is (a conservative troll)--becomes very obvious.)
Howard Zinn's passing is the greatest loss to America since Karl Marx.
Posted by pontificus at 01/27/2010 @ 6:24pm

Howard's heart gave out after "our" Supreme Court said Corporations were "people" who, therefore, must be included in his "People's History" Books!
Exxon/Mobil is *not* Howard Zinn !!!

Posted by wa3zgt at 01/27/2010 @ 6:56pm

Posted by pontificus at 01/27/2010 @ 6:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Why don't you shut the fuck up, you ten cent creep? Have you no fucking class whatsoever? Who the hell do you think you are, anyway? You're no thinker. You're no contributor. Your'e just some random creepy asshole lurking on a web site insulting the magazine, its authors, most of its readers, and what we generally believe in.

Posted by syfriendly at 01/27/2010 @ 8:05pm

Crazy disrespectful liberals, right?
Yeesh!
--------

UPDATE: She's still going...

Hypocritical - "I wouldn't mind watching your brain explode..."<- That's a hateful comment. I think I upset him. LOL http://bit.ly/9l4Dea #tcot #ocra #sgp
(Apparently, it's only hateful to enjoy exploding brains when said to Liz by a "voice of dissent," and not when said by Liz, to folks mourning the death of a man with whom she disagreed politically.)

and sad - Did you catch my latest article? Have a good laugh at the Left's expense -> http://bit.ly/9l4Dea #tcot #ocra #teaparty #tlot
(Like I said, this poor woman takes pleasure in mocking folks posting eulogies about a guy who died, simply because she disagrees with them. If that isn't heartless, I don't know what is...)

And more of that wingnut "class" that Donald Douglas and his fellow reactionaries are always talking about (""Yeah, yeah. I know. Both sides do it, right?" Right, Donald. Both sides do it. And ALL who do it are hateful assholes.):
JammieWearingFool: Marxist Crank Assumes Room Temperature: Chomsky, Affleck Hardest Hit

Saturday, January 23, 2010

E-mail To My Representative In The House Re: HCR

Representative Bishop:

I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider your refusal to quickly take up and pass the best version of health care reform possible. While I agree that the Senate version is far inferior to the House version (which itself was far inferior to what President Obama promised on the campaign trail), it is the best version that we're going to get in the foreseeable future.

By scrapping all of the work of the past year and starting over with only those provisions "which can pass both Houses with bipartisan majorities," the Democratic party is delaying--if not outright killing--reform, laying the groundwork for yet more compromise with the more conservative elements in your party and theirs--which we both know will lead to an even worse bill than we have now--and all but ending Democratic chances in the next elections. (When a party with substantial majorities in both houses and the presidency cannot pass their signature A-#1 bill after over a year of trying, the American public isn't going to care why... They're only going to care that you failed, and vote accordingly.)

Representative Bishop, the only way forward is forward. I urge you to give it some thought, take hold of and pass what amounts to the largest and most thoroughly baked portion of the health care reform loaf that is still available to the Democrats, and get on with the business of feeding those among your constituents who are most in need of health care reform.

A bird in the hand...

Don't allow the perfect...


Please act. We need you.

I look forward to your swift change of heart and mind.

[repsac3]


I followed up with a phone call to his office expressing as many of the same points as they'd let me, as well as calls to my senate reps, as many members of the NY House delegation as I could, and the offices of Pelosi, and Reid. While I'm not a corporation, I'm hoping that some of them will listen.

While I intended to contact my representatives about this issue anyway, I was very disappointed to discover that Congressman Bishop was among those who believe that back is the new way forward:

01/20/10
Washington, DC—Today, Congressman Tim Bishop (NY-1) sent the following letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi regarding a vote on the Senate version of health care reform legislation:

January 20, 2010

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
Room H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Speaker Pelosi:

Let me start by commending you and your colleagues on our leadership team for your remarkable work, both in shepherding landmark health care reform through the House of Representatives and in protecting so many policy positions important to the House in your negotiations with the Senate.

Now that we have reached such a crucial yet difficult juncture in our efforts to reform a broken system, I wanted to go on record on two issues of vital importance.

First, as you consider options on a way forward, I urge you not to bring the Senate bill as passed on December 24 to the floor for our consideration. The Senate bill is, in my judgment, flawed in several fundamental respects; I will cite two.

One, the excise tax on so-called “Cadillac plans” would subject a number of my constituents to this tax, including a great many who have foregone salary increases for stronger benefits. Further, the fact that it is not properly indexed will subject even more people to the tax in years to come.

Second, and as important, the Senate provision relating to FMAP would represent for New York a $5 billion swing; the House provisions with respect to FMAP would save New York $4 billion a year, while the Senate provisions would add $1 billion annually to New York’s yearly Medicaid expenses.

If the Senate bill does come to the floor for a vote, I will have no choice but to vote no.

There are many provisions of health care reform which can pass both Houses with bipartisan majorities and improve the quality of health care delivered to New Yorkers and all Americans. By taking immediate action on key insurance reforms and improving affordability, we can lay the groundwork to provide coverage for all Americans. I hope we can quickly craft legislation that incorporates these provisions.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,

Tim Bishop
MEMBER OF CONGRESS

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Democrats: Even if you're afraid you're going down, go down swinging. Don't take a dive.

I learned there are troubles
Of more than one kind.
Some come from ahead
And some come from behind.

But I've bought a big bat.
I'm all ready, you see.
Now my troubles are going
To have troubles with me!


- Dr. Suess - I Had Trouble in Getting to Solla Sollew
(as recounted in Seuss-isms)

A quick message to Sen. Webb, Congressman Frank, and any/all other elected "left of center" politicians who have any thought of letting the election of Brown, the naked truck driver, weaken their resolve. If you stick to your guns and do what the American people elected you to do--including passing the best version of health care reform you're able--most of us will stand behind you. Allow the Republicans to kill it off without a fight, wasting all the work and spent political capital of the last year, and you might as well just hand the keys over to the Republicans now. Stand up & be the men & women we elected you to be. Reconcile the bills, or swallow hard & pass the Senate version, as is (& then fix the inevitable problems as they rear their ugly little heads.)

The Republicans are not interested in working with you; they are out to kill you off and replace you with one of their own, even if that means keeping the status quo, healthcare-wise. Jim... Barney... Man the fuck up, and don't let it happen to yourselves, your party, or the American people. Don't go down without a fight. Big bats optional.

