Wingnuts and Moonbats

Using American Exceptionalism as a Partisan Weapon

2012-01-29T12:18:00.001-05:00

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

2011-12-24T07:30:00.002-05:00

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?

2011-10-20T16:35:00.001-04:00

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)

2011-10-17T10:03:00.000-04:00

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)

2011-08-11T02:59:00.001-04:00

"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?

2011-08-07T21:45:00.002-04:00

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...

2011-08-03T19:50:00.000-04:00

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."

2011-08-03T19:34:00.002-04:00

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...

2011-08-02T07:23:00.004-04:00

"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)

2011-07-30T08:21:00.000-04:00

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?

2011-07-28T08:26:00.003-04:00

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...

2011-07-27T08:10:00.001-04:00

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

2011-07-15T07:58:00.002-04:00

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

2011-07-04T00:01:00.001-04:00

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

2011-05-08T06:00:00.001-04:00

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)

2011-05-04T08:50:00.001-04:00

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

2010-12-24T18:00:00.000-05:00

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

2010-10-11T10:11:00.244-04:00

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

2010-10-01T00:20:00.000-04:00

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.

A Statement of Concern Calling for Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians - Dr. Fred Gottheil

2010-09-23T09:50:00.006-04:00

While the majority of those who read this post will likely not be academics from American campuses who offered your names last January to a list petitioning President Obama to reconsider our relationship with Israel, I'm curious... ...liberal, conservative or otherwise, and whatever your career and position in life; would you sign this statement?

A simple "YES" or "NO" will do, though if you're willing, I'd be most interested to find out who would/wouldn't, and why/why not.

I look forward to any/all replies...

More info about this Statement of Concern and my take on all the controversy surrounding it can be found by following this link.

A Statement of Concern
Calling for Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians.

This document is not a petition. It is, instead, a statement of concern addressing the problem of human rights abuses that appears to be pervasive in the Middle East. Having offered your name last January to the list of academics on American campuses who petitioned President Obama to reconsider our relationship with Israel, we ask that you now join us in expressing your concern about human rights abuses practiced against gays and lesbians and against women in many of the Middle Eastern countries, including the territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority. There are other gender-based human rights violations in the region but by concentrating on these particularly egregious ones, we will be able to focus support for the victims of these abuses, and perhaps in this way help change the environment that fosters such long-practiced violations.

This statement of concern, along with its list of academic signatories, will be put in the public domain; to be made available to our colleagues, to members of Congress, to government people in the Middle East, and to the media. To repeat: It does not call upon any persons, organizations, or governments to take specific action.

The information offered below is meant only to highlight the ideas held and practices condoned by people in authoritative positions in the Middle East. Documentation is derived from sources as widespread as United Nations agencies, survey research units, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, academic journals, NGOs such as Asylum-Law and Human Rights Watch, and from media reporting offered on the Internet, such as BBC.

Discrimination against Gays and Lesbians

Allegations and evidence of discrimination against gays and lesbians is compelling. Asylum-Law, an organization aiding asylum-seeking persons worldwide reports that treatment of gay men in Arab countries is particularly distressing. Punishment for acts of homosexuality varies. In Saudi Arabia, capital punishment – beheading – applies. Syrians convicted of practicing homosexuality serve three years’ imprisonment. Most other sources describe the physical abuse of and long-terms prison terms for gays in Egypt, the West Bank and Gaza. Specific laws against homosexuality exist in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Algeria, Sudan, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Syria, and Libya. The 2001 amendment to Iraq’s 1990 Penal Code made homosexual behavior between consenting adults a crime. The 1991 Iranian Constitution allows execution for sodomy. Specifically, Articles 108-113: “Sodomy is a crime, for which both partners are punished. The punishment is death if the participants are adults, of sound mind and consenting; the method of execution is for the Sharia judge to decide.” A documented testimony from a 19-year old Palestinian homosexual claims that he had been pressured by the al-Aqua Martyr’s Brigade to become a suicide bomber in order to purge his moral guilt.

Religious authority supports and even promotes these practices. According to prominent Muslim clerics, Sharia law mandates the death penalty for homosexuality. Among such authority, Cleric Sheikh Ali Amar offers that “Muslims believe that homosexual behavior is an offence against Islam and anyone who behaves this way should be sentenced to death without compassion.” Egyptian scholar Shaykh Dr. Yusuf Abdahhal al-Qaradawi, director of the Sunna and Sira Council, Qatar, cites Sharia law to declare that a Qatari Prince, ousted from political office on grounds of homosexuality, should be stoned to death. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the spiritual leader of Iraqis’ Shitte Muslims concurs. Kuwaiti cleric Dr. Sa’d al-‘Inzi cites article 203 of the Kuwaiti Penal Code as sanctioning death: “According to Islamic law, a homosexual should be thrown from a tall building.”

Gender Discrimination

Gender discrimination – wife beating, honor killing, and genital mutilation – against women is sanctioned by both legal and religious authority and has been planted in varying degrees into cultural habits and institutions. The legitimacy and justification for wife beating is found in the Surra 4:34: “Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others … good women are therefore obedient … and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them.”

Various clerical interpretations of this Surra range from beating doesn’t mean physical, to beating means only open-handed slaps, to beating must avoid delicate parts of the body, to beating is a beating. That clerics differ on this matter is acknowledged, but the legitimacy of and justification for wife beating is nonetheless appreciated. Dr. Muhammas al-Hajj, lecturer on Islamic faith at the University of Jordan argues that the central issue is guardianship of the family and that domination and subordination are properly gender based. Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America, answers the question “Does Islam allow wife beating?” by replying that wife beating is permissible in cases of persistent insubordination.

Algerian-born Iman Abdel Qader Bouziane was expelled from France for advocating wife beating. Professor Sabri Abd al-Rauf of Al-Azhar University argued that the beatings are intended to instill fear. Sheik abd Al-Hamid al-Muhajir explained that the Koran stipulates when a husband can beat a disobedient wife. Sheik Muhmmad al-Mussayar, an Egyptian professor at Al-Azhar University describes what kind of woman may be beaten. Sheik Yousuf al-Badri, member of the Egyptian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, asserts that since wife beatings are noted in the Koran and Sunna, it “means we’re allowed to beat.” Egyptian Cleric Galal al-Khatib is straightforward and blunt: “only a rod would help.”

Advocacy for female genital mutilation commands less of a consensus; its acceptance and promotion stem more from social custom than from religious instruction. But its practice in the Middle East, once thought minimal, is, in reality, widespread and expanding and a matter of much concern. The UN Commission on Human Rights, the World Health Organization, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women report that female genital mutilation has affected the lives of millions of women in Africa and the Middle East.

A 2005 UNICEF report claims an overwhelming percent of Egyptian women have undergone genital mutilation. Other sources report 60 percent for both Yemeni and Kurdish Iraqi women. There is strong circumstantial evidence of its practice in Syria and Jordan. Whether religiously prescribed or not, among rural populations most of the perpetrators and victims of female genital mutilation believe it to be religiously mandated. There is also enough authoritative religious voice to validate that view.

Clerical and government opposition to female genital mutilation is growing in the Middle East. Witness the 2006 conference at al-Azhar university sponsored by 20 esteemed clerics with its president, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qardawi, concluding that the practice “must be considered as a criminal aggression against mankind.” Yet Professor Muhammad Shamaa of the university’s Islamic Research Academy said that “it would take a long time before such an ancient custom disappears,” and admitted about the conference: “We simply did not invite those who disagree with us.”

And many Islamic clerics and educators do disagree; among them, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi who stated that “whoever finds it serving the interests of his daughters should do it, and I personally support this under the current circumstances in the modern world.” Egyptian Sheikh Mustafa al-Azhari believes that the attempt to end the practice is a Western conspiracy. Mufti Sa’id al-Hijawi of Jordan declared female circumcision to be a “noble trait accepted by Islam even though it is not a necessity.” Past rector of Al-Azhar University, Sheikh Gad al-Haq noted that since the Prophet did not ban female circumcision, it was permissible. And Umdat al-Salik, e4.3, a much referred to manual of Shafi’i Islamic law, affirms that female circumcision is obligatory.

Honor killing – murder of a female who has allegedly committed an act that shamed her family – represents yet another form of violent discrimination against women. Male family members are judge and jury. The Islamist party in the Jordanian parliament condones it as part of Islam’s code. Egypt’s Ifta’ Council of al-Azhar University issued a fatwa stating that punishment for adultery should be left to the ruler. The mufti of Gaza, Sheikh Abd al-Karim Kahlut demands the death penalty. Jordanian minister of awqaf – an Islamic foundation – is more lenient arguing that “Shari’a is clear and she should be lashed eighty times. His colleague, Hamdi Murad, advises one hundred lashes for a first offence and death by stoning thereafter. In Saudi Arabia, tenth-grade textbooks teach that it is permissible to kill adulterers. Tarrad Fayiz, a Jordanian tribal leader explains its harshness: “A woman is like an olive tree. When its branch catches woodworm, it has to be chopped off so that society stays clean and pure.”

In Jordan, Syria, and Morocco, specific articles of their penal codes condone honor killing. Morocco’s Article 418 states that murder and beatings by a husband or by his accomplice are excusable if his wife is discovered in the act of adultery. Syria’s Article 548 protects the husband from penalty in cases where his wife or sister engages in adultery. In Jordan, Article 340 states that: “he who discovers one of his female relatives committing adultery and kills, wounds, or injures one of them is exempted from any penalty.”

In 2007, 21 honor killings were reported in the West Bank and 25 in Gaza. Saed Taha, dean of Qalqilya’s College of Islamic Law, criticized these killings on the grounds that they were not administered according to Sharia law. Although articles 19, 22, and 23 of the 2003 revised Constitution of the State of Palestine specify that women shall have the same rights, liberties, and duties of men, article 7 specifies that Sharia law is the main source of all civil and religious matters.

Most Middle Eastern countries adopted the 2006 treaty concerning discrimination against women, sponsored by the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women but with provisos. In the case of Egypt, the proviso addresses the relationship between positive law and the Islamic Sharia: “The Egyptian legal system is based on a number of legislative levels, of which constitutional principles and precepts are foremost, followed by legal principles. The legislative authority is therefore bound to apply constitutional principles when enacting laws. Any violation by the legislative authorities of these principles would be considered as flouting the Constitution. In article 2, the Constitution states that the principles of the Islamic Shariah are the primary source of legislation. They are an obligation by which the legislative authorities are bound when issuing laws.” In substance, then, the proviso undermines the force of the treaty

Express Your Concern

The referenced material offered here is obviously only the tip of the discrimination iceberg. As academics who have already been a signatory to a petition declaring concern for human rights abuses practiced in one country of the Middle East, please exercise this privilege to express your concern now about the widely practiced and condoned discrimination against women, gays and lesbians in the many countries of that same region. Please join us by affirming this call for support. You can sign on to this statement by replying to this email with a one-word reply: YES. Please do so as soon as possible.

Fred Gottheil,

University of Illinois,

Urbana-Champaign

For the record, I'm an unrepentant, unabashed liberal "moonbat," and I fully support this statement with a big ol' YES. I believe there are natural/God-given human rights, and that all people who are able need to speak up in support of them throughout the world. Right is right, and whether abuses are being perpetrated by friend or foe, we have an obligation to speak up and speak out. (For the record, I believe that the relatively less life-threatening--but still very serious--human rights abuses against the rights of women, gays, and lesbians in this country also deserves our voices and our support, and I hope that Dr. Gottheil and his friends at FrontPage Magazine and the American Thinker blog will agree to speak up for them, as well. I'm just sayin'...)

What say you?

