Syndicate This BlogQuicksearchCalendar
|
Wednesday, March 24. 2010Another Lesson in Cause and Effect?
Danville and Lynchburg Tea Party activists mistakenly posted the address of Rep. Tom Perriello’s brother online Monday to invite others to “drop by” Perriello’s home in Charlottesville and “express their thanks” for his health care vote… Days after his address was posted online by a Virginia Tea Party activist, the FBI and local law enforcement officials are investigating a "suspicious incident" at the home of Rep. Tom Perriello's brother. Tuesday, March 23. 2010Violent Words. Violent Acts. It's Not Rocket Science.
Mike Vanderboegh, of Pinson, Ala., former head of the Alabama Constitutional Militia, put out a call on Friday for modern "Sons of Liberty" to break the windows of Democratic Party offices nationwide in opposition to health care reform. Since then, vandals have struck several offices, including the Sedgwick County Democratic Party headquarters in Wichita. 13 Wham.com The call from the right for liberals to “do what we say and you won’t get hurt” has been turned up just a notch. In reaction to the passage of health reform, a right wing blogger named Mike Vanderboegh called on his readers to break the windows of Democrats. Shortly afterwards, several Democratic Party offices in different cities were targeted with bricks flung through their windows. Mr. Vanderboegh seems positively exhilarated by the response to his message: "Wake up and understand what is happening in this country. You need to start listening to people who you think you didn't have to pay any attention to, because sooner or later they will get your attention.” Indeed. In fact, someone out there is so hungry for attention that someone phoned in to the office of Louise Slaughter threatening violence against the children of lawmakers who support healthcare reform. Imagine that. A blogger posts a call to vandalism on his blog – and vandalism takes place! It’s as if words typed into the ether actually have some sort of meaning and lead to action in the offline world! Vanderboegh, of course, insists that he’s not promoting “actual violence.” “How ambiguous is it if I say break windows? Am I saying kill people, absolutely not,” he insists. But you see, here’s the thing about blogging -- readers are able to see, not just the message of the blogger but, through the comments section, how that message is processed and interpreted. And looking through the comments posted on Mr. Vanderboegh’s blog does not indicate much reluctance about upping the ante if smashing windows doesn’t work. Here are a few of the comments posted by his fans in reaction to what he calls “the window war.” I should point out that the number of comments on his blog are not high, and these were not at all difficult to find: “Hmmm, no demopub office here, far as I know. I'll think of something...” But hey, this is all just a bunch of blog commenters right? It couldn’t possibly have an impact in the real world. It's all just posted to upset liberals. Right? Well, it has had an impact in the real world. Strange as it may seem to many people, those supposedly “meaningless” comments sections on a blog (and a small comments section at that) actually reflect the views of human beings who exist outside of the Internet and are capable of acting in the offline world. Literal people, not virtual people, who are capable of reading Mr. Vanderboegh's blog, literally hefting a literal brick, and literally hurling it through a literal window. Tuesday, February 23. 2010AbortionS?
At the press conference, the Rev. Joe Ellison, vice president of the Council on Biblical Principles, said that when he was in college, he paid for girlfriends to get abortions. He said he still feels guilty about that today. www.wtop.com 2/22/10 This is an excerpt from a story on the kerfuffle surrounding Republican Bob Marshall’s comment about disabled children being God’s punishment for abortions. That was weird enough, but this passage, with its plurals, really caught my eye. He had to pay for abortionS? He said that? Friday, February 12. 2010I Guess This is What They're Telling Themselves
"It's like you're their psychiatrist but you don't charge them. They just want to get this stuff off their chest to you so they can vent. So just let them do it," Ryan explained later, paraphrasing the advice his wife, Janna, once gave him about handling what Ryan called "comments in frustration." Rising young Republican Representative Paul Ryan, explaining last spring why he lets remarks from constituents that Obama is “out to destroy this country” go by without comment or correction. Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinal The Massachusetts man charged this week for stockpiling weapons after saying he feared an imminent "Armageddon" appears to have been active in the Tea Party movement, and saw Sarah Palin, who he said is on a "righteous 'Mission from God,'" as the only figure capable of averting the destruction of society. Talking Points Memo 1/12/10 On Tuesday, 45-year-old technology consultant Gregory Girard was arrested for a cache of weapons in his home that included “guns, explosives, military camouflage clothing, knives,” and a couple of pairs of handcuffs. Apparently, he was convinced that martial law was imminent. His wife, a psychiatrist, had quoted him as saying “"Don't talk to people, shoot them instead," and "It's fine to shoot people in the head because traitors deserve it." And oh, by the way. Girard is a fan a Sarah Palin and the tea party movement. Anyone surprised? Yes, yes, I know. Paranoids come in every political flavor. The likelihood, however, of potentially dangerous crackpots like Mr. Girard graduating from “comments of frustration” to gestures of “frustration” like stockpiling explosives does increase when you have prominent public figures countenancing and sometimes even stoking irrational fears like “The president is trying to destroy our country.” I’m relieved that Girard’s wife – an actual mental health professional instead of a politician pretending to himself that he is one -- didn’t just dismiss her husband’s remark about shooting people as a “comment in frustration.” Tuesday, January 12. 2010Meanwhile, In Tallahassee...