One more quote:
"If the Democrats run for cover, if we become pale carbon copies of the opposition, we will lose--and deserve to lose. The last thing this country needs is two Republican parties." - Ted Kennedy

---
What Ted Kennedy would tell the Democrats - Ezra Klein
Pass the Damn Bill | Mother Jones

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

I see nothing racist about Harry Reid's comments, either.

Fresh off saying that chances are slim I'd ever comment on this conservative fellow's blog (See here, where I say, "Yeah, I read through some of it, and checked for new posts a few times, but chances are slim I'll ever comment there."), I'm writing a post here about his most recent post. And worse than that, I'm doing so because I agree with much of what he wrote.

(Damn... It's really hard to put one's beliefs and ideals before partisan rancor, sometimes. I find this guy pretty unpleasant--there's this whole feud thing we're having, primarily because he seems to enjoy calling me an asshole (in the deleted version, I was a "dickhead" and a "sicko" posting "bitchy rants," which both "made him unhappy" & "pissed him off"), along with disparaging my blogging, using a whole slew of other nasty little names & phrases, all because I don't happen to share his political persuasion (as far as I can tell, anyway... He's never been specific as to why I'm an asshole. All I know for sure is, he seems pretty certain I am)--and yet here I am agreeing with him simply because--in this Harry Reid situation, anyway--he's right...)

Here's the parts of the malcontent's post (I'm not making fun... That's his screen name) with which I have no issue:
No, I'm sorry but I don't see anthing racist about Reid's comments.
I can't stand Harry Reid, but his comments are not racist by any stretch of the imagination.
If the person to whom the comments were directed is not offended than neither am I.
...

I was not offended by Reid's or Lott's remarks. ...
And don't tell me about Trent Lott either, Trent Lott gave an offhand compliment to Strom Thurmond during a dinner in his honor. He never mentioned - or thought of - segregation or Jim Crow. Period. He was saying something nice about an old man. ...

Aside from being unable to "stand Harry Reid," (He wouldn't've been my choice for Majority Leader, but I there are far worse people, even in the Democratic Party), I agree with all of that, including the bit about Trent Lott. People sometimes make poor word choices and thus imply things they do not intend to say or imply.

I didn't like or agree with Trent Lott and I wasn't sorry to see him go, but I have no reason to believe he was a racist... When Lott said "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either." , I believe he was just trying to say something nice about a 100 year old man, and neglected to consider that when Strom Thurmond ran back in 1948, he ran as a segregationist Dixiecrat. It is open to interpretation of course, but I believe he just hadn't thought his words through...

Reid, on the other hand, said what he said intentionally, and meant it. (Back in 2008, Mr Reid said privately that Mr. Obama could become the country’s first black president because he was “light-skinned” and had “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”) I don't know whether or not I agree that a lighter skinned black has an advantage over a darker skinned black among the electorate--I don't want to believe it could be true these days (or ever), but that doesn't mean it isn't--but there's not a doubt in my mind that a candidate's dialect makes a difference--sometimes it helps, and sometimes it hurts. Reid was not stating that this is the way it should be; he was expressing the opinion that this is the way it was.

There is a difference between saying something racist and saying something racial. (Yeah, I caught Sharpton on CNN, and stole that line from him... The fact that he said it doesn't make it wrong, though...) There are differences between us all, and we have to be able to discuss them without falling into the trap of calling anyone who acknowledges that fact a racist (or when it's not a racial difference, a bigot). One's heritage comes with a set of stereotypical features at birth, and one's upbringing in the home & in society at large adds a "stereotypical" set of values and beliefs (and some more features, like dialect) to that mix. As a group, _______ people look and act differently than people who aren't _______. (Sometimes the differences are greater or less than others, depending on how those blanks get filled in, but whether they're filled in with the word "Polish," "Black," "Christian," "female," or "straight," there are differences. If there weren't, people would just be people, and there would be no need to differentiate between 'em.)

While there is a line--and sometimes a very thin one--between discussing those things that make people of a particular religious, ethnic, or social group "different" from the rest of us, and bigotry/racism, we need to be able to talk openly about who "we" are, who "they" are, and who we all are together (as a community, as citizens, and as human beings). What Reid said wasn't racist. It was just discussing race.

Of course, I didn't agree with everything the malcontent said in his post. Briefly, here are some of the points with which I did not agree.:
The sad truth is that blacks will make excuses for Reid's comment because they willingly wear the blinders that make them see only the notion that it is impossible for a democrat or liberal to be racist in any way. Blacks are the most gullible ethnic group on earth. And their heroes called the liberals epitomize double-standardness.

"Blacks are the most gullible ethnic group on earth." Wow. I'm just speechless.


How is it when Joe Wilson shouted "You lied" that everyone called him a racist. He was disrespectful, sure, but there was nothing inherently racist about saying those words. Yet, he took a lot of heat about being racist for some unknown reason. People assumed some inferred meaning behind his words. Now you have Harry Reid saying words that are clearly of a racist tone and he gets a free pass.

I have no idea whether or not Joe Wilson's a racist, but if he is (or ever was), it isn't because he yelled out "You Lie!!". (There is some question about his affiliation with the "Sons of Confederate Veterans," a group that the Southern Poverty Law Center says has many pro-segregation members, however. I've neither the time or inclination to explore this further, but I urge anyone interested to do so. In the meantime, I'll assume that Jow Wilson is just rude, but not a bigot.) And that line about "...Harry Reid saying words that are clearly of a racist tone..." Doesn't that contradict what the malcontent said in the title & first paragraph of his post? Yeah, I think so too...
And who gives flying Crap about what a pile of RACIST SHIT like Al Sharpton thinks?
The civil Racist leaders in this country are hitting an all time low, when they whine and snivel about not getting their way. Then they pull this two faced malarkey. ...

If I ever catch the likes of Sharpton any where near my children, the big bad White boogie man will be the least of his worries.


Not a big fan of Sharpton--not everything should be looked at and dissected from a racial standpoint--but I don't think he's a racist, either.
The Dems condone it because they say they have done so much for the African American community. If they have done so much why are so many African Americans families still living in poverty. i would guess a much more higher percentage than any other group except for maybe native Americans. Who are also very dependent on govt handouts. Are you seeing a common theme here. People who rely on govt handouts or anyother handouts for that matter live in poverty. when you become self reliant and self sufficient is when you are able to achieve success. And that my friends is why poor people from all over the world risk getting killed to come here.