---
Warning: Failure to reply to my post will be taken (by some--see links above) as proof that you don't care about human rights. (...or that you didn't actually read this post... ...or you don't have the time to reply... ...or maybe that you don't add your name to a stranger's blog, willy-nilly... ...or perhaps that you think it's a stunt designed to "prove" that one side of the political spectrum in America is somehow more "moral" and "right" than the other, and doesn't express much in the way of genuine concern for anyone's human rights... ... ...)

In fact, I really do support it, regardless of where it came from, or why... ...and I'm sincerely interested in hearing what others think. I look forward to any/all replies.
---

Previously:
Dr. Gottheil, Where's Your Petition?
What'd I Say?: An Open Letter to Dr. Fred Gottheil, regarding his "Statement of Concern"
What'd I Say?: In Reply: More questions for Fred Gottheil, regarding his Statement of Concern
What'd I Say?: In Reply: "If Fred Gottheil doesn't reply to my unsolicited e-mails, it's proof that he doesn't care about this issue."
Dr. Fred Gottheil and the "sanctimonious bigots" commenting at the Washington Examiner
Attn. Conservatives: You've (figuratively) 'received the e-mail' from Fred Gottheil... How have YOU replied?

Also, 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

Dr. Gottheil, Where's Your Petition?

2010-09-21T11:51:00.003-04:00

In reply to this post, which tells the story of a right wing professor who saw a petition condemning some of the practices of the Israeli government, and that it was signed by over 900 academics--including a few from his own college--and wrote up a similar petition expressing concern about human rights violations in the Muslim Middle East, such as honor killing, wife-beating, female genital mutilation, and violence against gays and lesbians, just to see whether these same academics would also sign his... According to the story--as told at FrontPage Magazine, and echoed throughout the more reactionary reaches of the wingnutosphere, all of which should raise a degree of suspicion in the reader, given the sources--very few did...

Unfortunately, verification for any of it is hard to come by... From what I can tell, neither petition or list of signatures is available for the public to read and evaluate for themselves... You're just supposed to believe the story as written, no questions asked...

Anyway, here is my reply (submitted to the blog at the first link, above. I will also ask Dr Gottheil directly, should American Thinker approve my registration so I can post this comment to his post.):
---

Is Dr. Gottheil's original petition (with or without signatures) available for public viewing? I mean, it's a pretty important part of the story, but it doesn't seem to be published anywhere... All we have are thumbnail descriptions of what it says and the kind of people who did/did not sign it.

Before I condemn or praise anyone for their actions as concerns a given petition, I'd want to actually read the petition, so I can see for myself what they are or are not supporting... YMMV...

Though I'm not an academic, I oppose poor treatment of people regardless of who is perpetrating it. Assuming the petitions actually were as described, I likely would've signed both of 'em... I'd be curious to hear from the non-signing academics themselves why they chose not to sign the latter petition... ...but that requires actually finding and reading Dr. Gottheil's petition... Let's hope it becomes available...
---

Others asking the same questions:
I have two issues with Dr. Gottheil's conclusion. | FrontPage Magazine

Since you don't feel the need to provide or link to either your "Statement of Concern" or the Lloyd’s original petition, I can't see giving any of this any credence. - FrontPage Magazine
---

Also, 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

f*ck tea

2010-08-12T16:29:00.000-04:00

Progress is the real American party.

9/11 was in no way a defeat for the US

2010-08-08T07:27:00.004-04:00

In reply to: A mosque that wrecks bridges - Christopher Caldwell - FT.com (and memeorandum), which says, in part:

"People around the world will differ over the meaning of September 11 2001, but there can be no doubting that it is one of America’s most consequential military defeats. It led to a stalemate in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq that undermined the US’s standing in the world. By providing another reason for low interest rates and easy credit, it helped spur the present economic crisis. Whether or not this was inevitable, it happened. Osama bin Laden’s strategic calculus – that the US lacked either the resolve, the cohesion or the cultural self-confidence to stand up to a mighty blow – has in many ways been vindicated."

9/11 was a military defeat for the US?

Is this guy kidding?

9/11 was a cowardly terrorist act but, as with Pearl Harbor, Oklahoma City, and other cowardly terrorist attacks perpetrated from without or within, at no time was the US ever defeated by the individuals and ideologies that brought them forth. Not for a second.

Indeed it is America's cohesion and cultural self-confidence that makes this mosque and cultural center possible, and if the author doesn't understand that, he ought to revisit our founding documents and our history of being able to maintain our pluralistic society, including dissent such as his own. The real defeat would be to give in and become less free and less pluralistic.

While I can understand the motivations behind those who believe that a mosque anywhere near the Ground Zero site is insensitive because those who perpetrated that act claimed to be doing so in the name of Islam, the rhetoric of many of the opponents (Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, to name just two) and the media coverage of the situation up to now would make canceling or relocating this project a propaganda victory for the bigots on both sides--those who believe and preach that all Muslims are potential terrorists would be emboldened, and those in the Muslim world who benefit from painting the US as intolerant and hateful toward all Muslims--indeed the very terrorist recruiters we seek to prevent--would use this episode as proof that they are correct, as well. The fact is, we in the US are not bigoted against Muslims or anyone else--though a few of us are doing all they can to make it seem so--and we cannot allow anyone anywhere to paint us with that broad brush, no matter what political, social, or religious ideology they claim to represent.

Given the choice between insensitivity (which, if real at all, seems largely unintentional) and intolerance / propaganda that we now face, I'd prefer we show a little insensitivity...
---

Also blogging: xpostfactoid: Christopher Caldwell girds for civilizational war near Ground Zero

Some o' that Famous AmericaNeoCon Class: "Robert C. Bryd, Longest Serving KKK Leader in U.S. Senate, Dead at 92"

2010-06-29T01:41:00.005-04:00

The body's not even cold, but some of the Con vultures are already diving in for their piece:

American Power: Robert C. Bryd, Longest Serving KKK Leader in U.S. Senate, Dead at 92
Byrd was 92 and the longest serving member of the U.S. Senate. A former member of the Klu Klux Klan and "Exalted Kleagle," Bryd was the only senator to vote against both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas for confirmation to the Supreme Court. As late as 2001 Byrd was known to still deploy the epithet "nigger" in political debate. But the Democratic Party and leftist leadership groups nevertheless championed racist Senator Byrd as a lion of the Senate. The man should have retired decades ago, along with the hatred with which he represented.

And nothin' but encomiums for Exalted Kleagle Byrd at the racist Daily Kos. Go figure."

Funny how so many of these folks claim to follow Christian ethics, but never permit a man to find repentance here in life. Once a sinner, always a sinner, regardless of regret, remorse, repentance, and many years of good works since (assuming being a Democrat isn't itself a sin to these asses.)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Anyone who cannot wait until the body is in the ground before attacking the deceased is not a good person. Be a man Donald Douglas. Act like a human being, and let the bereaved mourn, at least. There'll be plenty of time to beat up on the dead body of Robert Byrd next week, AFTER the damed funeral.

Scumbag.

Also posting (revised and extended, as necessary):

Dr. Douglas' fellow scumbags:
Moonbattery: Item #3: White Sheets to be Flown at Half-Staff Today
Ed Driscoll - Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) Dead at 92
Confederate Yankee: Off To that Great Klavern In the Sky
Robert Byrd, Longest-Serving U.S. Senator and Former KKK Member, Dies at 92 | NewsReal Blog
Rhymes With Right - Kleagle Bob Byrd, The Guilty Conscience Of The Senate, Is Dead

Human beings:
memeorandum
alicublog: A Little Respect
---

Originally posted at American Nihilist

Oh noes!!! "Repsac3 Banned from American Power"

2010-05-01T03:16:00.004-04:00

In a recent post, blogger Donald Douglas a.k.a. AmPowerBlog, a.k.a. americaneocon (No, there is no second "n." He's America neocon, or American eocon... We're not sure which) asserted and blurted Repsac3 Banned from American Power. Yes folks, it's official (he even says so, below); I am banned from Donald's public blog.
Oh, the horror.
Oh the humanity of it all.
Oh my God, he must be kidding if he thinks that's gonna keep me from challenging his neo/social conservative doublespeak whenever and wherever I deem appropriate...

Let's read further, shall we?...:

As readers know, I enjoy debating the crazy lefties, but sometimes things get out of hand. So, this is official: James Casper, a.k.a. Repsac3, is formally banned at American Power. Because he's so stupid, and frankly too easy to poke fun at, I've tolerated his trollery for years. But since he's launched an unprovoked racist attack on me as "Halfrican," that's about all I can take. I don't care who originated the term or who uses it. It's repugnant and I don't condone it.

Leaving aside the everpresent ad hom contained in any Douglas post, comment, or message to or about those with whom he disagrees, my "trollery" pretty much consists of replying to his posts very much like every other person who comments on his blog. (In fact, I think I'm less trollish than many, in that I don't often engage in name-calling or other pointless foolery. I simply dispute the post, and move on. That's not to say that I never call anyone stupid (or whatever), but I surely do so far less often than, say, Professor Douglas, or the Daves.) Of course, I am more likely than most to disagree with Donald (which appears to be the definition he's using for "troll," these days), but I wasn't aware that was a banning offense. (and if it is, it makes Dr. Douglas a coward.)

Now, let's talk "halfrican." First off, I referred to Donald this way two or three times, the last being on April 4th--so it isn't as though Mr Douglas is reacting to something that happened recently; While Donald feigns ignorance, he knows very well the point I was making in using Rush Limbaugh's term for Barack Obama, Hallie Berry, and others of mixed racial heritage (including, one assumes, Donald Douglas, himself), and that I stopped referring to him (or anyone else) that way the moment Donald admitted he found it offensive--which one thinks he would've done when Rush referred to him that way (by extension, anyway). Of course, he didn't. The point though, is that Donald may claim this is his justification for "banning" me, but it's pretty obviously a made up excuse. Personally, I think Donald just doesn't like that I don't accept what he alleges at face value, and that I tell folks when he's wrong or acting like a bully... ...even on his own blog... (Maybe so, maybe not, but I know what I believe...)

Most of all, I'm tired this idiot Repsac3's puerile gotcha imbecility. In response to my post on LBCC's communists, Repsac3's been trolling my comments,...

Trolling his comments... catching him in what was likely an intentional lie to deceive his more gullible readers... It's apparently a fine line, with Donald... (More on the likely intentional lie, below.)

...and left a link to the "One Minute for Peace" website; and clicking around there we find this:

Actually, what I left was a link in support of the assertion I was making which, because it was about an issue raised by peace groups (as was the false claim Donald made) appeared on the "One Minute for Peace" site. (I've yet to find the source of the original flyer to which Donald was reacting, and I suspect, lying about. Again, more on that below.)

I'm not sure what the video had to do with any of it--and while Donald included it in his post, he doesn't say, either--but it's a thought provoking video, nevertheless. The premise of both the site and the video is that it'd be a good thing if we spent more money on supporting peace--say, the amount of one minute-worth of the annual military budget (Annual budget=approximately 3 trillion dollars. one minute-worth of that annual budget=about $1.98 million). One can agree or disagree, but it's hardly a radical, dangerous idea.

One Minute for Peace is sponsored by the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker "social justice" organization that has long been criticized for its communist affiliations and for abandoning its original religious principles.

Wow, a "social justice" organization. (in this case, a religious one.) We all know what that means according to Glenn Beck, and just in case we didn't, Donald comes right out and says it: Commies. (Will the McCarthyist red-baiting from some on the right never cease?) It's a neat trick Donald plays... If you follow the "long been criticized" link (to Wikipedia, which is seemingly only considered trustworthy by folks on the right when it says something they like), you'll note that for the most part, the folks who've "long been criticizing" the "friends" and suggesting that they're communists are social conservatives like Donald. It's like what FoxNews does... Report that someone or something is controversial, and then justify repeated hit pieces on that person or thing by saying that "some say" there's controversy surrounding them.