Burton was in her 25th week of pregnancy in March 2009 when she started showing signs of miscarrying. Her doctor advised her to go on bed rest, possibly for as long as 15 weeks, but she told him that she had two toddlers to care for and a job to keep. She planned on getting a second opinion, but the doctor alerted the state, which then asked the Circuit Court of Leon County to step in… New York Times Parenting Blogs 1/12/10 So while a judge in one state toys with the idea of practically legalizing the premeditated murder of abortion providers, a judge in another has threatened a pregnant women with jail for looking for a second opinion. After three days of what amounted to medical incarceration, Samantha Burton underwent an emergency caesarian to remove the dead fetus. This is the inevitable result of legally treating fetii as “children.” (When Burton asked to switch hospitals, the court ruled that “such a change is not in the child’s best interest…”) Pregnant women are treated as incubators rather than rational adults. We’ve been offered a nasty little glimpse of what the anti-abortion crowd is hoping to inflict on the rest of us. Lisa Belkin brings up the points likely to strike most women reading this story. If it’s all about protecting the fetus, should pregnant women be locked up for drinking wine? Smoking? It’s always interesting to ask anti-abortion people about the practical impact of making abortion a crime akin to infanticide. Would “suspicious” miscarriages be investigated? How? What would be the penalty for a woman who was deemed to have had or attempted an abortion? Would she lose custody of her children? Face prison? Execution? Could we look forward to special maternity hospital/prisons for pregnant women who endangered their “children” by questioning either the practicality or wisdom of their doctors’ directives? Tuesday, December 1. 2009They Want to Do It LEGALLY
A recent Twitter scuffle between Andrew Breitbart and Brad Freidman brings up a trend I’ve noticed among some right wingers over the years. Right Wing blogger Breitbart, announced via Twitter on the story about stolen emails and climate change:, “Capital punishment for Dr James Hansen. Climategate is high treason,” which led to the following exchange:
TheBradBlog | Really, @andrewbreitbart, are your positions so weak you have to make things up, share only certain info w/ readers? Apparently so. Sad. (Which, as Bradblog points out, obviously means “Yes, my positions really are that weak.”) TheBradBlog | @andrewbreitbart said: "@TheBradBlog If ur short on facts, call for murder of opponents. Very impressive! See, Andrew Breitbart isn’t calling for the murder of his opponents on the subject of climate change. He’s calling for their legal execution! Which is completely different! The exchange on Breitbart’s side devolves to the point where Breitbart is shrieking: “Diebold! Diebold! Diebold! Diebold! Diebold! Diebold! Diebold! Diebold! Diebold! Boo!” (I guess it makes sense to Breibart) but that’s actually off my point. This business of right-wingers openly daydreaming about killing their political opponents, and then offering as justification that they would want this killing to be legal after a “fair trial,” has been going on for awhile now, and it bears some examination. The first example of this that comes to mind (via the intrepid Spocko) is back in 2006 when, in San Francisco, KSFO’s Melanie Morgan and “Officer Vic” yakked it up with Ann Coulter over the idea of executing NY Times editor Bill Keller. Unidentified Guy: Earlier in the broadcast we were talking about anyone who is…who is tried for treason should visit Old Sparky…” Morgan complained online about the revulsion that resulted form her “Kill Bill Keller” mantra, pointing out: “I never suggested murdering Bill Keller of the NY Times or anyone else. Period. Look up the definition of murder.” No, see, what she said was that "If he were to be tried and convicted of treason, yes, I would have no problem with him being sent to the gas chamber.” “Treason” being publicizing information about an antiterrorist data-mining program that President Bush had already publicly described. This, “I’d like to kill them legally rationale was fairly frequent during the Bush