I don't know... To me that says "Poor people are poor because they're poor, and if the rest of us would just let them suffer the effects of their poverty, the poor will get off their lazy asses & become rich."

[The Democratic party's] failure to hold their own accountable is laughable. In the last two years since then candidate Obama declared they have given passes to Bill Clinton twice, Joe Biden, and now Harry Reid while attempting to pull the race card on any political oppenent that opposes them.

Again, if what Harry Reid said wasn't racist--and the malcontent says it wasn't--then how is it he believes the Democratic party is giving Reid a pass?

Each of these Democrats made foolish statements involving race. But I think that to varying degrees, they all fall into the same "racial, not racist" soup as Reid and Lott, above.
Now, let's talk about Robert Byrd the Democrat KKK member. Using your logic, all Democrats who ever complimented Byrd obviously approved of his KKK membership and by extionsion the lynching of blacks that the KKK did.

Byrd (and Thurmond, above) are a different story... They most certainly WERE racists, back when it was far more acceptable to be so than it ever should've been. I cannot say what was in their hearts, but I'd like to believe that they both saw the error of their ways and renounced their racist beliefs. However, I think that malcontent's argument against whoever "you" is, is flawed. To make an apples to apples comparison to the Thurmond situation, where one could even possibly be implying approval for the KKK or lynching, one would have to compliment Byrd for all the work he did for folks while in that "anti-communist social organization" back in the 1940's. Congratulating Byrd for being the longest serving senator in US history, for example, (or something similarly unrelated to that time or those activities) is a whole other kettle of fish.

---
Previous commentary on similar subjects:
Angie Harmon plays the race card 3/31/09
Racist Music Just a Download Away on Mainstream Music Sites 2/25/09
Free Speech, Imus, and the Free Market 4/26/07
Black Caucus: Whites Not Allowed 1/31/07
---
I'm working on a piece on another blog that discusses race, racism, and bigotry. When it's complete, (or should I have any additional thoughts or links) I'll update, below.

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Merry Christmas to Wingnuts, Moonbats, and everyone in between.

Just a quick post to say Merry Christmas to all.

Hope that everyone reading this gets all they wish for but (and?) gets even more pleasure from the giving.

Perhaps I'll actually do more posting here, in the new year... 8>)

Saturday, November 14, 2009

"But it's obviously terrorism!! Hasan is a MUSLIM!!!: Wingnut bigotry

(Disclaimer: I started working on this a few days ago, but got "distracted" by my wife being admitted into the hospital with breathing problems. My mind just hasn't been on it, since... But I figured I'd post what I had, before it got too stale. Maybe after things get back to normal 'round here, I'll whip up a new post containing the rest of this one, as I envisioned it. - repsac3, 11/14/09)
---------------

A meme is emerging among many on the Con right, that the extreme left (comprising everyone except them, natch) refuse to accept any possibility that the Ft. Hood shooting could have anything to do with his being a radical Muslim, and deny all facts to the contrary. Many blame the political correctness of everyone in our society --except themselves, who're "brave" enough to call Muslim's what they are; ticking terrorist timebombs, waiting to go off-- for allowing Hasan to commit these murders.

Of course, it's 99% bullshit, fueled mostly by partisanship (I hope), and in a few cases (though more than I'd like to believe exists), bigotry.

The meme goes like this:

"So far, so good. Let’s see if the self-deluded liberal scribes intent on ignoring the obvious have the nerve then to lump Robinson in with the “bigots” in the right blogosphere who’ve been saying this for a few days now." - Commentary - It’s Good for Diversity! - JENNIFER RUBIN - 11.10.2009 - 8:23 AM

"The tide of pronouncements and ruminations pointing to every cause for this event other than the one obvious to everyone in the rational world continues apace. Commentators, reporters, psychologists and, indeed, army spokesmen continue to warn portentously, "We don't yet know the motive for the shootings."

What a puzzle this piece of vacuity must be to audiences hearing it, some, no doubt, with outrage. To those not terrorized by fear of offending Muslim sensitivities, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's motive was instantly clear: It was an act of terrorism by a man with a record of expressing virulent, anti-American, pro-jihadist sentiments."
- Dorothy Rabinowitz: Dr. Phil and the Fort Hood Killer - WSJ.com - NOVEMBER 9, 2009, 11:36 P.M. ET

"A consensus seems to have formed here at The Atlantic that the Ft. Hood massacre means not very much at all. >>SNIP<<

It seems, though, that when an American military officer who is a practicing Muslim allegedly shoots forty of his fellow soldiers who are about to deploy to the two wars the United States is currently fighting in Muslim countries, some broader meaning might, over time, be discerned, especially if the officer did, in fact, yell "Allahu Akbar" while murdering his fellow soldiers, as some soldiers say he did."
- The Atlantic.com - When Muslims Commit Violence - Jeffrey Goldberg - 08 Nov 2009 09:37 am

And that's to say nothing of the myriad of lower level Con bloggers echoing posts like these.

The thing is, many of these kinda posts are reacting yesterday or today to posts cautioning folks not to jump to conclusions on Thursday or Friday, when most of the information about Hasan --aside that he was a Muslim--was not yet known. In some cases, the con bloggers trying to smear those bloggers, politicians, and media heads who urged caution are the same ones who saw his name & posted JIHAD!!! on Thursday afternoon or evening.

American Power: Twelve Killed in Fort Hood Shootings‎: President Obama, "A Horrific Outburst of Violence" - UPDATED!! Muslim Jihad in America!

MUSLIM TERROR ATTACK:'TWELVE shot dead' 12 30 Wounded, Mass Shooting at Fort Hood, US Army Base - Atlas Shrugs

American Power: Jihadist Attack at Fort Hood! - Nidal Malik Hasan Said 'Muslims Should Rise Up' - U.S. Islamists, Leftists in Damage Control! (Notice that Donald Douglas was already starting to attack anyone who dared say it might not be terrorism, by this point. He saw the guy's muslim-sounding name. He knew.)

The fact that further information released in the days since has bolstered the likelihood that Hasan's understanding of his faith did play a large role in the motivation for the killings --I refuse to play the terrorism/war crime game so many are playing. To me it was likely all of the above, and a tragedy, too. --in no way justifies bigots like Dr. Douglas & Pamela Geller who saw his name on Thursday and immediately "knew" what happened. Don't let people like this justify what they essentially said about all muslims because further information has bolstered their initial, uninformed bigotry about this one muslim.