The fact is, I don't know much about the "Friends," other than that they're another "liberal" religious tradition, and thus not respected by some on the "religious right." (See what Donald had to say about Unitarian Universalists--my "liberal" religious tradition--in the "nihilist" sidebar at right.) But it doesn't really matter because, whatever the truth is about them as regards communism or whether some Quakers believe they've become too political and strayed from their religious roots, it doesn't make what they say about the US military budget any more or less true. Donald is creating a smokescreen. Commies or not, the numbers they cite from the US OMB are either correct or they're not, and suggesting that they're commies doesn't make those numbers more or less factual or accurate. (Finally, we're getting to the meat of the thing...)

And it's simply breathtaking the gross deceit these groups are willing to perpetrate. They claim that their budget estimates are from

"the proposed 2011 discretionary budget targeted for military spending."

But take a look at a pie chart, from U.S. Government Spending, showing the Fiscal Year 2011 budget. A full 56 percent of spending is designated for health, pensions, and welfare:

Welcome to the meat: Here's the story: In an earlier post, Donald mentioned seeing a flyer from a peace group that he says) claims that military spending is 59% of the US budget, and goes on to call that propaganda, saying that it's only 19% of the US budget. To whit:

(From American Power: Long Beach City College Premier of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story): "Notice this banner at the table, showing defense spending as percentage share of federal expenditures. Communist demonstrators had the same banner at the March 20 ANSWER protest in Hollywood (and of course it's pure propaganda, since military expenditures for 2010 are expected to total 19 percent of budgetary outlays):"

Suspicious, I did a little research, and determined that it was likely that the banner was referring not to the entire budget--which would put military spending at somewhere between 19 and 23 percent of the pie, but discretionary spending, where is is indeed about 59% of the pie. I replied to his assertion thusly:
---
While I can't read the fine print in the photos to be sure, I suspect that 59% refers to the amount of discretionary spending devoted to military expenditures, as proposed in the 2011 budget -- (though I believe I also read that that was the amount of discretionary spending devoted to the military in the 2008 budget, as well).:

"59% is the percentage of the proposed 2011 discretionary budget targeted for military spending. This does not include all the budgeted spending, just the programs that get approved every year. Some groups argue if you look through the fine print of the budget that figure could be pushed even higher. It’s likely they are right.
***
This Federal Budget Pie Chart for 2011 uses figures from the proposal that President Obama presented to Congress in February 2010. You can see the plan online at www.whitehouse.gov/omb." - Budget Details : One Minute for Peace

---
You'll note that in the example above--from this current post, I mean--that Donald again ignores the fact that the "Friends" refer to "the proposed 2011 discretionary budget targeted for military spending." (though he does quote them using those words), and talks about/shows a pie chart of the entire budget. Sorry Donald, but they are still not the same thing, and conflating the percentage of the whole budget alloted to the military (or the percentage of GDP alloted to the military) with the percentage of the discretionary budget alloted to the military is dishonest and wrong. Try comparing the numbers that the "friends" (and the creators of that banner) were (likely, in the case of the banner folks) using, and get back to us.

Everything else Donald says in the post about the rise of entitlement spending and the decline of defense spending as a percentage of GDP, may in fact be true... (Perhaps I'll check it out later.) But none of that changes the fact that the 59% Donald disputed was a percentage of discretionary spending, and thus his claims of "propaganda" based on the whole budget were sadly mistaken at best, and itself propaganda at worst. (The fact that he's still trying to make the discredited claim after having the discrepancy pointed out to him might give the reader a clue as to whether or not it was an honest error.)

But back to the other point of Dr Douglas' post:

I rarely ban radical leftist commentators from American Power. Mostly, I'll moderate or disable comments if I don't feel like dealing with their stupidity (James B. Webb is a case in point). Mostly, I have fun with them for the sheer hilarity of it, and for the epistemological heuristic utility of obliterating the mindless left-wing/socialist ideological claptrap. And as we see time and again, leftists never seriously engage on point, but rather demonize, ridicule, and attack as racist as part of their ongoing program of intolerance and radical totalitarianism. I will continue to debunk and deflect all of this, since that's what I do. And I'll also continue the periodic back-and-forth blog wars as long as there's some fun or learning in it. But Repsac3's nothing more than the devil's frontman, and I've had enough. He's welcomed here no longer.

Here's the thing... As long as Donald Douglas is posting a public blog that accepts comments, I'm going to continue to comment on what he posts, whenever and wherever I choose. He's welcome to delete anything and everything I contribute to his blog if he so chooses--it is his blog, after all--but that won't stop me from making the contribution in the first place, and pointing out every cowardly deletion he makes (on my blog, I mean), as well. Folks are welcome to judge me as they will, but standing up to Donald's bullying ways has become a habit, and I'm not going to stop because he wishes I would... (Of course, were he to stop treating others so poorly, I'd have no choice but to stop calling him on his behavior and the mistruths in which he engages to smear others...) I think I've said it before... As long as Donald keeps acting the fool, I'll keep pointing and laughing at him. The other folks who're involved with American Nihilist (whether as writers, "fellow nihilists" -- other folks on Donald's extensive "enemies list," or readers) can do as they like, but I intend to continue exposing Donald Douglas for the man he is... ..."banning" or no banning...

In reply: "Obama Calls In Riot Cops on Peaceful TEA Party Protest"

2010-04-29T15:56:00.002-04:00

In reply to: SharpElbows.Net: Obama Calls In Riot Cops on Peaceful TEA Party Protest

Quincy Herald Whig: About 200 tea party members make their feelings known during president's Quincy visit:

"There were a few tense moments when the crowd moved west down York toward Third Street after the president's motorcade arrived. A Secret Service agent asked the crowd to move back across the street to the north side.
When the crowd didn't move and began singing "God Bless, America" and the national anthem, Quincy Deputy Police Chief Ron Dreyer called for members of the Mobile Field Force to walk up the street.
The officers, mainly from Metro East departments near St. Louis and dressed in full body armor, marched from the east and stood on the south side of York facing the protesters.
There was no physical contact, and the officers did not come close to the crowd, but there were catcalls and more than a few upset tea party members, including a woman who shouted, "This is communism!"
McQueen also assisted in asking people to step back to the north side of York. The crowd moved back, the officers stayed for about 15 minutes and left, and there were no other incidents.
"It's just a communication issue. We were trying to get them to move across the street," Quincy Deputy Police Chief Curt Kelty said. "We were just trying to move them back, they complied, and it was fine."
Several of the Quincy Tea Party members thanked Kelty as they left the area."

I know what I read in the local paper cited above, and I know that some, including Gateway Pundit, dispute the story as written.

It'd be helpful if someone had video of that point in time that's referenced in the newspaper story, to see where folks were, and whether the secret service and local police were having difficulty moving folks off the street, as is claimed.

(I'm trying not to prejudge the situation, but I also remember Mr Hoft's over-the-top reaction to seeing the Secret Service Counter Assault Team (Gateway Pundit: OBAMA SECRET SERVICE Pulls Guns On Conservative Tea Party Protesters In Bristol), who is at every appearance of every president, and does their job without regard to the politics of the person they're protecting, and my reply to it at the time: With All Due Respect: Re: OBAMA SECRET SERVICE Pulls Guns On Conservative Tea Party Protesters In Bristol. Let's just say the readings on my hyperbole/exaggeration detector are pretty high, right now.)

I'm not saying that those in law enforcement/security didn't appear to over-react, judging by what I've seen so far--though as I said, I'd like to see whatever video exists of that period just after the motorcade arrived, and throughout both songs--but I'm inclined to give LE/SS the benefit of the doubt, particularly as regards a political motive.
---

Revised and extended from a comment posted to Sharp Elbows on/at April 29, 2010, 1:40 PM (SE blog time)

Also blogging and h/t (May be updated, if/when I come across interesting reportage): memeorandum: OBAMA & BIG SIS Call In Riot Police on Quincy Tea Party Patriots (Video) (Jim Hoft/Gateway Pundit)
Osborne Ink - Nontroversy Born
Why Some Conservative Bloggers Should Take a Long, Cold Shower | The Moderate Voice
h/t: American Power: Obama Goons Send Illinois SWAT Team to Smash Tea Party Patriots!

In reply: Immigration: Apply the rules of the country of origin...

2010-04-29T12:59:00.002-04:00

In reply to the following comment:

There is an easy solution to the problems inherent in immigration. We apply the rules of the country of origin to all immigrants seeking citizenship in this country. Say, whatever Mexico required for one seeking citizenship there it would be applied across the board to Mexicans seeking citizenship in this country.
It would be fair to all involved and would ensure that people in this country would be conversant with how other countries control immigration. Whereas a person seeking work would have a green card or what ever the equivalent paperwork required in other countries. It removes political considerations from the equation.
We could take other actions for those seeking political asylum, et al. - Dennis - April 28, 2010, 7:26 AM comment at the post "American Power: Illegal Alien Superhighway"

Dennis: It's a neat rhetorical trick--and one with which I'd agree, believe it or don't--except that I wouldn't want American law to be determined by and at the mercy of the whims of the lawmaking of foreign countries.

If we were to get serious about enacting/enforcing laws and penalties against hiring illegal workers--against the people hiring them, along with the workers, themselves--I suspect that a whole lotta people who lack proper documentation would self-deport. (I'm a big fan of the E-Verify system, and would like to see it become mandatory for all US employees, perhaps under the tax code.)

Because I'm a liberal though, I'm opposed to denying health and safety benefits and protections to illegal aliens, or criminalizing the act of being undocumented in the US--the AZ law goes too far, in that regard--and I wouldn't be opposed to helping those countries from which we receive the largest number of illegal immigrants to improve their economies, so that there's less financial impetus for leaving one's family and home country in the first place.
---
Submitted for moderator approval April 29, 2010 9:58 AM (AmPow blog time)

In reply: Only if you're a tea partier... RE: Did the Tea Party win the debate over the N-word accusations?

2010-04-29T07:53:00.001-04:00

Did the Tea Party win the debate over the N-word accusations? - Washington Examiner

No, I don't believe Breitbart and the Tea Party crowd have won much of anything, here. For all his bluster, @andrewbreitbart has no more proof that the incident never happened than the congressmen have that it did.

Sure, it would be nice if there were some kinda audio or video footage conclusively proving the words were or were not spoken, but I'm pretty sure that trees falling in the middle of the forest make noise, even when no one captures the sound on tape. And as the great 'pubbie philosopher once said, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

The eye witness testimony of the congressmen--and the tea party protesters, too--is apparently the only evidence there is, and after that, it all comes down to who we each find more credible. It's not surprising that for activists, anyway, the divide between who folks find more trustworthy falls along partisan lines.

First you build the strawman...

2010-04-01T16:10:00.002-04:00

"The current media talking point is that ONLY the Tea Party/the Right/Republicans/Conservatives are making threats, against Democrats." - ONLY the Right huh? - The Daley Gator

I won't go so far as to say that no media personality anywhere has made any such claim, but I submit that there are very few who have, and that they're likely not serving a major market... In short, contrary to the claim of this blogger--as well as others who are spinning the case that liberal violence, vandalism, and bigotry are treated differently than conservative violence, vandalism, and bigotry, background circumstances being equal... or somewhere close to equivalent, anyway--it's far from a media talking point.

I asked the blogger who posted that whether he'd be willing to quote a few of those media talking heads saying that ONLY the right are making threats in a comment early yesterday morning, saying:

I take issue with your premise…

Any chance you might provide a few quotes of individuals in the media saying that ONLY the right engage in this behavior? Because I’ve heard a good bit of “the other side does it, too” from the reportage, even involving instances where the broken glass/nasty phone message/cut gas line about which they’re reporting is only found on one side of the equation…

I submit that, when the terms are the same, anyway, the media reports/doesn’t report pretty much evenly. (By which I mean that no, threatening verbiage against Breitbart won’t get the same coverage as threatening verbiage against an elected official, but when it’s elected official / elected official — say Cantor vs Stupak — the amount/degree of coverage is pretty similar.) - ONLY the Right huh? - The Daley Gator, March 31, 2010 at 5:04 am comment
but so far, there's been no response.