years. Potential figures lining up for the gas chamber/Old Sparky/The guillotine in the minds of various right wingers included Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, anyone in Code Pink, and pretty much anyone who actively demonstrated against the war. It’s still thriving at rightwing sites like Free Republic, where posters edge – just barely – around the strictures against openly calling for the president’s assassination by calling instead for his impeachment and execution. The fact that they consider the “legal” bit a game-changing “clarification” is creepily revealing. Instead of saying, “I spoke too impulsively because I’m so angry, and I don’t literally mean I’d like to kill you” they attempt to dignify their wish to destroy opponents by framing it as a policy suggestion. “I’d like it to be LEGAL to electrocute/shoot/hang/etc. you.” They apparently long for a society in which to voice disagreement with them publicly is to risk arrest, trial, and execution. Saturday, November 28. 2009The Evil of Banality, Revisited
In his latest Newsweek column, Jon Meacham has offered us all a charming nosegay of conservative middle-brow clichés. This kind of drek is so fuzzily written, and relies so heavily on posturing rather than reason (you can almost see Meacham furrowing his brow and pursing his lips slightly as he types) that it’s easy to miss the nastiness it’s intended to mask.
I think we should be taking the possibility of a Dick Cheney bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 more seriously, for a run would be good for the Republicans and good for the country. (The sound you just heard in the background was liberal readers spitting out their lattes.) Meacham opens with a proposal of thundering dumbness. The idea is to take the man who, even more than George W. Bush, represented what voters rejected en masse in November 2008, and run him as the next GOP presidential candidate. (The sound you just heard in the background was liberal readers spitting out their lattes.) Here Meacham segues into the notion of this cheeky proposal blowing our leftist minds shocking liberal readers to badly that we are “spitting out [our] lattes,” no doubt all over our Birkenstocks. (This is a treasured, often wistfully invoked image of conservative writers. ”Sure,” the conservative seems to be telling himself “I wear a suit-and-tie, read the National Review and vote Republican, but I’m not one of those stodgy conservatives. It’s liberals who are stodgy and easily shocked. Why, you should have seen the face of that guy from Berkeley I met last December after I devilishly wished him a ‘Merry Christmas’ instead of ‘Happy Holidays.’ He didn’t say anything, but I could tell he was almost choking on the egg nog he was drinking! The wife and I still laugh about it.”) And why would nominating Darth Vader as the GOP candidate be a good idea? Because Cheney is a man of conviction, has a record on which he can be judged... Since this would also qualify David Duke and Charles Manson, we remain firmly in the dark, even after reading this, about why a Cheney candidacy would be desirable “for the GOP and the country.” …and whatever the result, there could be no ambiguity about the will of the people... One of the problems with governance since the election of Bill Clinton has been the resolute refusal of the opposition party (the GOP from 1993 to 2001, the Democrats from 2001 to 2009, and now the GOP again in the Obama years) to concede that the president, by virtue of his victory, has a mandate to take the country in a given direction. Ah yes, the inevitable false equivalence. Here, Meacham is pretending that the ideology-driven obstructionism that has infested the GOP since Newt Gingrich’s Republican Revolution is a malaise that also infects the Democrats and the electorate in general. We’re being asked to believe that the Democratic reaction to a close election that was “settled” by the Supreme Court appointing George W. Bush after several thousand legal voters in Florida were disenfranchised and a vote count was halted, is the same as the Tea-Partier’s claiming that President Obama is a secret Muslim/Marxist who was born in Kenya. But here’s the money quote: A Cheney victory would mean that