The same people that are pissed off that General Casey was concerned about a backlash against American muslims serving honorably in the military, and claim there has been no backlash, are often the ones who support screening all muslims for extremist views (FoxNews), or tossing them out of the military altogether (Bryan Fischer - American Family Association). They fail to see that they ARE the backlash. While I’m relatively certain that the sentiments of people like Donald Douglas, Pamela Geller, that ass Brian Kilmede on FoxNews, and Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association do not represent the thinking of most Americans--or even most conservatives (indeed, there is a rebuttal & repudiation of Fisher’s bigotry linked right there on the AFA website:Fairness for All, Including Muslims)—the ideas they express about muslims and about America are harmful to the ideals for which this country stands.
---

(That's as far as I got... But here are more of the links I was lookin' at for possible inclusion in this post --most of 'em are the BAD examples to which I'd find--or write--the rebuttals later. If nothin' else, it'll give you an idea of where I was going with this.)
-----
Ft. Hood Victim's Family Speaks Out Against Anti-Muslim Sentiment (VIDEO)
memeorandum: Army Chief Concerned for Muslim Troops (Joseph Berger/New York Times)
memeorandum: When Muslims Commit Violence (Jeffrey Goldberg)

memeorandum: Fort Hood Gunman Gave Signals Before His Rampage (New York Times)
Fort Hood Gunman Gave Signals Before His Rampage - NYTimes.com
American Power: Nidal Malik Hasan Gave Signals Before His Rampage

“That’s not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it?”
Gateway Pundit
MUSLIMS IN AMERICA ‘cheering’ Fort Hood Massacre - Bare Naked Islam's Weblog
“Acted Alone”?: Hasan Attack Was 3rd Planned Islamic Domestic Attack on U.S. Military Tied to Yemen; Fort Dix 6 & Hasan’s Imam

Dorothy Rabinowitz: Dr. Phil and the Fort Hood Killer - WSJ.com

Commentary - Blog Archive - It’s Good for Diversity!

Saturday, November 7, 2009

The Stupak "Coathanger Amendment" Democrats

Final Vote Results for Roll Call 884
Democrats:
Altmire
Baca, Barrow, Berry, Bishop (GA), Boccieri, Boren, Bright
Cardoza, Carney, Chandler, Childers, Cooper, Costa, Costello, Cuellar
Dahlkemper, Davis (AL), Davis (TN), Donnelly (IN), Doyle, Driehaus
Ellsworth, Etheridge
Gordon (TN), Griffith,
Hill, Holden,
Kanjorski, Kaptur, Kildee,
Langevin, Lipinski, Lynch,
Marshall, Matheson, McIntyre, Melancon, Michaud, Mollohan, Murtha,
Neal (MA),
Oberstar, Obey, Ortiz,
Perriello, Peterson, Pomeroy,
Rahall, Reyes, Rodriguez, Ross, Ryan (OH),
Salazar, Shuler, Skelton, Snyder, Space, Spratt, Stupak,
Tanner, Taylor, Teague,
Wilson (OH)

There you have 'em... Your coathanger amendment Democrats for 2009. I look forward to donating to as many of their pro-choice Democratic (or Green, or Libertarian, or...) challengers as possible, when these folks next come up for reelection.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Could it be more simple?

Saturday, September 12, 2009

This Modern World - Then and Now



(Click to further embiggen)

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

"Obama As Hitler": Anybody But Conservatives, apparently...


TheBlogProf sez the poster was a Democrat/Union Plant (memeorandum). Rightwing media site Newsbusters assigns the posters to Communist and perpetual Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche (memeorandum). It seems the only people they won't blame is themselves. And the only thing they won't do is take responsibility for the real nuts in their midst.

I mean, sure, the LaRouche people are distributing that poster on their website. From what I've read, they've been doing so for several months now. But the site and the download are open to anyone, to copy or otherwise use and abuse as they see fit. And the person holding this sign was protesting with the folks on the right, against the health care bill. (Which is kind of odd, for a commie to not be in favor of "socialist" health care reforms, where the government is in control of every aspect of the lives of it's citizens, right?)

The "plant" meme is even more ridiculous, and even less believable. One Freeper claims that the guy in the picture was handing out Dingell (D-Mich.) leaflets after the town hall. That's the sum total of the "proof." No photo, no unbiased account. Just one biased Obama/Dem hater making a specious claim (& (the beginnings of) the wingnut echo chamber spreading it like pollen).

I believe that many folks against the health care bill would not stoop this low themselves. I even believe that many are acting in good faith. But there are rude, dishonest, racist nutjobs in their midst. And the good people should do what they can to disassociate themselves from these folks. While I'm certain that most baggers wouldn't carry such a sign, there's no report anywhere of anyone who was there disavowing this guy and/or his sign before it became a news story. Like it or not this guy (as well as the baby mama who gave her kid the swastika sign to hold, and the one with the SS sign, and...) are pissing in your pool, and fouling your tea.

Take some responsibility, and do something about it. Pointing fingers outward and going into ABC mode isn't going to cut it.

Democrat and daughter attend Obama Town Hall

Film at 11.

Michelle Malkin - Little girl at Obama town hall has not-so-random political connections

Malkintent & her posse must be gettin' a little desperate, when the story is that the daughter of a prominent MA Democrat asked Obama a question at his most recent town hall in NH. (I mean, if anyone has anything more than speculation and "we all know..." to support the notion that she wasn't picked as randomly as any other questioner at any other town hall, I'm all ears. But if that's all she has, the post linked above is a pitiful waste of perfectly good electrons.)

Amazingly, it isn't the first time Democrats have attended events held by President Obama, or the first time Malkintent has noticed. Michelle Malkin - The illustrated guide to Obamacare human props. Next she'll post informing her readers that her parents were not WASPS, that she didn't vote for Obama, and that water is wet.

I'm just shocked!!

(It must be a sad little world this woman and her worshipers live in...)

Saturday, August 8, 2009

Re: Mr "Insta-" Reynolds: Protest is still patriotic, and rudeness is still rude.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds: Remember when protest was patriotic?