Let's go to the video tape:

A collage of Tea Party activist signage over the past year:

A collection of anti-war protester signage and spoken word collected while Bush was in office:

Anyone see a substantial difference between the extremist nutjobs on the left and the extremist nutjobs on the right? I don't, but some folks on the right sure seem to...

Evan Coyne Maloney, the man who created the latter video, had this to say:

Not too long ago, taking to the streets to protest your government was considered a patriotic act.

What we said, if I'm not mistaken, was that it wasn't an anti-American act, and that this country was founded on dissent. Protest pretty much always has been patriotic, but that doesn't mean protesters are free to say and do anything they wish without facing criticism from the rest of us or legal action when appropriate. The impulse and the act of protesting is patriotic; bigotry, violence, and vandalism however, are not patriotic acts, even when committed at otherwise patriotic, all-American events.

But it seems that publicly airing your grievances stopped being patriotic right around noon on January 20th, 2009.

Once President Obama was sworn in, protesting became incitement to violence.

Of course that's ridiculous... It's not protesting against this or any President or policy that's potentially dangerous, but what some fools say and do at protests and elsewhere that may incite violence and other bad acts...

If you’ve opened up a newspaper or watched a cable news program in the past week or so, you’ve probably seen members of the media painting Tea Party activists as dangerous bigots. That’s because disagreeing with President Obama on issues like government spending and high taxes makes you a racist, you see.

Twaddle.
What you've seen for the most part is members of the media highlighting individual Tea Party activist words and deeds that they believe have been dangerous or bigoted, as well as other members of the media ignoring or papering over those "few bad apples" and defending the Tea Party as a whole. Disagreeing with the President on the issues has never made anyone a racist. Expressing disagreement with the President on the issues in racist terms however, has.

What’s interesting about the media’s latest freak-out is that there were radicals a-plenty under President Bush. They protested in the streets. They talked openly about revolution and killing. But oddly, the violent imagery used by people claiming to be advocates for peace never registered with the media. They were too busy fawning over Cindy Sheehan.

More whining victimhood about a media that hates conservatives...
Yes, there were protesters (and radicals, too) under President Bush, just as there are under President Obama. And yes, the Tea Party reactionaries and their bigoted, violent imagery has gotten more attention than the anti-war radicals and their violent imagery. But that's because the Tea Party movement as a whole has gotten more media coverage. (Does anyone remember an hour long CNN special on anti-war protesters, where representatives were able to come in and express their views, unfiltered? Yeah, me neither...)

Why the difference in coverage? Did the media cheerlead the protests against President Bush to hurt him politically? Are they trying to marginalize the increasingly powerful Tea Party movement because they favor President Obama’s agenda?

The difference in coverage of the Tea Parties in general isn't very difficult to explain... (It has to do with the fact that one of the organizers is a lobbyist and former US House Majority leader... Just a guess...) And cheerleading? FoxNews hosts fanned out and became featured speakers at Tea Party events throughout the country, running free advertising for Tea Party events for weeks, as well. (It's one thing to cover the story; it's quite another to be the story...) Show me a mainstream news source that did anything like that for anti-war events.

As for why the bigotry and vandalism is getting more coverage, I think that also has to do with who the victims of the behaviors are... Call a former civil rights leader and current US congressman a nigger, and/or spit on the guy, and it's going to make news... When there's a rightwing nut on the internet who suggests breaking the windows at Democratic congressional district offices to protest the passage of healthcare reform--and then there's a series of broken windows at Democratic congressional district offices--the media is going to notice and report on it. First black President as monkey? As witch doctor? Watermelons growing on the Whitehouse lawn? I'm sorry, man, but that stuff is clearly bigotry, and like it or not, it's going to make a difference to we citizens, both in and out of the media...

Yes, Dubya was portrayed as a smirking chimp too, and yes, it wasn't very nice when individuals on the left did it to him, either--but anyone who doesn't understand the difference between portraying a white man as a monkey and a black man as the very same monkey just doesn't have the intelligence one needs to speak in public... It'll be a great day when protesters can portray anyone of any race as a monkey and have everyone take it as a comment on the person's intelligence or protrusive ears, and not a comment about race, but we just ain't there yet...

One thing’s for sure: If there is such a thing as dangerous rhetoric, then the media is at least one president too late in reporting the story.

There is such a thing as dangerous rhetoric, and both videos above show some... If it's wrong to demonize the president by comparing him to Hitler, it's wrong to demonize the president by comparing him to Hitler... Two wrongs apparently do make a right to some folks, though... If your first response to seeing bigoted signs being held by your own side is to point to bigoted signs being held by the other side, there's something wrong with you. (Now, if you can show me a guy holding a BusHitler sign in 2004 saying that tea baggers holding Hitlerbama signs are crossing the line, I'll join you in condemning the hypocrisy and double talk bullshit of that asshole...)

Free speech is a wonderful thing; you can learn a lot about your fellow Americans by really listening to what they have to say, good or bad.

Oh look... Donald Douglas at American Power has added his two bits: BUSH = HITLER: The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same...

[Evan Coyne Maloney] is therefore in a good position to recall the signs and symbols of the left-wing opposition to the Bush administration's post-9/11 national security policies. How do they compare to the Tea Party protesters expressing their opposition to Barack Obama's program of national socialism?

Evan has now produced a timely new video splicing together footage that he calls "A trip down memory lane." He describes it as four minutes of nonstop examples of violent imagery and extremist rhetoric employed by left-wing anti-Bush protesters. He writes: "For some reason, despite it being well documented at the time by me and many others, the media chose to ignore it." Indeed.
Here's another photo of the BUSH = NAZI ideological demonization from March 20, in Hollywood:

"Stop Bussh"s Terrorism" (with nazi SS's, natch) photo cut

Recall that "SS" stands for "Schutzstaffel," Hitler's paramilitary security state within the state.
Plus, posted previously, "BOOSH," the racist Bush slur.:

(This one you had to see...)

Racist Bush slur?

Maybe I'm just not smart enough to understand the subtle workings of the neocon mind, but that sure looks like an explosion to me... You know... Boom!!?!

Boosh!! go the bunker-busters!!

(As near as I can figure it, Dr Douglas is trying to say this Boosh! sign has something to do with the internet term "Joooos," which I'm pretty sure is a pronunciation thing--often used by Cons like Donald, very much the same way they've taken to using "raaaaacist" of late--to refer to folks on the left who they claim are anti-semitic -- which begs the question as to why an anti-semite would be making fun of himself by using the term... But I didn't major in neocon logic. (I think I read on a wingnut blog somewhere that the term neocon is itself anti-semitic... Which'll be news to Dr Douglas (Americaneocon), I'm sure... unless it's one of those "it's only ok when WE do it," things... like these Nazi/Hitler references, apparently...) ((Neat how I got back on topic there, eh?))

One more thing you probably ought to know about the picture I posted and the one I didn't... They were back to back, on the same sign. So even assuming Boosh!! is in some way a bigoted thing to say, it only counts as one bad liberal apple, not two...

When it comes to the Democrats, I'm ashamed for my country. But I'm not resigned. The tea parties are the salvation of democracy.

And since I know lefties will say "both sides do it." .... No, sorry, there's nothing -- absolutely nothing -- comparable to the secular demonization and violent rhetoric against the GOP during the Bush years, and it contiues today.

Ashamed of your country, Donald?... I seem to recall you having quite the little hissyfit when the First lady said that... Guess it's ok to say, now that a Republican is no longer President. (Con "rules for thee, but not for me," section 102)

And while I understand that YOU feel that conservative Tea Party Hitler signs are completely different from liberal/anarchist/libertarian anti-War Hitler signs, your feeling that way just doesn't make it so... Unless I miss my guess, most people will think all Hitler signs and other over the top, bigoted, violent exhortations are pretty bad no matter which side is responsible for 'em or what you happen to believe about any of it, but I guess only time will tell...

Also blogging:
Evan Coyne Maloney’s Trip Down Memory Lane : Founding Bloggers
Hate, Violence, and a Short Memory - The Republican Heretic

Rightwing Extremism: Maybe it's time we read that Homeland Security report again

2010-03-30T00:59:00.000-04:00

Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment

LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION NOTICE: This product contains Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES) information. No portion of the LES information should be released to the media, the general public, or over non-secure Internet servers. Release of this information could adversely affect or jeopardize investigative activities.

Warning: This document is UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U//FOUO). It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information and is not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know without prior approval of an authorized DHS official. State and local homeland security officials may share this document with authorized security personnel without further approval from DHS.

All U.S. person information has been minimized. Should you require the minimized U.S. person information, please contact the DHS/I&A Production Branch at IA.PM@hq.dhs.gov, IA.PM@dhs.sgov.gov, or IA.PM@dhs.ic.gov.

Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment

7 April 2009

Prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division. Coordinated with the FBI.

Scope

This product is one of a series of intelligence assessments published by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States. The information is provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States. Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States Government sponsorship.

Key Findings

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

— Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.

— Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.

— During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.

— Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increased government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and disrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing as the preeminent world power.

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

*Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

— Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.

— Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

Current Economic and Political Climate

DHS/I&A assesses that a number of economic and political factors are driving a resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization activity. Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years. In addition, the historical election of an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization.

— A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled “one world government.”

Exploiting Economic Downturn

Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.” These “accusatory” tactics are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs. DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.

Historical Presidential Election

Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms.

Perceptions on Poverty and Radicalization

Scholars and experts disagree over poverty’s role in motivating violent radicalization or terrorist activity. High unemployment, however, has the potential to lead to alienation, thus increasing an individual’s susceptibility to extremist ideas. According to a 2007 study from the German Institute for Economic Research, there appears to be a strong association between a parent’s unemployment status and the formation of rightwing extremist beliefs in their children—specifically xenophobia and antidemocratic ideals. ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.

— Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action. In two instances in the run-up to the election, extremists appeared to be in the early planning stages of some threatening activity targeting the Democratic nominee, but law enforcement interceded.

Revisiting the 1990s

Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement’s opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage. During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.

Historically, domestic rightwing extremists have feared, predicted, and anticipated a cataclysmic economic collapse in the United States. Prominent antigovernment conspiracy theorists have incorporated aspects of an impending economic collapse to intensify fear and paranoia among like-minded individuals and to attract recruits during times of economic uncertainty. Conspiracy theories involving declarations of martial law, impending civil strife or racial conflict, suspension of the U.S. Constitution, and the creation of citizen detention camps often incorporate aspects of a failed economy. Antigovernment conspiracy theories and “end times” prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement.

Illegal Immigration

Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico.

Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting tool. Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.

DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremist groups’ frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence. If such violence were to occur, it likely would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets.

— DHS/I&A notes that prominent civil rights organizations have observed an increase in anti-Hispanic crimes over the past five years.

— In April 2007, six militia members were arrested for various weapons and explosives violations. Open source reporting alleged that those arrested had discussed and conducted surveillance for a machinegun attack on Hispanics.

— A militia member in Wyoming was arrested in February 2007 after communicating his plans to travel to the Mexican border to kill immigrants crossing into the United States.

Legislative and Judicial Drivers

Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence.

— During the 1990s, rightwing extremist hostility toward government was fueled by the implementation of restrictive gun laws—such as the Brady Law that established a 5-day waiting period prior to purchasing a handgun and the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that limited the sale of various types of assault rifles—and federal law enforcement’s handling of the confrontations at Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho.

— On the current front, legislation has been proposed this year requiring mandatory registration of all firearms in the United States. Similar legislation was introduced in 2008 in several states proposing mandatory tagging and registration of ammunition. It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law; nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and paramilitary training activities among rightwing extremists.