America preferred a vigorous unilateralism to President Obama's unapologetic multilateralism, and vice versa. “Vigorous unilateralism,” of course, means the assumption that the United States can do anything it damned well wants, including torture, kidnapping, bombing, and in general using International Law as toilet paper… but Meacham knows his idea wouldn’t sound as good if he said so. Better to mask it with an upbeat term like “vigorous unilateralism,” which sounds manly instead of revoltingly unprincipled. The reality lying behind the euphemism of “vigorous unilateralism” is what defines the cynicism of this article. Meacham is someone who considers torture and other forms of brutality not crimes, but issues upon which intelligent and moral people can disagree. It’s that bland, pseudo-intelligent lack of moral comprehension that leads him to imagine that Cheney as a national presidential candidate would be “good” for either his party and his country. Jon Meacham wants this country to hold a referendum on whether or not common decency is worthwhile. Monday, November 9. 2009Whodathunkit Again
An Associated Press investigation found cases in which innocent people have been branded as pedophiles after their co-workers or loved ones stumbled upon child porn placed on a PC through a virus. It can cost victims hundreds of thousands of dollars to prove their innocence. What’s disturbing about this story is the fact that it’s being presented as if hardly anyone – other than pedophiles looking for an alibi -- has seriously considered this possibility before. A strong whiff of nervous justification runs through it, even from those defending unjustly accused computer users. Phil Malone, of the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard compares the claim that child porn was downloaded by a virus to the “It’s an example of the old `dog ate my homework' excuse,” and observes that “The problem is, sometimes the dog does eat your homework." That’s a rather poor analogy. As a part time teacher I’m skeptical about the old “dog ate my homework wheeze, but not just because I’ve heard it before. I’m skeptical about it because, as an ex-student who did homework and lived in houses that had numerous dogs, I have never seen a pet dog deliberately ingest someone’s homework – or any other kind of paperwork. No doubt it’s happened, but not nearly as often some students would want their teachers to believe. I have more than once, had computers completely bollixed up by viruses. I have also – more than once – found myself the unwilling recipient of pornographic pop-ups, not to mention pornographic emails. It takes no great stretch of the imagination to imagine a lot of nasty, unwanted things – including pornography -- being added to someone’s computer without his or her knowledge. So when I read this AP piece, I’m reminded of all the “whodathunkit!” articles that began coming out in the mid-to-late ‘90s in the wake of McMartin Preschool debacle. Suddenly, it apparently dawned on the media that, yes, children do sometimes tell fibs (or say what they think the adults around them want to hear), and yes, adults can sometimes be mistaken/vindictive/crazy when accusing other adults of worshipping Satan and ritually abusing preschoolers at busy and crowded daycare centers. Suddenly it occurred to the press and various people in law enforcement that the fact that actual child molesters are prone to say, “I’m innocent” does not make saying “I’m innocent” an indication of guilt. And now, we’re beginning to grapple with the fact that a healthy portion of those people who have been reviled as pedophiles, faced death threats, vandalism and ostracism because of images found on their computers, might not actually be pedophiles. Monday, October 26. 2009Who IS That Middle Aged White Guy?
There’s been some talk recently about an ad put out by the LAPD in which various, mostly young, mostly hip looking people of various hues urge Angelenos to spy on their neighbors and report any “suspicious activity.” “I watch my street,” says a long haired rock-musican looking guy. “I watch my city,” says an Asian guy in a business suit. “I watch my community,” says a dark haired, dark-skinned lady with a bindi and a faint accent.