No, Insty... Protest is still patriotic, and hooliganism is still hooliganism. To whatever extent the same people and media organizations who cheered disruptions of congressional hearings and Republic party member events are decrying the same behavior now--or decried that behavior then, but are applauding it now--you have a point about hypocrisy. I agree. Anyone who's using one standard to judge friends and another to judge foes is a hypocrite. Like my statements above about protest & hooliganism, that hypocrisy standard remains the same, left or right.

To the extent you're trying to make some kinda point about this monolith you call the left, though--kind of a "if one does it, they all support it" kinda thing--your piece here falls flat. Judging these "citizens" one way or the other while being a member of one party or another isn't enough to make one a hypocrite.

Good try, but no dice.

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls the "Tea Party" protesters Nazis..."

Not so much, actually... She said some of them were carrying signs with swastikas or other Nazi symbols, which some were (& continue to do). I can post the pictures, if you really need to see 'em again.

As far as the rest, people know bad behavior when they see it. Anyone who feels it's justified to shout down and shut down town hall meetings should keep on doing it, and if at all possible, videotaping it, too. Because while many on the right are slapping each other on the back and gloating over having heckled this or that Democrat into closing the meeting early or saying something foolish, I'm not so sure it's playing as well outside of your little circle. People know rudeness and hooliganism when they see it.
---

Updates, revisions, and extensions:
8/9/09: memeorandum link to Reynolds' post

Friday, August 7, 2009

Steven Pearlstein: Republicans Propagating Falsehoods in Attacks on Health-Care Reform

Forgive the cutnpaste, but chances are slim that I could improve on this piece by stickin' my two cents in, or alternatively, cutting too much out of what Steven Pearlstein wrote. (I'm not entirely without keyboard, including the "delete" key, but the whole of the substance remains.)

Republicans Propagating Falsehoods in Attacks on Health-Care Reform - Steven Pearlstein - washingtonpost.com (memeorandum):

There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made against the health reform plans moving through Congress -- I've made a few myself. But there is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the health-care system. That is a flat-out lie whose only purpose is to scare the public and stop political conversation.

Under any plan likely to emerge from Congress, the vast majority of Americans who are not old or poor will continue to buy health insurance from private companies, continue to get their health care from doctors in private practice and continue to be treated at privately owned hospitals.

The centerpiece of all the plans is a new health insurance exchange set up by the government where individuals, small businesses and eventually larger businesses will be able to purchase insurance from private insurers at lower rates than are now generally available under rules that require insurers to offer coverage to anyone regardless of health condition. Low-income workers buying insurance through the exchange -- along with their employers -- would be eligible for government subsidies. While the government will take a more active role in regulating the insurance market and increase its spending for health care, that hardly amounts to the kind of government-run system that critics conjure up when they trot out that oh-so-clever line about the Department of Motor Vehicles being in charge of your colonoscopy.

There is still a vigorous debate as to whether one of the insurance options offered through those exchanges would be a government-run insurance company of some sort. There are now less-than-even odds that such a public option will survive in the Senate, while even House leaders have agreed that the public plan won't be able to piggy-back on Medicare. So the probability that a public-run insurance plan is about to drive every private insurer out of business -- the Republican nightmare scenario -- is approximately zero.

By now, you've probably also heard that health reform will cost taxpayers at least a trillion dollars. Another lie.

First of all, that's not a trillion every year, as most people assume -- it's a trillion over 10 years, which is the silly way that people in Washington talk about federal budgets. On an annual basis, that translates to about $140 billion, when things are up and running.

Even that, however, grossly overstates the net cost to the government of providing universal coverage. Other parts of the reform plan would result in offsetting savings for Medicare: reductions in unnecessary subsidies to private insurers, in annual increases in payments rates for doctors and in payments to hospitals for providing free care to the uninsured. The net increase in government spending for health care would likely be about $100 billion a year, a one-time increase equal to less than 1 percent of a national income that grows at an average rate of 2.5 percent every year.

The Republican lies about the economics of health reform are also heavily laced with hypocrisy.

While holding themselves out as paragons of fiscal rectitude, Republicans grandstand against just about every idea to reduce the amount of health care people consume or the prices paid to health-care providers -- the only two ways I can think of to credibly bring health spending under control.

When Democrats, for example, propose to fund research to give doctors, patients and health plans better information on what works and what doesn't, Republicans sense a sinister plot to have the government decide what treatments you will get. By the same wacko-logic, a proposal that Medicare pay for counseling on end-of-life care is transformed into a secret plan for mass euthanasia of the elderly.

Government negotiation on drug prices? The end of medical innovation as we know it, according to the GOP's Dr. No. Reduce Medicare payments to overpriced specialists and inefficient hospitals? The first step on the slippery slope toward rationing.

Can there be anyone more two-faced than the Republican leaders who in one breath rail against the evils of government-run health care and in another propose a government-subsidized high-risk pool for people with chronic illness, government-subsidized community health centers for the uninsured, and opening up Medicare to people at age 55?

Health reform is a test of whether this country can function once again as a civil society -- whether we can trust ourselves to embrace the big, important changes that require everyone to give up something in order to make everyone better off. Republican leaders are eager to see us fail that test. We need to show them that no matter how many lies they tell or how many scare tactics they concoct, Americans will come together and get this done.

One thing I did cut from my cutnpaste was Mr Pearlstein's unfortunate use of the phrase "political terrorists" in the column to refer to the wingnuts and hooligans opposing healthcare reform. As Zandar notes, "...the usual suspects are already using those two words to negate the other thousand."

Sadly, that doesn't surprise me, either.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Right-Wing Astroturf Harassment Strategy Against Dems Detailed In Memo: ‘Yell,’ ‘Stand Up And Shout Out,’ ‘Rattle Him’

Think Progress - Right-Wing Harassment Strategy Against Dems Detailed In Memo: ‘Yell,’ ‘Stand Up And Shout Out,’ ‘Rattle Him’

Missing from the reporting of these stories is the fact that much of these protests are coordinated by public relations firms and lobbyists who have a stake in opposing President Obama’s reforms.

The lobbyist-run groups Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, which orchestrated the anti-Obama tea parties earlier this year, are now pursuing an aggressive strategy to create an image of mass public opposition to health care and clean energy reform. A leaked memo from Bob MacGuffie, a volunteer with the FreedomWorks website Tea Party Patriots, details how members should be infiltrating town halls and harassing Democratic members of Congress:

– Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: “Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington.”

– Be Disruptive Early And Often: “You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”

– Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate: “The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions.”