Open source reporting of wartime ammunition shortages has likely spurred rightwing extremists—as well as law-abiding Americans—to make bulk purchases of ammunition. These shortages have increased the cost of ammunition, further exacerbating rightwing extremist paranoia and leading to further stockpiling activity. Both rightwing extremists and law-abiding citizens share a belief that rising crime rates attributed to a slumping economy make the purchase of legitimate firearms a wise move at this time.

Weapons rights and gun-control legislation are likely to be hotly contested subjects of political debate in light of the 2008 Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller in which the Court reaffirmed an individual’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but left open to debate the precise contours of that right. Because debates over constitutional rights are intense, and parties on all sides have deeply held, sincere, but vastly divergent beliefs, violent extremists may attempt to co-opt the debate and use the controversy as a radicalization tool.

Perceived Threat from Rise of Other Countries

Rightwing extremist paranoia of foreign regimes could escalate or be magnified in the event of an economic crisis or military confrontation, harkening back to the “New World Order” conspiracy theories of the 1990s. The dissolution of Communist countries in Eastern Europe and the end of the Soviet Union in the 1990s led some rightwing extremists to believe that a “New World Order” would bring about a world government that would usurp the sovereignty of the United States and its Constitution, thus infringing upon their liberty. The dynamics in 2009 are somewhat similar, as other countries, including China, India, and Russia, as well as some smaller, oil-producing states, are experiencing a rise in economic power and influence.

— Fear of Communist regimes and related conspiracy theories characterizing the U.S. Government’s role as either complicit in a foreign invasion or acquiescing as part of a “One World Government” plan inspired extremist members of the militia movement to target government and military facilities in past years.

— Law enforcement in 1996 arrested three rightwing militia members in Battle Creek, Michigan with pipe bombs, automatic weapons, and military.

Lone Wolves and Small Terrorist Cells

DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States. Information from law enforcement and nongovernmental organizations indicates lone wolves and small terrorist cells have shown intent—and, in some cases, the capability—to commit violent acts.

— DHS/I&A has concluded that white supremacist lone wolves pose the most significant domestic terrorist threat because of their low profile and autonomy—separate from any formalized group—which hampers warning efforts.

— Similarly, recent state and municipal law enforcement reporting has warned of the dangers of rightwing extremists embracing the tactics of “leaderless resistance” and of lone wolves carrying out acts of violence.

— Arrests in the past several years of radical militia members in Alabama, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania on firearms, explosives, and other related violations indicates the emergence of small, well-armed extremist groups in some rural areas.

— Law enforcement in 1996 arrested three rightwing militia members in Battle Creek, Michigan with pipe bombs, automatic weapons, and military ordnance that they planned to use in attacks on nearby military and federal facilities and infrastructure targets.

— Rightwing extremist views bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and have recently focused on themes such as the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India, Russia’s control of energy resources and use of these to pressure other countries, and China’s investment in U.S. real estate and corporations as a part of subversion strategy.

Disgruntled Military Veterans

DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. 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.

— After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups.

— A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”

— The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.

Outlook

DHS/I&A assesses that the combination of environmental factors that echo the 1990s, including heightened interest in legislation for tighter firearms restrictions and returning military veterans, as well as several new trends, including an uncertain economy and a perceived rising influence of other countries, may be invigorating rightwing extremist activity, specifically the white supremacist and militia movements. To the extent that these factors persist, rightwing extremism is likely to grow in strength.

Unlike the earlier period, the advent of the Internet and other information-age technologies since the 1990s has given domestic extremists greater access to information related to bomb-making, weapons training, and tactics, as well as targeting of individuals, organizations, and facilities, potentially making extremist individuals and groups more dangerous and the consequences of their violence more severe. New technologies also permit domestic extremists to send and receive encrypted communications and to network with other extremists throughout the country and abroad, making it much more difficult for law enforcement to deter, prevent, or preempt a violent extremist attack.

A number of law enforcement actions and external factors were effective in limiting the militia movement during the 1990s and could be utilized in today’s climate.

— Following the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, the militia movement declined in total membership and in the number of organized groups because many members distanced themselves from the movement as a result of the intense scrutiny militias received after the bombing.

— Militia membership continued to decline after the turn of the millennium as a result of law enforcement disruptions of multiple terrorist plots linked to violent rightwing extremists, new legislation banning paramilitary training, and militia frustration that the “revolution” never materialized.

— Although the U.S. economy experienced a significant recovery and many perceived a concomitant rise in U.S. standing in the world, white supremacist groups continued to experience slight growth.

DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization.

Reporting Notice:

DHS encourages recipients of this document to report information concerning suspicious or criminal activity to DHS and the FBI. The DHS National Operations Center (NOC) can be reached by telephone at 202-282-9685 or by e-mail at NOC.Fusion@dhs.gov. For information affecting the private sector and critical infrastructure, contact the National Infrastructure Coordinating Center (NICC), a sub-element of the NOC. The NICC can be reached by telephone at 202-282-9201 or by e-mail at NICC@dhs.gov. The FBI regional phone numbers can be found online at http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/fo.htm. When available, each report submitted should include the date, time, location, type of activity, number of people and type of equipment used for the activity, the name of the submitting company or organization, and a designated point of contact.

For comments or questions related to the content or dissemination of this document, please contact the DHS/I&A Production Branch at IA.PM@hq.dhs.gov, IA.PM@dhs.sgov.gov, or IA.PM@dhs.ic.gov.

Tracked by: CRIM-040300-01-05, CRIM-040400-01-05, TERR-010000-01-05

Stand Against Tea Party Hatriotism and Bigotry

2010-03-25T12:45:00.000-04:00

Oppose those who use or excuse vandalism and violence in the name of advancing a particular political belief (the very definition of terrorism, as far as I'm concerned...). Cutting gas lines and tossing bricks? For all their whining about it aways back, these (the violent ones, not the teabaggers as a whole, or even the subset of hatriots shown in the video above) are the proud right wing extremists Bush's office of Homeland Security warned us about over a year ago.

By and large, Americans are better than all of this. Just say no to the violence, the vandalism, and to the political/social/ethnic/racial/sexist/religious bigotry some choose to engage in out in public. Don't let assholes like these dominate the message or the story that is America.

Using the Word "Gay" as Pejorative? TISWWT!!

2010-02-17T13:16:00.001-05:00

"And I didn't know this about "Homosapien," from Wikipedia, "It was banned by the BBC for explicit reference to gay sex, e.g. the words "homo superior / in my interior." Banned songs? Not so good. Besides, I just liked the beat, LOL!

James B. Webb's no doubt hip to it. He's got the knowledge. NTTAWWT!!" -
- American Power: The Buzzcocks, The Damned to Play the O.C.'s 'MusInk' Festival

Donald: Calling or intimating that a man is "gay" in an effort to insult him does little more that show you to be insensitive at best, and more likely, a straight up bigot. And contrary to what you seem to believe, given the frequency with which you make these gay/sissy/??? references about those with whom you disagree, There Is Something Wrong With That!!

And why, you may ask, is James B. Webb "gay," according to Donald Douglas? For those who weren't there or don't remember, here is Donald's "guilt by association, by association" meme:
James Webb's blog contains a link to the homepage of The Out Campaign, a site whose mission it is to increase atheist visibility, on which there is a link to their blogroll, a list containing 1290 blogs. Number fifty-two on the list is Alexander The Gay's blog, and is thus according to Donald's theory, JBW's gay lover, and the illegitimate stepson of everyone on JBW'S blogroll... ...or something. (link to an earlier rendition of the same old story.)

Dr. Douglas, just so you know, TSWW guilt by association, too!!

Consider treating people with more respect, and perhaps being more intellectually honest, as well. Don't forget that American Power and Brain Rage' are listed together on MY blogroll... ...so you may want to be sure that none of "teh gay" from Alex's site on the blogroll of the Out website listed on James' site, which is in turn listed on my blogroll somewhere near your site, got on ya... I mean, who'd want THAT?

Using the victims of Amy Bishop's workplace rampage: Is there any line that far right bloggers won't cross, to try to score political points?

2010-02-17T02:21:00.010-05:00

American Power: Amy Bishop Leftist Hate Politics or Amy Bishop Leftist Hate Politics | Right Wing News

"It turns out just writing about the murdering proclivities of radical Obama-backing Harvard professors gets some folks on the radical left pretty angry."

Sorry no, Donald, that isn't it at all... Plenty of bloggers all across the political spectrum are discussing the case... ...but only a select few--all far right reactionaries, from what I've seen--are actively trying to turn a workplace shooting by a sick individual into something political... and now, racist.

"Comrade Repsac3, Commissar of State Security, People's Commissariat for Internet Affairs, who I thought put his Donald-demonology to bed, must have instead been lurking in the shadows, waiting for a chance to pounce. Here's his post, "Why Donald Douglas is a scumbag." Yeah, noticing that a Harvard scientist who murders her faculty collegues for failing tenure will engender some emotions like that from folks."

Again, it's the politics, stupid. While Donald offered nothing but one or two "RateMyProfessor" posts as evidence--(the same kind of "RateMyProfessor" posts that he admits below are "mostly disgruntled students getting their revenge," and yet are trustworthy enough to base a few posts on, when he can find one or two that support his chosen meme.) he implied in his initial post on the subject that Amy Bishop killed these people because she was a liberal. And yes, attempting to connect the murder of three people (and attempted murder of several others) to the woman's politics WHEN THERE'S NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THERE'S ANY SUCH LINK, just to try to score political points for "your" team, makes one a scumbag... or at the very least, a sad, sick, desperate individual. If one don't want to be looked on as a scumbag, one ought not act like a scumbag, I guess... Beyond that, there's little I can offer the guy...

And recall that Comrade Repsac3 attracts some of the most bestial commenters on the web. Here's this from "The Original" (an attack monkey), who invested in a little hate-research over at RateMyProfessors:

Why, Professor Douglas!! I thought the whole "attack monkey" thing was raaaasccccist... or is that one of those things that only you, Barack, and Hallie, as Halfrican Americans, can say without getting into trouble. (Jebus, it's so hard to keep up with the guy's ever-changing standards.)

What do you think Donald calls the "studies" he did at RateMyProfessor.com... Surely that wasn't "hate-research," was it? Because it's always different when Donald does it... (The king of "OK for me, but not for thee", he is.)

--- snippage of The Original's theory that Donald pads his RateMyProfessor.com ratings with dummy reviews. I wouldn't put it past the guy--he has got quite the ego, and goes to great lengths to defend himself when it gets bruised--but I have no evidence of his doing so, and it's beyond the scope of this post, besides. ---

Folks can follow Comrade Repsac3's links to RateMyProfessors to confirm The Original's suspicions. I don't read my evaluations, frankly. It's mostly disgruntled students getting their revenge. But Comrade Repsac gets his jollies over there, which helps kindle his warped hatred -- which is all he's got.

To be fair, what I actually did was comb through some of Donald's reviews and pick a few that supported my hypothesis that Donald's political bias affects his classroom performance--which is the same thing Donald did (or perhaps it was one of his fellow reactionaries--I have no proof that Donald did the combing, personally, though the effect is the same, since he used what that reactionary found in exactly the same way, regardless). One former student said Amy Bishop was "a liberal from "Hahvahd", and that was enough for Donald to write a post implying that liberalism played some part in the tragedy (so suck on that all you von Brunn/Roeder -accusing nihilists!! Liberals kill, too!).

Anyway, I got a little additional attention for pointing out that leftists only politicize murders from which they can tar Republicans as evil racists. That explains the title of my post, "American Power: Amy Bishop Killed Minorities: Leftists Silent on 'Racist' Rampage; Victims' Families Ask, 'Why Was She Still Teaching?''"