All of this is vaguely troubling, but what truly tips the ad firmly into Orwell territory is when they start taking turns explaining why all this is a good idea. “Because I think it’s important,” says the Cute Young Blonde Keaneish Chick. “A simple observation…” says the Husky Voiced Female Hipster with Dyed Red Hair. “A single report…” says the Lady With the Bindi. “Can lead to actions that can stop a terrorist attack,” says the Cute Young Brown-Haired Keaneish Guy. “Think about that!” says the Husky Voiced Female Hipster with Dyed Red Hair. And suddenly there’s a very tight close-up of a conservative looking middle-aged white guy we haven’t seen before and will not see again, his eyes narrowed, and a little bit of sweat on his upper lip. “Think about the power of that!” he says, cocking one eyebrow at the camera. “Think about the power of Iwatch,” says a Wistful Looking Young Olive Skinned Man with Curly Hair (who frankly, sounds pretty ambivalent about it, as if seeing that Middle-Aged White Guy gloating about “The power” has given him second thoughts.) “I watch…” says the Older Black Guy. “I report…” says the Pretty Young Black Woman. “I keep us safe…” says the Young Black Man, just before the website address for IWatch comes up. The ad closes with several of these Iwatchers giving their “names.” I put the word “names” in quotes, because the Cute Young Blonde Keaneish Chick identifies herself as “Greta Ballard” but looks an awful lot like actress Anna Faris, and the Chubby Nerd who calls himself “Chris Matthews” is apparently a comedian named Michael Busch. The rest who are willing to offer a name only give their first (“Rachel,” “Mona,” “George…”) They do not include the Middle-Aged White Guy. Who was he? Whose idea was it to drop a tight close-up of his face in the middle of this mostly youthful, multicultural mix so abruptly and briefly it almost seems like some sublminal message is being sent? Who decided he should be the one to narrow his eyes at us all and talk about “the power?” Are we supposed to recognize him? Are his initials BB? Wednesday, October 21. 2009Terms of Use: A Critique
There’s been an Internet flurry this week over an online game entitled “2011: Obama’s Coup Fails.” On the surface, it’s a sort of far right wing wet dream in which players pursue, arrest, kill, and in general conduct their own imaginary pogrom against liberals and Democrats. It’s a scenario bolstered by “future” news stories like the one about Ted Nugent attacking a “Congress of Rejected and Neglected Youth had an ACORN planting party“ in which “the children were spared but all others were slaughtered…”
Much has been made about the game creators calling it “satire.” And yes, I was one of those who at first read it as more wish fulfillment than humor. And then I stumbled upon its Terms Of Use. Normally, “Terms of Use “ are pretty dry, but this one reads like a David Sedaris character sketch, one of those oblique, fictional monologues where the narrator unwittingly reveals the most unpleasant aspects of his or her personality to the reader. As such the writing is succinct and effective, conveying much without clunky exposition. Take the paragraph entitled “membership details,” in which the age of the narrator is deftly implied by making being over 18 a touchy subject for him. “To join we have an age minimum of 18,” he explains… …but since this is the internet we cannot actually police who joins and what their actual age is. Especially if you are playing for free. Players who pay $10 a month in dues are considered as 'having identification' just like on every other site on the internet. As if anyone of any age couldn't get a credit card. Having established that the game’s target audience is sulky teenagers who’ve either been given their own credit card or pilfered Dad’s, the narrator suddenly blurts out, “Basically people it is like this: Your government sucks and wants to impose its values and lack of morals on you in any way it can.” We here at the U.S. of E are a more enlightened crowd. As such we think all of these blah blah legal and unenforceable points are just that, blah blah blah. But it does cover our you know whats in case some crusading nut starts a lawsuit when their son or daughter here on the US.of E gets hurled a racial slur. " Mommy he called me White Trash, Wahhhhhh". You get the picture right? Notice how even I was politically correct and didn't use any other racial group as an example. God forbid I used the N- Word and used a real-life scenario. So once again please be 18 years or older so that no one's parents can cry to us about what you are doing here on the site. It is upsetting I know as I've played games younger, but even in America we are all fast becoming slaves to the government and must obey its censorship laws - until one day they are all gone. Let us all hope and pray that mankind will overcome the nonsense we all put up with as of 2009. I sense here the smarting of an old wound, a boy remembering with hot-faced humiliation the time his Mom phoned the parents of one of his Facebook friends after she read a post over his shoulder. The next section is entitled, “Termination of Membership,” which begins…”If members note that you are just insane and a nuisance to all we will take action. Remember you are in OUR world here….” What this means is that some virtual general will call up virtual troops and “eradicate you from the game.” Then the narrator rather defensively adds, “If this doesn’t bother you then go ahead and make our day. We live for such action here.” This is a rather daring bit of writing. On it's own, it could become maudlin and rather clichéd, yet another account of a defenseless kid burying himself