The memo above also resembles the talking points being distributed by FreedomWorks for pushing an anti-health reform assault all summer. Patients United, a front group maintained by Americans for Prosperity, is currently busing people all over the country for more protests against Democratic members. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), chairman of the NRCC, has endorsed the strategy, telling the Politico the days of civil town halls are now “over.”

Read the rest here.

And to be sure, these astroturfers, along with a few legit wingers, are following the playbook. [Teabaggers Try To Shout Down Health Care Reform At Town Halls | TPMDC] Congress folks have been shouted down, had chanting mobs follow them to their cars, and been forced to cancel town hall meetings or call security in locations all across the US. And our fellow citizens on the right are gloating about "shouting down" and "heckling" their representatives, besides, when they should be ashamed of such disrespectful behavior. They're largely a self-interested, corporate controlled mob, and they're getting ugly.

Updates as I find 'em:
More examples and folks proud of the hooliganism:
American Power: Dogging Lloyd Doggett: 'Just Say No"; to Obamacare!
Gateway Pundit: Lib "Blue Dog' Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-OH) Booed, Mocked & Laughed At During Town Hall (Video)
Delegitimizing Obama by any means at hand - docweaselblog

More folks saying astroturfing & acting like an unruly mob is no way for American citizens to treat each other:
Rachel Maddow on GOP Thugishness at Town Halls: This is Called Hooliganism | Video Cafe
The danger in the right's anger - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
Is Obama’s Vaunted Political Operation Getting Outworked By Tea-Baggers? | The Plum Line

Monday, August 3, 2009

World Net Daily Sez, Not Only Isn’t Obama A Citizen….He’s The Antichrist

Somewhere, a woman named Grace is having an "Explosion."

Below The Beltway: World Net Daily Sez, Not Only Isn’t Obama A Citizen….He’s The Antichrist

Saturday, August 1, 2009

The Post- Beerestroika Caption Contest


It's from Hot Air, so the whole thing leans pretty far wingnut, but even so, the winning entry is awful funny. (You can look for yourself, but in my opinion, there was no competition for the funny, and entirely too much downright mean--as is much of the commentary regarding this pic in Right Wingnuttia.) Hot Air - Caption Contest: After Beerestroika

And the winning entry is..."Just A Cop, Skip, and A Chump From the White House" - Christien on July 31, 2009 at 7:09 PM

Friday, July 31, 2009

What I Saw at the Beer Summit - (The Daily Beast)

Courtesy of The Daily Beast (by way of memeorandum), What I Saw at the Beer Summit - Elizabeth Gates:

In a world in which the conversation on race has traditionally taken a back seat to both logic and reason, it’s no wonder that yesterday’s so-called “Beer Summit” at the White House seemed to make little sense at all. It wasn’t because the president was wrong in offering up a few cold ones to my father, Henry Louis Gates, and the now infamous Sgt. James Crowley in an attempt to tame the media blitz around my father’s arrest—it was because like most issues that make their way to TMZ, the reference point had shifted. The debate over Red Stripe and Blue Moon had somehow overshadowed the fact that this story began with a black Harvard professor and a white cop from Natick, Mass.—and as CNN’s countdown clock to the event taunted viewers like a time bomb, it was clear that this day wasn’t going to be the beginning of a serious discussion on human relations but rather a circus-like ending of a misunderstanding between a couple of very decent men.

I can’t say that I was shocked.

As our family rounded the corner to the White House library and I first caught sight of Sgt. Crowley’s lovely daughter; she was wearing an appropriately heavy and charmingly untrained amount of green eyeliner on her lower lashes, and I saw my former self in her. We were instantly transported from the post-racial myth of America in 2008 to the reality of 2009. There they stood, a pleasant family of five, listening patiently to the overzealous tour guide boast about the fully functioning fireplace to the left of the doorframe.

A down to earth first person account, worthy of a full read.

Interesting spin from some on the right, however... Apparently, Elizabeth Gates, like her father, is a "racist," because she "cattily" made fun of how Crowley's 15 year old daughter applied her eyeliner. (Check the HA comments for descriptions of how "racist" & "catty" this was.) Started at Hot Air from what I can tell, (but repeated at Donald Douglas' American Power blog, and The New Republic's The Plank--without attribution in both cases, I note), and perhaps others, the meme is... well, let's let them tell it, via their "Hot Air Headline":

Hot Air Headlines - Gates’s daughter: Crowley’s daughter wears too much eyeliner:
As our family rounded the corner to the White House library and I first caught sight of Sergeant Crowley’s lovely 14-year old daughter—who was wearing an appropriately heavy and charmingly untrained amount of green eyeliner on her lower lashes—we were instantly transported from the post-racial myth of America in 2008 to the reality of 2009. There they stood, a pleasant family of five, listening patiently to the overzealous tour guide boast about the fully functioning fireplace to the left of the doorframe.

Any sharp eyes notice what's wrong with that picture?

Yes, they edited the line, taking out "...and I saw my former self in her." after "...charmingly untrained amount of green eyeliner on her lower lashes...", making it appear Ms. Gates was saying something she wasn't... Way to go there Malkin, Douglas, & "New Republic"... Good reporting of those "facts."

Updated, as more inevitably join the hot air fictional meme...
Wingnut @ Fire Andrea Mitchell! cuts the quote even shorter, Hot Air repeats the lie in a second post, hours later, threedonia.com fucks it up (Why don't any of these asses read the original posts before mindlessly cutting & pasting from a third party source?!?), Um no, Alan... But thanks for playing...Literature R Us—Alan Vanneman’s website, And finally, commenters at The Plank start questioning the omission... // Althouse quotes it correctly, at least... ...but still thinks it's catty.
Gawker though, gets it right (finally...):
"(Also she has already been accused of "taking the low road" by The New Republic for mentioning that Crowley's 14-year-old daughter applied her eyeliner inexpertly, which Gates found "charming," which is apparently evidence of condescension from someone uppity enough to have graduated from The New School. No, seriously, we're not seeing it, TNR, and this just looks like Corner-style shit-stirring for the hell of it.)"

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

The Ricci riddle and the law's limits - Kermit Roosevelt

"That means that the way people think about Ricci – and this includes the justices – is in large part shaped not by logic or law but by their attitudes about the world. In particular, it depends on whether they think it is more likely that minority candidates were simply not as good as the whites, or more likely that there was some unintended bias skewing the results. What drives these attitudes, as Holmes knew, is experience. The facts of Ricci are an inkblot in which we all see the pictures life has drawn for us."