Can Donald Douglas be more oblivious to the irony of some of the things he says?

It is true that liberal bloggers will always be more likely to post about a conservative ideology-inspired crime, and conservatives will always be more likely to point out the crimes inspired by liberal ideology. "Family values" conservative sex scandals. Liberal bigotry. Anti-choice wacko who kills an abortion provider while the doctor is in church, with his family. Eco-terrorism.

But that isn't what this is about. Amy Bishop isn't the liberal equivalent of Scott Roeder. He killed in pursuit of his extremist understanding of socially conservative principles. She killed--as far as we know, anyway--because she believed that she deserved tenure, and if she didn't get it, screw 'em all!! (Maybe a clearer picture of her motivation will emerge, eventually.) I agree that it wasn't the denial of tenure that was to blame--any more than being opposed to abortion was to blame for Scott Roeder's crime--but some kind of sociopathy or insanity within her.

Donald is doing nothing if not being a "rightist" politicizing a set of murders with which he can tar liberals as being similarly evil... ...and racists... ...and hypocrites, taboot. In short, he's doing the very thing he's railing about liberals doing. And he refuses to see it, no matter how often or how clearly it's pointed out to him.

And Donald, one more thing. It's not racist (or bigoted) to kill minorities. It's racist (bigoted) to kill minorities BECAUSE they're minorities. BIG difference. So unless you have any evidence that she was targeting the minorities, you're talkin' out of your ass, with the fervent hope that some of THIS shit will stick to the proverbial "Blame liberals" wall. Fat chance.

Uber-hypocrite Steve M., who gets my name wrong while attacking me, responds to the race questions:

That the guy got Donald Douglas' name wrong has little bearing on the veracity of his reply. (If there were no brain farts & typos, Donald would have to invent them, because they seem to make up the majority of his "tactical elan." Maybe as far as Steve is concerned, Don looks like a David. Maybe Steve knows a guy named David Douglas, and just typed it, too busy paying attention to the substance of his reply--you know, the subject at hand. Whatever the reason, everyone reading what Steve wrote--including Donald--knew who Steve was referring to, and Donald's "woe is me, he got my name wrong" is a cheap distraction from the fact that Donald never bothers to explain WHY he believes Steve is a hypocrite, or provide EVIDENCE to that effect. It's an attempt at the fine art of distraction, but Donald is a crappy magician.

You know what? I have no freaking idea whether there was a racial motive in these killings. I know that, when you dig into the past, the intended pipe-bomb victim was white, and Bishop's brother was white. Maybe David Douglas has an explanation for how those crimes, if she's guilty of them, fits his new theory of racism. Maybe back then she was trying to eliminate the white race, one whitey every few years, as a revolutionary act. I sure hope he tells us. He has such insight into the criminal mind -- I'm dying to know."

Okay, dying to know?

Then I'll just direct little Stevie over to Dag Blog's entry, "Not About Tenure. Seriously" (with emphasis added):

OK... So Donald, by virtue of quoting another person at another blog, is about to explain how Amy Bishop's alleged crimes--including the shooting of her white brother and the attempted bombing of a white professor at Harvard--fit Donald's theory of racism as motive.

Friday, at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, a biology professor named Amy Bishop murdered three of her colleagues and wounded three others. Two of the people she wounded are still in critical condition, and I offer my sincere hopes for their complete and swift recovery. The murderer had been denied tenure in the department, and media coverage has centered on the question of tenure. Tenure, that strange and exotic academic rite, is obviously the hook for this story, and the resulting coverage is appalling.

The New York Times headline for their story today (which doesn't deserve a link) is "At an Academic Pressure Cooker, a Setback Turns Deadly, Official Say." There's something appalling about the passive construction in that sentence, as if it's the "setback" that did the killing. But the story, with its emphasis on "the pressure-cooker world of academic startups" is worse. It also undermines its own angle: the killer's potentially lucrative biotech startup was going well. Meanwhile, Inside Higher Ed fautously links to an old article about faculty who have minor breakdowns after being turned down for tenure, as if one could compare a shouting incident or a distarught person climbing up an ivy trellis with cold-blooded murder. (No link for you either, IHD.) The general thrust of the coverage is that the tenure process is so painful and stressful that an otherwise normal person might snap and become violent.

Let me just say, as someone going through the tenure process: bullshit.

On the other hand, the media has had no interest at all in the question of race, although Bishop shot almost every non-white faculty member in the department. (She also shot and wounded two white victims, a professor and a staff member.) She killed both African-American professors in the department (one of whom was too junior to have had anything to do with Bishop's tenure decision). She killed the department chair, who was ethnically South Asian. A Latino faculty member was wounded. There may only be two non-white faculty left in the department. Whether she intended it or not, Amy Bishop effected a racial purge of the Alabama Huntsville biology department. But the press isn't interested in asking whether or not she intended it. Perhaps the question isn't exotic enough.

These murders are not about tenure. They are about Amy Bishop's moral failings. Those failings might or might not include racism. But a person who responds to a career setback by cold-bloodedly murdering three people, and attempting to kill three more, is not the victim of a difficult process. Amy Bishop is a horribly defective human being. Whatever complaints she may have had a week ago, she has forfeited any right to make them.

There you have it. According to Donald, this crime was (or at least might've been) motivated by racism because non-white people died. And when non-white people die, racism's to blame. (Don Douglas, as Al Sharpton.) But what of the question Steve asked Donald, about Amy's alleged white victims? You know, the one Donald was supposed to be using this quote to answer?

Donald?

Mr Douglas?

Al?

Not a creature stirring, not even a mouse...

I'm telling you, Donald is a piss poor magician.

Jesus Christ!

Seriously. A "racial purge" of the entire Huntsville department! That's what I'm talkin' about!

But the silence on the left is splitting eardrums nationwide. You just can't talk about this stuff! A white Harvard leftist opens fire on a room full of minority professors and students. And we should just STFU and not politicize it? Okay. Sure. Those leftists sure got me beat in the moral equivalence department.

As usual, Donald's "STFU" link doesn't actually show anyone telling Donald to STFU. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was Donald himself who issued the only STFU in this debate, saying "Might I suggest that the dude just STFU, since he's obviously eating big crow at this point." Facts can be such stubborn things...

The fact is, killing non-white folks is murder, but it's not in and of itself racist. Killing non-white folks is only racist if they're killed BECAUSE they're not white. And no matter how much Donald spins & twists, there's no evidence of that.

To whatever extent there was a "racial purge" of the biology department at Huntsville, it's because that was the makeup of the biology department at Huntsville. If the professors had primarily been men, it would've been a "sexist purge." If the majority of the professors had been lefthanded, Donald might call it a "southpaw purge."

In spite of Donald's implications, no one--not even Donald--is saying that Amy Bishop chose to fire at the people who were not white first. All the reports I've read--including ones posted (& thus presumably read and understood) by Donald at American Power--say she simply chose the person next to her, and then the person next to him, and so on, in order, without regard for who they were individually.

The only reason minorities were shot is same reason that only biology professors were shot. They were the people in the room at the time. If one of the professors had brought his spouse from the PoliSci department to the meeting, there's a good chance that a PoliSci professor might've been shot (or shot at), as well. In fact, one gets the impression that Bishop was anything but discriminatory in choosing her victims. If she was picking and choosing only those who her warped mind was telling her deserved killing--whether it was the non-white folks, the men, the professors with the most seniority or power over tenure decisions, or the ones who were wearing brown shoes--the number of injured & dead might be lower.

As several of us keep saying to Donald & his reactionary friends, it is not ok to cry out "liberal extremist" or "racist" when there is zero evidence in support of those things as motives or contributing factors. Politicizing the murders of three people for partisan gain is repugnant, and the people who would sink so low as to do so deserve to be called out. I stand by what I said at the outset; Donald Douglas' willingness to make the deaths of these three professor's into some ploy for partisan advantage is just one of the things that makes me believe he is a real scumbag at heart. Good men just don't do that sort of thing.

---------
Relevant links:
American Nihilist: Why Donald Douglas is a scumbag
American Nihilist: American Power Scumbag Doubles Down
No More Mister Nice Blog
Amy Bishop…(The Sanity Inspector)
It’s liberal racism: Right wing still deperately trying to connect murderer Amy Bishop’s politics to shooting � thump and whip
The Mahablog � Why Sarah Palin Is a Goddess
(Lotta needless and speculative commentary by the author at this one, but she aggregates more of the straight news pieces on the case than anyone else I've seen): University Diaries � amy bishop
Not About Tenure. Seriously. | dagblog.com
‘Oddball’ portrait of Amy Bishop emerges - BostonHerald.com

Conversation with Andrew Breitbart about the ACORN tapes

2010-02-12T17:24:00.001-05:00

It all started with the following tweet:

andrewbreitbart: : "OPEN OFFER STILL OPEN: Harshbarger, Soros, Podesta & @ericboehlert still refuse to watch FULL-UNEDITED ACORN tapes with Hannah, James & me."

repsac3: : "@andrewbreitbart How about releasing them to the media as a whole so we ALL can watch them together on our TV screens?"

andrewbreitbart: : "@repsac3 sure! show me the network interest and im game!"

repsac3: : "@andrewbreitbart Are you seriously telling me that no one in the media has asked for the full unedited ACORN tapes?!?" repsac3: : "@andrewbreitbart Cause, speaking as a news consumer, I sure want to see 'em..."

andrewbreitbart: : "@repsac3 As a 'news consumer' U should enjoy: FULL AUDIO & FULL TRANSCRIPT (Except Philly, per lawsuit): http://biggovernment.com/acorn/"

ACORN Video Investigation Resources
Baltimore: Exclusive Story | Full Audio | Full Transcript
DC: Exclusive Story | Full Audio | Full Transcript
New York: Exclusive Story | Full Audio | Full Transcript
San Bernardino: Exclusive Story| Full Audio | Full Transcript
San Diego: Exclusive Story | Full Audio and Transcript, Part I | Full Audio and Transcript, Part II
Philadelphia: Exclusive Story
Los Angeles: Exclusive Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV | Full Lavelle Stewart Audio and Transcript

(Note that there are no FULL VIDEO links, where we can watch lips move and take note of everyone's non-verbal cues.)

repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart Interesting, but they aren't the full tapes, Andrew. Media Matters has been asking since 9/09 http://bit.ly/bw0ob8"

As questions mount, Media Matters calls for ALL unedited ACORN footage to be released

Washington, D.C. -- Today, in light of mounting questions challenging the credibility and the legality of the ACORN surveillance videos, Media Matters for America calls on Andrew Breitbart to release the full, unedited, and unauthorized footage shot at various ACORN locations across the country -- including locations where the two filmmakers may have been rebuffed. ACORN has said that the surveillance effort failed in "at least seven other locations," including Philadelphia, where ACORN filed a police report against James O'Keefe, and the ACORN worker says that she asked him to leave.

"Given the increasing number of questions about the credibility of these tapes and the people behind them, there is no reason that anyone should accept this footage at face value," said Eric Burns, President of Media Matters. "Anyone committed to responsible journalism would have already released all the unedited tapes in their entirety."

andrewbreitbart: : "@repsac3 no, those are full tapes. again: those are full unedited tapes. @mmfa is ALWAYS wrong. learn that and you will live a long life."

repsac3: : "@andrewbreitbart Where is the full video? Where are the tapes where James & Hannah didn't get the goods?" repsac3: : "@andrewbreitbart I want to see more lips mouthing the words I hear... ...and they exist."

andrewbreitbart: : "@repsac3 we showed the ONE LA video with Felis Harris. He didnt kick them out. But didnt help. THAT WAS IT."

repsac3: : "@andrewbreitbart Are you saying that only one ACORN office rebuffed them? There were NO other tapes/locations that have not been released?" repsac3: : "@andrewbreitbart (and that still doesn't speak to full unedited video tapes.)"

andrewbreitbart: : "@repsac3 yes, that is what i am saying. only felix harris in one of the LA offices rebuffed them. ONE. deal with it." andrewbreitbart: "@repsac3 said will play fullvideo in front of soros, podesta, @ericboehlert. offered full audio, transcripts. what r u expecting to change?"

repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart If it's true, I can deal with it. But I know ACORN just as vehemently says there were others..." repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart ...and neither of you is offering more than your own words. Both of you have biases, so I have reason to doubt you both."