in a fantasy world where he can wreak revenge. But we quickly learn our narrator is not entirely helpless. There’s a rather stiff paragraph about how “In our world since we are all 18 and over here” (Of course you are) “we are more libertarian and freedom loving," and then the warning that: If you do any damage of course we have to use every legal means to go after you. If we do trace your I.P. we might send a few people to visit and throw you a beating. OK, not really but you get the point. Don't be a d**k. Unlike other sites we actually love hackers and some of us are from the community. In the U.S. of E we respect the genius types who fit the square pegs in the round holes. Think of us as the kind of people who would cheer Kirk on after the Kobayashi Maru test and give him a medal as opposed to wanting to throw him out of Starfleet. If you don't know what the hell I'm talking about that's cool too. We all can't be Star Trek and Sci-Fi maniacs like many if not most of the founding members of the U.S. of E. Wednesday, September 9. 2009Saxby Chambliss: Atticus Finch He Ain't
I think what you’re looking at is, folks on my side are anxious to see what the president has to say tomorrow night. I think he’s going to have to express some humility based on what we’ve seen around the country during August and that’s not his inclination. Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss on the President’s upcoming speech. Doesn’t that ignorant Yankee* in the White House know what the proper response is from a black man to predominantly white crowds yelling threats and carrying loaded guns? That nawthun boy's jes' too damned uppity! *Note to any outraged southerners preparing to write indignant emails about this post casting presumably unfair aspersions on the south: I’m a southerner born and bred, with ancestors who fought on the wrong side (the pro-slavery side) in the Civil War. I know whereof I speak. Words can't adequately convey the anguish I felt hearing that extra oomph given Chambliss’ words by his beautiful accent. Tip o' the hat to Supergee at Livejournal! Wednesday, September 2. 2009Does Anybody Else Feel Like We’re Living in a Lampoon?
Years ago, San Francisco’s leftist weekly, The SF Bay Guardian, did a parody issue for April Fools’ Day. In addition to a cover story about then-Mayor Art Agnos’ debilitating caffeine addiction, it included a searing expose of those little wads of cotton put in aspirin bottles ostensibly to prevent breakage, but in reality a dastardly right wing PLOT to choke to death unsuspecting, headachey non-English speaking immigrants.
It’s still funny -- but not really in a “ha-ha” way -- when what once would have been an over-the-top joke is presented seriously, not by some fringe group, but by a major political party. The White House has announced that President Obama is going to deliver a national address to students about the need for education. President Obama announced that on September 8 — the first day of school for many children across America — he will deliver a national address directly to students on the importance of education. The President will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning. He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens. Nothing controversial or alarming about this, right? The president is going to talk to students about how education is desirable, and something to be promoted. We can all agree on that, right? Apparently not: Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer today released the following statement condemning President Obama’s use of taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate America’s children to his socialist agenda. And that’s just the first tier level-o’-crazy. You know that when a party chairman describes a talk from the president on the value of education as socialist indoctrination, the next level is going to be… Well, words fail me. Here’s an email that’s now whizzing through the Internet. Keep your kids home September 8th 2009 Parents are urged to snatch their kiddies from the path of this drooling monster bearing down on our public schools with his fly unbuttoned as the “witches” of the NEA cackle evilly. Because, you see, the Prez is going to talk about education. And how it’s good. Someone please tell me this is a joke. Because if it's not, we're all now living in a National Lampoon parody.  Sunday, August 23. 2009Dr. Tiller is Merely "Hyperbolically" Dead
Why should the 1st Amendment protect someone who publicly says that a politician or judge or doctor should be killed? In an unsigned editorial posted yesterday in the LA Times, the writer expresses dismay about the recent prosecution of Hal Turner. Turner, some may remember, is the racist, right-wing blogger who was recently arrested for posting threats to three Chicago judges because the judges in question upheld handgun bans. Naturally, the un-named author makes gagging noises and pinches his or her nose in disgust, describing Turner’s views as “vile” and “odious.” This bit of theater is to show what an upstanding and moral person the writer is, and just how brilliantly the editorial’s clear-minded fairness glows against the nastiness of the person whose “rights” it is defending. And of course, there is the mystic invocation of the word “hyperbole” -- a word we’ve been seeing a lot lately. For the past twenty years, it’s most frequently appeared in opinion pieces about prominent, white, right-wing pundits posting borderline and not-so-borderline threats of violence towards liberals, Muslims, Democrats, etc. (You rarely see the word invoked when the threatener is non-white or leftist. Funny that.) When the word “hyperbole” appears in such editorials, the