Read the rest: Kermit Roosevelt - The Ricci riddle and the law's limits - csmonitor.com

Other posts on the subject worth reading (added as I find 'em):
The history behind Ricci v. DeStefano, the Supreme Court case that will decide who gets the good jobs in cities across America. (3) - By Nicole Allan and Emily Bazelon - Slate Magazine

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Iran Elections: Quit Turning Your Twitter Avatars Green And Do Something

Iran Elections: Quit Turning Your Twitter Avatars Green And Do Something - Air America Media - Kase Wickman

(The whole article is damned good and well worth reading, but I'm only reposting the "here's what you can do" paragraphs (the meat) below. I'm also leaving my twitter avatar green because, while it's usefulness pales in comparison to the suggestions in the post, I do think that little green tag makes a psychological difference. YMMV...)
---
So instead of empty gestures and hashtags, why don't we actually engage in some activism and help, instead of whispering about this like some kind of neighborhood scandal that will never catch up to us because it's an ocean away?

There's always the option of an online donation to a relief agency like Red Crescent, for something immediate and helpful. The world runs on money and blood (as the events in Iran over the last week and a half have so morosely reminded us), and America is too far away to donate the blood that the wounded in Iran so desperately need.

You can also make donations to those covering the ongoing protests and violence, like Tehran Bureau, which is run by an Iranian-emigre out of a house in Newton, Massachusetts and is in need of financial support to keep the site live and bandwidth plentiful. Reliable information is harder and harder to come by, already 24 journalists have been arrested in Iran, and the majority of the rest have been forced out of the country by expired visas and government intimidation.

Don't have cash? There are ways you can help for free without ever leaving your computer. You can create a proxy or Twitter relay to help keep those ever-important Iranian Twitterers connected and informing the world about the situation in Iran. Or change your location and time zone to match Iran, in hopes of tripping up government censors looking for active sources.

If you're more diplomatically-inclined, and looking toward the long term, write a letter to the United Nations Human Rights Council and urge them to take action on international election standards and protection for citizens.

Above all, the thing you must do before any difference can be made is to inform yourself. The term "knowledge is power" wouldn't be repeated so much if it wasn't true. So spend some time reading the news, know what the hell you're talking about, and go out and tell someone else about it, and how they can help.

---
If anyone has any further suggestions or links to sites & or other things worth doing, please add them in the comments. I'd prefer that this post stay as non-partisan as possible. We all know that "that" side sucks, but wingnuts, moonbats, partisans of all other stripes... ...this isn't about us here in the US.

h/t Twitter / @DivadNhoj1981

Wingnut Scum Blames America for Violence in Iran

Atlas Shrugs: IRAN: DAY 12 OF THE REVOLUTION - How could Obama do nothing? "Blood everywhere" "militia with axe chopping ppl like meat" "militia beating one woman with baton on ground - she had no defense nothing - sure that she is dead"

Pamela Gellar (and all your mindless, neocon cohorts who can't help but turn a tyrannical Iranian crackdown on their own people into a nakedly partisan referendum on a US administration for whom you did not vote),


Fuck you.


sincerely,

Sane America

---------

"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents." - Robert F. Kennedy

Maybe Something About Foreign Policy, Too...

"Whether you golf or not, go to a driving range and hit a bucket of golf balls. Begin by hitting everything as hard as you can; gradually decrease your power until near the end, you're barely swinging. Notice that as you decrease the power of your swing, your accuracy improves. There's a lesson about life, here." - The Check Book - Nicholaus & Lowrie


(X-post @ THE SWASH ZONE)

Friday, June 19, 2009

Olive Garden Says It Did Not Cancel Ads on Letterman Show

Olive Garden Says It Did Not Cancel Ads on Letterman Show - Media Decoder Blog - NYTimes.com
Olive Garden Says It Did Not Cancel Ads on Letterman Show
By BILL CARTER

The Olive Garden restaurant chain may not have been happy with David Letterman’s jokes about Gov. Sarah Palin and her family, but no order was issued to pull commercials from Mr. Letterman’s show, a spokesman for the company said Thursday.

Whoops! Looks like Politico (the source of yesterday's post) screwed up, and I screwed up for believing them... (of course to hear them tell it: Olive Garden backtracks on David Letterman ads - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

Yeah... Right...

Think I'll wait until I actually see an Olive Garden ad during a Letterman broadcast though, just to be sure... 8>)

I actually discovered all this via this post on Liberal Values: Revenge of the PUMAs, which goes into the whole PUMA (Party Unity, My Ass) angle of the Letterman/Palin story...

The PUMAs are group of mostly "women of a certain age" one time Hillary supporters, that for the life of me, I have never understood... If you read their sites, the vast majority is anti-Obama, anti-Democratic party screeds. The minute I saw that woman in yellow in the Fire Dave rally post below, the first thing I thought of was Harriet Christian, captured so eloquently below:



Ms. Christian was as good as her word, campaigning & voting for McCain/ Palin...

I can understand not being happy with one's party or nominee, of course, but I can't wrap my head around party activists and delegates--the people who're supposed to be the most loyal and dedicated of the party faithful--having ideas and ideals that allow them to go from supporting Hillary Clinton to voting for John McCain. Are there really such a thing as moderate party activists?

(So much for not doing any more Letterman/Palin posts... Sorry, Jennifer...)

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Olive Garden pulls Letterman ads - They obviously don't want my business, anymore

UPDATE 6/19/09: Politico screwed up (or "The Olive Garden backtracked") Take your pick.

Either way: Olive Garden Says It Did Not Cancel Ads on Letterman Show
-----

From POLITICO:
In an e-mail to a Letterman critic obtained by POLITICO, a spokeswoman for the Italian restaurant chain wrote that “there will be no more Olive Garden ads scheduled for ‘The Late Show’ with David Letterman in this year's broadcast schedule,” citing the talk show host’s “inappropriate comments.”

“We apologize that Mr. Letterman’s mistake, which was not consistent with our standards and values, left you with a bad impression of Olive Garden,” wrote Sherri Bruen, the company’s guest relations manager.

***

Conservative radio host John Ziegler, who previously interviewed Palin for his film “Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted,” organized a lightly attended protest Tuesday outside the “Late Show” studio.