(And apparently, only one of you has video tapes.)
((I think my second tweet above crossed @andrewbreitbart's tweet below, which explains why he asks me for proof "after" I say neither ACORN or he is offering anything more than their own claims.))

andrewbreitbart: "@repsac3 they are liars. and have been proven to be so time and time again. what offices repelled them? show us these heroic employees!" andrewbreitbart: "@repsac3 here's your SINGULAR HEROIC ACORN employee: http://tinyurl.com/y89zw3z"

repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart If you can play the full videos for them, you can play them for the rest of us, in public." (replying to "@repsac3 said will play fullvideo in front of soros, podesta, @ericboehlert. offered full audio, transcripts. what r u expecting to change?", a few tweets above.)

andrewbreitbart: "@repsac3 yes, would insist that FULL VIDEO showing w SOROS, PODESTA and EARACHE BOEHLERT was done for public. Would be awesome!"

repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart I'm with you, then. Full, unedited videos, start to finish... though I suspect the best you'll get is @ericboehlert."

andrewbreitbart: "@repsac3 PUBLIC! TELEVISED! Q&A AFTER! And Hannah, James & my interrogators there to have to answer for their lies."

repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart I'm with ya, Breitbart. I want EVERYONE to answer for whatever appears." repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart I still say they should've been released from the beginning, though... ...and without meeting demands in return." repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart (Hell, I'd also include the ACORN workers who appear in the videos, if they wish to appear.)"
repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart I just hope you won't use the fact that Soros is as unlikely to appear as Melon-Scaife would've been in his time..." repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart ...to refuse to do this, should the others agree..."

(After 10-15 minutes)

repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart The bottom line is, I'm all for the circus,but the circus isn't necessary for you to release the full unedited ACORN tapes" repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart In fact, if this was about truth, you would've released the full unedited tapes when the story broke."
repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart That said, thanks for taking the time to speak with me... Far too rare to have folks in any kinda media replying to 'us.'"

andrewbreitbart: "@repsac3 you're welcome."
------------

Now, I don't particularly like the guy, nor do I trust him, but I did think it was pretty cool that he discussed it with me.

The most interesting things to me were where he claimed the media has no interest in the full, unedited tapes (I somehow doubt that, though so far, the only folks I've been able to quote specifically ASKING for them are Media Matters. I will keep looking, however...), and the dispute over how many unsuccessful tapes the Mac Daddy, Hannah & Breitbart actually have (or had.) Andrew claims--without proof--that there was only one. ACORN claims--also without proof--that there were at least seven. I don't really trust either of 'em--they both have reason to lie--but hopefully the unvarnished and undisputable truth will come out, somehow...

SCrOTUS Flag and Pledge

2010-02-01T06:00:00.001-05:00

Stupid's Pledge

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

Dept. of It Takes One To Know One

2010-01-28T21:24:00.005-05:00

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

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

2010-01-23T05:11:00.007-05:00

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

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

2010-01-20T02:41:00.004-05:00

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

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

2010-01-13T14:24:00.002-05:00

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.

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

2009-12-24T09:06:00.002-05:00

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>)

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

2009-11-14T09:24:00.003-05:00

(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!

The Stupak "Coathanger Amendment" Democrats

2009-11-07T23:09:00.001-05:00

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.

Could it be more simple?

2009-10-25T11:41:00.001-04:00

This Modern World - Then and Now

2009-09-12T02:33:00.003-04:00

(Click to further embiggen)

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

2009-08-12T12:43:00.002-04:00

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

2009-08-12T05:55:00.003-04:00

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...)

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

2009-08-08T13:12:00.002-04:00

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

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

2009-08-07T12:24:00.000-04:00

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.

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

2009-08-04T07:24:00.003-04:00

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

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

2009-08-03T01:26:00.000-04:00

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

The Post- Beerestroika Caption Contest

2009-08-01T12:24:00.001-04:00

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

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

2009-07-31T17:24:00.005-04:00

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.)"

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

2009-06-30T14:00:00.001-04:00

"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

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

2009-06-24T21:24:00.006-04:00

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

2009-06-24T15:17:00.003-04:00

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...

2009-06-24T09:31:00.006-04:00

"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)

Olive Garden Says It Did Not Cancel Ads on Letterman Show

2009-06-19T13:51:00.005-04:00

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...)

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

2009-06-18T16:59:00.006-04:00

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?

2009-06-18T08:19:00.011-04:00

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.)

Video from the Fire Dave rally

2009-06-17T12:08:00.004-04:00

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

2009-06-17T08:11:00.005-04:00

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...

Sarah Palin Accepts David Letterman's Apology for 'Coarse' Jokes - (Is it finally over?)

2009-06-16T14:12:00.002-04:00

Sarah Palin has accepted comedian David Letterman’s apology made during Monday night’s broadcast of “The Late Show” for crude jokes made about her and her teen daughters last week.

Read the rest of the article HERE, and what others are saying about it at Memorandum

I'm as sympathetic as the next guy. The jokes were crude, rude, and unnecessary. But once he said he was sorry... the first time... that should've been the end of it.

No one was, say, tortured. It wasn't like anyone used a picture depicting the imminent death of a whole lot of innocent Americans to deliver a punchline.

Dave (& really, some writer, more'n'likely) was just foolishly insensitive. It happens, especially when someone is trying to be funny. It wasn't done maliciously, with the intent of hurting anyone or achieving some further political or social end. And, contrary to the rightwing spin, there is nothing to suggest that it was intentionally or knowingly aimed at a 14 year old. (Yep... along with telling a bad Joke, Dave got the facts wrong, and thought the person about whom he was telling the joke was of age. Is it better that the joke was aimed at an 18 year old? Well, only if it's worse that the joke aimed it at a 14 year old, I guess... These things swing both ways...)

The fact is, it was just a really bad, really insensitive, rude, crude, vaguely lewd joke. I hope everyone understands where I'm coming from, and that I'm in no way defending the joke, or the people responsible for it being told.

Now...

Is it finally over? Is our long national nightmare, with every reporter & right wing blogger following Sarah & Dave's every bloody word on the subject, finally ended? Is the campaign of intimidation, which caused one company, Embassy Suites, to buckle under and pull advertising from CBS.com--they never were Letterman Show sponsors in the first place, making their quick fall to their knees even stranger--(& I know where I'm never staying, anymore...) going to end--perhaps with Embassy Suites reversing their decision, after realizing how foolish they now look?

Or are we going to keep milking it for all it's worth, trying to squeeze every last drop of publicity for one's own side, and scorn for the other side out of this silly, stupid story? Palin's gonna need a new reason for people to keep talkin' about her, ya'know... Besides, Letterman still hasn't been fired, yet... ...and I bet he has one more big ol' apology in him, if he really strains for it...

Let us pray that if they must prey, they at least find new victims...

Where was FoxNews?

2009-06-11T13:21:00.003-04:00

"According to TVeyes.com, Fox News last night during primetime (8-11 p.m.) mentioned the words "Holocaust" and "van Brunn" a grand total of three times. For the entire night."

"Falafel" O'Reilly managed to find more to say about gay penguins and duck sex than this shooting...

While both CNN & MSNBC led with the story at 8:01 pm, FoxNews pretended it didn't happen. It was like their own little holocaust (museum) denial, right before the eyes of their numerous elderly viewers...

Either they just didn't care, or they intentionally downplayed the story for reasons that are unclear...

Pretty friggin' odd, though, especially given all that baseless whining about how CNN supposedly didn't cover the recruiter shooting (which they did, of course.)

Anyway... I'm just putting it out there. Speculate at will.

Others talking:
Fox News Boycott: Fox News Limits Reporting on Holocaust Museum Shooting
Fox News downplays the Holocaust Museum killing | Media Matters for America

Maybe we ought to read that Homeland Security report again...

2009-06-11T01:00:00.001-04:00

Rightwing Extremism:
Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment

And just to be clear... This is what they said about veterans:
-----

Disgruntled Military Veterans

DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. 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.

— After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups.

— A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”

— The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.

It doesn't say that veterans are terrorists. It says that right wing extremist groups target returning vets, and that a small number of those vets do become extremists. It is the military training that makes the small number of extremist vets more of an issue to DHS than the small number of extremist accountants or extremist small business owners, not their service.

The wingnut paranoia about this report--and the spineless reaction to it by those career security people, and moreso their political counterparts--was nonsense the first time, but would be unforgivable now, given recent events. If the mainstream right cannot admit that there are extremists and nutjobs lingering at the edges of their ideology, so be it. But that does not mean that those political and career security personnel who take oaths and pay to keep we Americans safe should cover their eyes and ears to rightwing extremism because some of our friends on the right are sensitive to the implications of rightwing violence. Their issues of identity and place should not deter us from defending this country from domestic terrorists, right or left.

Right wing nut Kathy Shaidle tries to link holocaust museum shooter to left wing

2009-06-10T18:48:00.004-04:00

See UPDATE, below

Holocaust Museum shooter von Brunn a 9/11 "truther" who hated "neo-cons", Bush, McCain

Of course, Kathy & those citing her conveniently ignore his "creepy freeper" posts on the conservative site Free Republic, espousing the same "Obama is not a US citizen" birther nonsense as more than a few Republican/conservative loudmouths, talking heads, bloggers, and other assorted nutballs.

Does being a Freeper (or a birther, or a truther, or a hater of Bush, & Obama, & neocons, &/or all folks "not like you") make one a domestic terrorist? of course not. Crazy, perhaps, but not a terrorist. Anyone, right or left, who tries to tell you that a whole political/social/ethnic/religious/??? group is responsible for the actions of one of their nuttiest members is a lying weasel with snake oil to sell. Don't buy into their crap.

Like it or not, James W. von Brunn considered himself a part of the right wing, which is why he posted to Free Republic. From what I can tell, he was far from the typical freeper, but Freeperland is one of the places he supported, whether or not they supported him. (& until I see otherwise, I believe that his fellow freepers did not support anything more than his "birtherisms," & probably knew nothing of the rest...) Kathy Shaidle and those on the far right selling her "von Brunn as left winger nonsense" are just trying to protect themselves from the same guilt by association they so readily offer others. As so often happens with these types, there is nothing behind their baseless accusations, wild speculation, and childish name calling but more of the same empty words...

UPDATE: 6/11/09

So, I was rereading Shaidle's piece just now, and actually followed some of her links.

At one point she says

"As even some "progressives" such as the influential Adbusters magazine publically admit, "neoconservative" is often used as a derogatory code word for "Jews"."

My question is WHERE?

Follow the link for yourself, and see if you can quote the line(s) where Adbuster admits that neoconservative" is often used as a derogatory code word for "Jews". Good luck.

Kathy Shaidle. Not just a rightwing nutjob, but a lying rightwing nutjob.

Mother's Day Proclamation

2009-05-10T09:32:00.001-04:00

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.

(Yes, I did post this last year too, but it remains just as important today as it was a year ago, and as it was when Julia Ward Howe first penned it. For lighter fare, check out my other retread from Mother's days past, Mother’s Day: 5 Things (still) Worth Knowing.

Is it just me...

2009-04-28T00:19:00.000-04:00

...or is holding a politically partisan and divisive protest in DC on the the weekend of 9/11 a really bad idea?