actual quotes that got the presumed victim of unfair censorship or criticism are almost always fudged slightly so they seem less inflammatory and the reaction to them less reasonable. In this case, the author allows as how “Turner, who last year publicly relished the idea of violence against editors of this newspaper, posted the photos and office addresses of the judges.” In fact, Turner did more even than that: Internet postings on June 2 and 3 proclaimed “outrage” over the June 2, 2009, handgun decision by Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook and Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer, of the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, further stating, among other things: “Let me be the first to say this plainly: These Judges deserve to be killed.” The postings included photographs, phone numbers, work address and room numbers of these judges, along with a photo of the building in which they work and a map of its location. (Emphasis added) Clearly concerned that all of this wasn’t quite explicit enough for the knuckle-draggers who constitute his fans, Turner also referred to the horrific case of a Chicago judge who came home to find her husband and mother murdered and added “Apparently, the 7th U.S. Circuit court didn’t get the hint after those killings. It appears another lesson is needed.” But, of course, including these bits would put the lie to the writer’s insistence that Mr. Turner was merely using “hyperbole” as a means of “communicating outrage about public policies.” It’s fascinating to watch just how far the envelope is being pushed by the right these days. I cannot remember a time when the act of bringing loaded guns to public events, including those attended by the President, was considered defensible. Can you even imagine, just for one moment, what the reaction would have been if the people protesting the Bush administration had shown up brandishing automatic weapons? Or spoke openly of murdering judges and violently overthrowing the Bush administration? Or if a politician had publicly applauded as a “great American” someone who had just referred to himself as a “proud left-wing terrorist?” Heck, during the Bush administration there were cases of people being arrested for wearing the “wrong” t-shirt. What’s changed, I wonder? Why this unprecedented tolerance for threats of violence against not only an administration, but anyone who supports its policies? What’s different about this president? This adminstration? This time? What could it possibly be…? Tuesday, July 28. 2009"You Don't Deserve It."
Jon Stewart: “Are you saying the American public shouldn’t have access to the same quality healthcare that we give t our better citizens…” No, Kristol doesn’t say “to Hell.” He says “buy insurance.” Close enough. Stewart’s emphasis in this discussion is on Kristol’s admission that the government can provide “first class” healthcare. What I find more interesting and more revealing is what this slip-up reveals about the attitude of Kristol and others like him. What drives them is elitism in its ugliest form. They honestly don’t believe that those of us in the middle class deserve good healthcare – unless, of course, we make the extraordinary sacrifice of joining the military and risking our lives. Neo-Cons like Kristol actually like the idea of a system in which healthcare is a privilege doled out to those who have “earned” it, either by wearing a uniform or accruing wealth. The rest of us can go…. Well, we can go buy insurance. If we can afford it. Thursday, April 23. 2009Okay, So, They’ve Bought Up All Those Guns and Ammo...
Now what?
Well, the Ohio militia has this great idea! They want to hold a million man march on DC of militia types, and they’ll all be armed! It’ll be a peaceful demonstration of course. But they’ll have their guns. Just to have them. That’s all. Really. “We need to do something, we need to make a dent, okay?” the narrator intones over a crude, apparently photo-shopped picture of armed men in fatigues running around in front of the White House. "So here’s my idea. We have a one million man, armed, militia man march on Washington. A peaceful demonstration of at least a million — hey, if we can get 10 million, even better — but at least one million armed militia men marching on Washington. A peaceful demonstration. No shooting, no one gets hurt. Just a demonstration. The only difference from any typical demonstration is we will all be armed.” And heavens, why would the authorities issuing permits be troubled by a little “difference” like that? Any educated, rational adult watching this, of course, knows that there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell of these guys being allowed to do this. Unfortunately reason does not seem to be the strong suit of the folks who ‘ve been emptying gun-store shelves because they believe a wild-eyed Commie/Muslim “Kenyan” is in the White House. Take for instance, the current goings on in Stockton California. Would-be militia leader, Alan Pettet has reacted to upcoming layoffs in the Stockton police department, by (he says) organizing about 270 men and women into the “Stockton Armed Miliitia.” Sure it’s legal, he says. “Watch and see. Who's going to stop us?" "Five minutes after we're sworn in,” he’s blithely announced to a reporter, “we oust the mayor and City Council and then we can declare martial law." And they’ve got rifles and arm-bands and everything! No, these guys are never going to fulfill their fantasies of taking over DC or even Stockton California. What’s bothersome is that, in the course of trying to get where they’re never going to get… |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