Ziegler has listed contact information for 14 advertisers on Letterman’s show, including Olive Garden, on his website dedicated to the comedian’s firing. He called the news an “obvious victory” but vowed to continue “our quest for some sense of accountability for Letterman in this matter.”

Read more: Olive Garden pulls Letterman ads

As I said in a comment elsewhere, "Maybe it made sense once, but now that the aggrieved parties accepted [Letterman's] apology, it's just lookin' vindictive. I never did eat at an Olive Garden, before but I never had a reason not to. Allowing one's company to be bullied into submission to the point that they do something vindictive is reason enough for me..."

Guess I'll be makin' my own darn breadsticks...

Others talking about it: memeorandum

Remember when I was talking about chickenhawks?

THIS is an example of a potentially chickenhawk statement:



Fortunately, there's been a response:
Twitter Users Heckle Hoekstra En Masse | TPMDC:
Earlier today, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) put up [an] astonishing post on Twitter, likening the oppression of the Iranian people to the plight of House Republicans.

In the hours since, the Twitter community has responded -- with massive heckling.


Also, this:
Pete Hoekstra Is A Meme

Blog posts making fun of him. Pete must feel like Nancy Bellicec, at the end of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

(To be fair however, it's also an example of an analogy, which I was just discussing --that is, getting on professor Douglas' case about-- here. So... Am I being a little bit of a hypocrite in celebrating these folks willful misunderstanding Hoekstra's analogy, after jumping on Donald when he willfully misunderstood one? Yes, I am. But at least I'm aware of it, and I'm willing to cop to it, too, (as soon as I realized it, anyway...) Besides... Some of these "hoekstraisms" are kinda funny, and that's reason enough to post about 'em.)

Previous "chickenhawk" discussions:
Sidebar, between the "Diggs I Dugg" list and the "Follow Me" gadget (as of this posting... I tend to rearrange the furniture, here.) - Donald Douglas, who serves and sacrifices for his country on the battlefields of Long Beach City College, CA
---
Wingnuts & Moonbats: La la lala, la la lala, Elmo's Song - Mitt Romney's sons, all serving their country on electoral battlefields throughout the country, like the 5 young men in Saving Private Ryan. (in comments... Up till then, I couldn't think of any other chickenhawks.)

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Video from the Fire Dave rally

I thought I was done with this story, but the woman in yellow so offended me with her ugly, vicious mind, I couldn't let it pass unchallenged... A person like that ought not to be seen or heard in public (& I really hope that wherever she works, she isn't.)...



Wow.

Among the more alarming lines of attack -- particularly given that the rally was held because Letterman supposedly made a joke about Sarah Palin's teenage daughter Willow -- was that Letterman's son Harry was born out of wedlock (he recently wed Regina Lasko after dating for over a decade).

"Should we talk about his son?" one protester asked Green. "I believe his son was born out of wedlock. I believe there's a term for that."

"Is someone making jokes about his child?" asked another. "Especially, you know, when he had a daughter out of wedlock himself" (he didn't; 5-year-old Harry is his only child).

"How dare he?" asked yet a third, the most offensive of all. "When he has a bastard son, and a slut for a wife" (Letterman's wife Lasko has kept a notoriously low profile).

It should be noted that Sarah Palin's teenage daughter Bristol gave birth to baby Tripp (out-of-wedlock) in December and broke up with the baby's father, Levi Johnston, in March.
-- "Fire David Letterman" Protest Becomes Hatefest, Draws More Media Than Protesters

"I Hate Arabs More Than Anybody": Desperate Army Recruits Neo-Nazis

I believe the vast majority of American soldiers are fine upstanding patriotic citizens. But even so--even if only a tiny percentage of the military is made up of race extremists, white or otherwise--this article is chilling, because these people are getting training in how best to kill with precision, by our government.

"I Hate Arabs More Than Anybody": Desperate Army Recruits Neo-Nazis
By Matt Kennard, Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute. Posted June 17, 2009.

Why the U.S. military is ignoring its own regulations and permitting white supremacists to join.

Since the launch of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. military has struggled to recruit and reenlist troops. As the conflicts have dragged on, the military has loosened regulations, issuing "moral waivers" in many cases, allowing even those with criminal records to join up. Veterans suffering post-traumatic stress disorder have been ordered back to the Middle East for second and third tours of duty.

The lax regulations have also opened the military's doors to neo-Nazis, white supremacists and gang members -- with drastic consequences. Some neo-Nazis have been charged with crimes inside the military, and others have been linked to recruitment efforts for the white right. A recent Department of Homeland Security report, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," stated: "The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today." Many white supremacists join the Army to secure training for, as they see it, a future domestic race war. Others claim to be shooting Iraqis not to pursue the military's strategic goals but because killing "hajjis" is their duty as white militants.

Soldiers' associations with extremist groups, and their racist actions, contravene a host of military statutes instituted in the past three decades. But during the "war on terror," U.S. armed forces have turned a blind eye on their own regulations. A 2005 Department of Defense report states, "Effectively, the military has a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy pertaining to extremism. If individuals can perform satisfactorily, without making their extremist opinions overt they are likely to be able to complete their contracts."



About the title: The article opens with a profile of an Iraq War veteran named Forrest Fogarty. There's seven paragraphs discussing his teen and early adult years in the white power movement and his experience with army recruitment, and then:

In 2003, Fogarty was sent to Iraq. For two years he served in the military police, escorting officers, including generals, around the hostile country. He says he was granted top-secret clearance and access to battle plans. Fogarty speaks with regret that he "never had any kill counts." But he says his time in Iraq increased his racist resolve.

"I hate Arabs more than anybody, for the simple fact I've served over there and seen how they live," he tells me. "They're just a backward people. Them and the Jews are just disgusting people as far as I'm concerned. Their customs, everything to do with the Middle East, is just repugnant to me."

Read the whole article here

(I'd've just done a "Digg" post, but I kept getting an invalid url message, no matter what I did. Maybe I'll Digg this post instead, just to get the story the wide attention it deserves... But if anyone from Digg happens to be reading this, or anyone at all knows how to work around whatever the issue was (I suspect it had something to do with the quote marks in the title--& thus in the url--myself), please let me know...)

UPDATE: Looks like it was a Salon News article first: Neo-Nazis are in the Army now. I "dugg" that one instead, but I'll stick with this post, anyway...