09.12.09 National Taxpayer Protest | The Tea Party Movement Goes to Capitol Hill

Those involved in planning and promoting this--and everyone who attends--should be ashamed of themselves for exploiting the memories of those who were affected by the 9/11 attacks for partisan gain.

The Joan of Arc, and/or Joe the Plumber of the Anti-Gay Marriage Movement

2009-04-25T13:38:00.001-04:00

Ruthlessly stolen from Donald Douglas' friend Andrew Sullivan. I too, love that cat.

Conservatives Live in a Different Moral Universe than Liberals-- And Here's Why It Matters

2009-04-25T10:27:00.003-04:00

Liberals and conservatives have highly different moral priorities. And we have to understand them both if we want to accomplish anything. This article is a good first step. A few excerpts:

In a creative attempt to move beyond red-state/blue-state clichés, Haidt has created a framework that codifies mankind's multiplicity of moralities. His outline is simultaneously startling and reassuring -- startling in its stark depiction of our differences, and reassuring in that it brings welcome clarity to an arena where murkiness of motivation often breeds contention.

He views the demonization that has marred American political debate in recent decades as a massive failure in moral imagination. We assume everyone's ethical compass points in the same direction and label those whose views don't align with our sense of right and wrong as either misguided or evil. In fact, he argues, there are multiple due norths.

Last September, in a widely circulated Internet essay titled Why People Vote Republican, Haidt chastised Democrats who believe blue-collar workers have been duped into voting against their economic interests. In fact, he asserted forcefully, traditionalists are driven to the GOP by moral impulses liberals don't share (which is fine) or understand (which is not).

Four years ago, he recalls, "I wanted to help Democrats press the right buttons because the Republicans were out-messaging them.

"I no longer want to be a part of that effort. What I want to do now is help both sides understand the other, so that policies can be made based on something more than misguided fear of what the other side is up to."

Haidt's framework of political morality can be traced back to a dispute between two important thinkers: Shweder, who would go on to become his mentor, and legendary Harvard psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg. In his 1981 volume The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice (Essays on Moral Development, Volume 1), Kohlberg essentially argued that other moral systems are mere stepping-stones on a path that will eventually lead the entire world to embrace Western humanist values. Reviewing the book for the journal Contemporary Psychology, Shweder politely but effectively tore that notion apart.

Citing his extensive research on traditional Indian culture, Shweder pointed out the inconsistencies and lack of convincing evidence behind Kohlberg's arguments. Agreeing with philosopher Isaiah Berlin, Shweder asserted -- and continues to assert -- that a range of ethical systems have always coexisted and most likely always will. In a 1997 paper co-written with three colleagues, he broke down primal moral impulses into a "big three": autonomy, community and divinity.

"Morality is not just about how we treat each other, as most liberals think," he argues. "It is also about binding groups together and supporting essential institutions."

With all that in mind, Haidt identified five foundational moral impulses. As succinctly defined by Northwestern University's McAdams, they are:

• Harm/care. It is wrong to hurt people; it is good to relieve suffering.

• Fairness/reciprocity. Justice and fairness are good; people have certain rights that need to be upheld in social interactions.

• In-group loyalty. People should be true to their group and be wary of threats from the outside. Allegiance, loyalty and patriotism are virtues; betrayal is bad.

• Authority/respect. People should respect social hierarchy; social order is necessary for human life.

• Purity/sanctity. The body and certain aspects of life are sacred. Cleanliness and health, as well as their derivatives of chastity and piety, are all good. Pollution, contamination and the associated character traits of lust and greed are all bad.

Haidt's research reveals that liberals feel strongly about the first two dimensions -- preventing harm and ensuring fairness -- but often feel little, or even feel negatively, about the other three. Conservatives, on the other hand, are drawn to loyalty, authority and purity, which liberals tend to think of as backward or outdated. People on the right acknowledge the importance of harm prevention and fairness but not with quite the same energy or passion as those on the left.

"I see liberalism and conservatism as opposing principles that work well when in balance," he says, noting that authority needs to be both upheld (as conservatives insist) and challenged (as liberals maintain). "It's a basic design principle: You get better responsiveness if you have two systems pushing against each other. As individuals, we are very bad at finding the flaws in our own arguments. We all have a distorted perception of reality."

In his quest to "help people overcome morally motivated misunderstandings," Haidt has set up a couple of Web sites, www.civilpolitics.org and www.yourmorals.org. At the latter, you can take a quiz that will locate you on his moral map. For fun, you can also answer the questions you think the way your political opposite would respond. Haidt had both liberals and conservatives do just that in the laboratory, and the results are sobering for those on the left: Conservatives understood them a lot better than they understood conservatives.

I suggest reading the whole article, as well as following the links and reading them. It's facinating stuff...

Took that morality quiz, too...
Here are my results:

read more | digg story

The Gathering Storm: Get out the waders, because it's getting deep

2009-04-08T15:11:00.004-04:00

Posted in reply to the recent "National Organization for Marriage" ad opposing same sex marriage (available for view here), this video exposes some of the lies and distortions contained in the original ad.

More info: HRC | Human Rights Campaign Exposes National Organization for Marriage’s Fake Ad for Fake Problems falsely linked to gay marriage

Runnin' Scared: Rightbloggers Angry Iowa is Making Them Get Gay-Married

2009-04-03T16:13:00.005-04:00

Roy Edroso @ Runnin' Scared, New York, Daily News, Village Voice provides roundup and commentary of the early reactions from the wingnut blogs to the Iowa Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. Some of my "favorite bloggers" are included.

The Iowa Supreme Court has unanimously said a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. New York and California have not done so much for the cause of marriage equality.

Let's see how rightbloggers are celebrating -- ooh, they're all gathered in a corner, somberly nursing their drinks.

"One might think Iowa's leadership would let voters decide the issue at the polls," sniffs American Power; adds, "Gird your loins, conservatives!" -- whether for battle or because he's afraid they're get erections, we can't say.

---

Robert Stacy McCain grouses about "an elite that is about to impose its will on the reluctant masses... Notice how the rainbow armband accentuates their brown shirts. Splendid!" The reason they're Nazis, says McCain, is that people used to think being gay is sick -- and if Robert Stacy McCain has anything to say about it, they will again! -- and surely Iowa's founding fathers never "intended to make sodomy... a 'right' of a citizen." He's especially mad at libertarians who, for reasons he can't fathom, support gay marriage: "This entire way of thinking is contrary to the Anglo-American tradition that Hayek praised... The captives in the gulag did not spend their time arguing about gay rights, eh?" Finally, having exhausted his intellectual armament, he quotes Revelations and raves about "infamous anti-Christ, whose name is the mystery number '666.'" The man makes a powerful argument -- for involuntary commitment.

read more | digg story

Lots more reaction from memeorandum

The latest on the Biden hoax: It's the "Whitey Tape" all over again

2009-03-31T17:02:00.002-04:00

The truth is coming out, and just like some previous political hoaxes, it's biting folks in the ass.

Tommy Christopher at Political Machine gets to the heart of the matter, saying: There is No "Ashley Biden Cocaine Tape":

"There are glaringly obvious reasons to believe this thing is a fake. There are clear reasons why this story should never have been reported, and once it had been, why the only appropriate response would be to point that out.

But the fact that has been buried in all of these stories is that the tape, or at least an authenticatable original, does not exist. What does exist cannot be described as an "Ashley Biden" tape of any kind. That should have been the end of it, at least for the New York Post, the only one of the 3 bidders pretending to have journalistic standards"

Of course, that isn't what's happening... Those initially pushing it are either sticking by their guns, or pretending their evil twin, Skippy was the one who made that blog post excoriating Ashley, the VP, and/or all Dems with this story over the weekend.

Meanwhile, here are the facts about this story, from Tommy Christopher's blog post linked above:

* The video shooter's (hereafter referred to as "Deuche Bagilow") attorney told the NY Post that he destroyed the original. He didn't just tape over it with a Jerry Springer episode, he drilled a hole in the camera's hard drive and threw it into a lake. This claim defies credibility. Why would you destroy the original of something you had made a copy of? Well, you might claim to have done that if you didn't want anyone to ask to see the original.
That fact alone ends this. There is absolutely no way to authenticate the tape, so there was no point in having these outlets watch it. Still, let's look at the rest of it.

* Deuche Bagilow also claims he tried to sell another Ashley Biden tape in August, during the heat of the Presidential race, but could find no takers. Either that tape was as convincing as "Nailin' Paylin," or this was a lie designed to give the sellers a fallback reason to accept a lower bid.

* Deuche's lawyers claimed to have turned down a $250,000 offer. Given the preceding claim, this seems unlikely.

* Deuche's lawyers lied to the Post, telling them the subject of the video was aware of the camera. Deuche's former lawyer now cites this as one of the reasons he quit.

* All 3 "firsthand" accounts of viewing the tape bizarrely contradict each other. The Radar reporter said the subject used a rolled-up dollar bill to snort the white powder, while the Post claimed it was a "red straw." The Enquirer reported being there, but then only quoted Radar's reporter, giving no account of their own.

Radar reported the tape as being from a hidden camera, while the Post reported that Deuche's lawyers told them that the subject acknowleges the camera on a different part of the tape.

Radar reported the subject as "clearly resembling" Biden, while the Post said she "appeared to resemble" Biden. The Enquirer wouldn't make any characterization.

* None of the outlets that saw the tape were willing to bid on it, yet happily exploited it despite this.

* Deuche's lawyers claimed that Ashley Biden was under Secret Service protection, but had her dad call them off because they were blocking her driveway.

* Finally, here's a fun fact: Deuche's lawyer was once involved in a lawsuit over the rules of kickball. Seriously.

But this is my favorite part. As I hoped for yesterday, the ass who started this could face jail time himself, because he bought the cocaine, placed the hidden camera, and tried to entrap his "friend." It was all a set-up. Fuck him. Fuck his spiritual sister, Ashley Todd, and fuck Larry Johnson, "No Quarter," and those Republicans and "PUMA"s, all of whom lied, lied, lied in the name of political partisanship. May they all get what they deserve.

Angie Harmon plays the race card

2009-03-31T14:19:00.003-04:00

Who the hell called Angie Harmon a racist for disagreeing with President Obama?

While she intimates that this is some kinda trend in her life, several people have searched high and low, and no one has found a single reference to Angie Harmon and racism--except for the ones she created herself by making this baseless public statement, and of course all of the right wing bloggers (google for many more) who've picked it up and run with it.

I'm not saying there are no Con/Republican or liberal racists. Of course there are, and it is legitimate to say the folks who spread the Obama as monkey meme, or the Watermelon White House gag behave like racists. (For the record, I think the NY Post cartoon was racially insensitive, but not intentionally so... That cartoonist just didn't think it through...) I'm certain there are those on the right who can point to libs saying racist things, or being racially insensitive. And, I'm certain there are some on the opposing team who allege racism where none exists, as well as some who allege racism where little to none is present or intended.

Every criticism of Obama is not racist, and every reply to that criticism isn't an accusation of racism, either... I fear that Angie and her friends on the right are somewhere between being the Cons who cried wolf and the ladies who doth protest too much. Don't allege that it happens; give examples of it happening, and let people judge for themselves where the racism is... ...and isn't.

(And, don't forget about my earlier post suggesting that we not generalize about groups of people based on the acts of a few of 'em. Whether or not Angie Harmon is a racist, it says nothing about all actresses, pretty women, brunettes, or Republicans. And whether or not Al Sharpton calls one/some/any Republicans racists, it says nothing about all reverends, older black guys, black-to-grey-haired folks, or Democrats.)

Also blogging: The Silent Cries Of Racism! Huh? I Can’t Hear Anything., Actress Angie Harmon Claims On Fox News She Is Tired Of Being Called A “Racist” When She Disagrees With President Obama? | THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™, Shakesville: Quote of The Day, memeorandum