Thursday, December 24, 2009

Life is Short...Buy the Shoes: Merry Christmas

In her post titled Merry Christmas, AUDREYBELLA at Life is Short...Buy the Shoes sez:

"I just want to wish a very MERRY CHRISTMAS to each and every one of you. I hope you have a great day and Santa brings you everything you asked for (and then some).

Please have a safe and wonderful day."

With all due respect, I concur completely. Have a very Merry Christmas, everyone!!!

(Blog to "respect" for this message chosen at random from a "Merry Christmas" google search... though I seem to recall the name of the blog from somewhere, and this may not've been my first visit there... If nothing else, the name reminds me of my sis-in-law, and that's good enough for me.)

Saturday, August 1, 2009

Re: OBAMA SECRET SERVICE Pulls Guns On Conservative Tea Party Protesters In Bristol

UPDATE 4/29/10 - Added link to main story at Gateway Pundit, because the links to the individual comments at GP I that I'd included in the post below don't seem to be working, anymore. (The post shows "Comments Off" and "Comments are closed., and I suspect that the first one is responsible for the now dead links.") I guess you'll just have to trust that I faithfully copied and cited the comments in question... ...or don't.: Gateway Pundit: OBAMA SECRET SERVICE Pulls Guns On Conservative Tea Party Protesters In Bristol

Gateway Pundit - 7/30/2009 11:53:00 PM comment:
"It's not normal for the secret service to pull their assault guns on conservative protesters as they drive through town."

Wrong answer, as explained by a few of Gateway's own commenters, very shortly after this silly post hit the net.

Actually, that's the Secret Service Counter Assault Team. They always ride around with the rear window open and their weapons at the ready. Here's one photo:

U.S. Secret Service Counter Assault Team member has his assault weapon at the ready while sitting in the rear of a motorcade SUV as Barack Obama arrives at meeting in the Chicago FBI building.

Here's another:

Tom W. | 07.31.09 - 12:28 am"

"The duty of the Secret Service Counter Assault Team (CAT) is to fight off an assault on the presidential motorcade, delaying the attack while the president's personal protection team whisks him off to safety.

In other words, these men and women are hired specifically to give their lives so that others can save the president. They're amazing people."

Tom W. | 07.31.09 - 12:44 am

"These "hired guns" are the same people who protected Bush. They're total professionals and patriots. To think they're going to open fire on civilians because Obama is angry is an absolute smear and an insult."
Tom W. | 07.31.09 - 1:01 am

"Everyone calm down a little. I work with some of these folks and this is no different than any other event Ihave been at. People are trying to see something that isnt there. We have enough issues to be concerned about without inventing things like this to get spun up about."
Chuk | 07.31.09 - 1:14 am

Of course, some folks just don't bother readin'... American Power: Did Obama's Secret Service Draw Guns on Conservative Protesters? (Why am I not surprised?)

More at memeorandum, including TBogg, who wrote this post first, and wrote it funnier...
UPDATE: Melissa Clouthier @ Right Wing News is apparently afraid "Obama's" Secret Service is going to shoot her, too. Maybe someone should tell her what kinda heros they are... / American Thinker seems not to've read the commentary either, and are keeping the "Secret Service CAT Force as armed folks hostile to REAL Americans protesting" meme alive.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

h/t Twitter / @DivadNhoj1981

Sunday, June 21, 2009

American Power, and the Art of Avoidance, Obfuscation, Prevarication: The Attack on Conor Friedersdorf

Cross-posted from American Nihilist

Let me state at the outset that I really have little to no idea who Conor Friedersdorf is, having read very little that he's written up to now (though from the context of Donald's hit pieces, and the tiny bit of googling and reading elsewhere I did this morning, it appears that Conor is one of those conservatives that chose the red pill, and thus can see those aspects of the right wing matrix that are the most harmful to the conservative cause. This, of course, makes him the target of every Agent Smith in Right Wingnuttia--including of course, our hero, Donald K. Douglas, Ph.D..)

Thus, it isn't my intention to defend Mr. Friedersdorf on the merits of his arguments--indeed, I don't intend to address them much at all--but instead to discuss professor Douglas' tactics in this fight; the same ones he uses in any fight, with any perceived enemy. My text is Donald's most recent screed, American Power: Conor Friedersdorf: Avoidance, Obfuscation, Prevarication, one of four posts since Wednesday--and the last of three in a row (almost... there was one about Obama & Iran, sandwiched in)--attacking Mr. Friedersdorf. (And check those titles... In addition to the one I'm writing about, we have "American Power: Conor Friedersdorf: Small-Minded Narcissist, and American Power: Conor Friedersdorf: Hammered on Multiple Fronts, Threatens Dan Riehl -- No... he didn't.)

Unless I see some serious engagement on some of the points I've raised, this should be may last post in the current debate over Conor Friedersdorf. I will keep my eye open for some of the more egregious claims Mr. Friederdorf is wont to make in his future blogging; but there will be no further iterations in the current controversy in the absence of new information or responses.

Four posts generally is more than enough, Dr. Douglas... ...especially when your target has not responded in kind, but has instead tried to discuss your specific concerns in the comment sections of your previous three posts, to no avail. [here, here, here, and here.] And, while there may be some egregious claims somewhere, the ones that Donald highlights are based on his interpretation of what Conor said, rather than what Conor actually said. (It's all "It's obvious what he means is..." when professor Douglas' interpretation is not obvious at all, and in some cases, requires a pretty good twisting and willful misunderstanding to make such a meaning even plausible.)
Mostly, it's simply not worth my time.

Funny... That's what I said to Conor, about Donald and his clan.
Why engage if folks are too lazy or too self-absorbed to even attempt a rebuttal to the points I've raised? There's some current roiling on the right, and this is good, but some of those engaged in it are not acting in good faith, and that really defeats the purpose of it all.

Funny... That's what Conor said about Donald.

Frankly, I'm not particularly invested in Mr. Friedersdorf. He's not a class intellect, and his writing is both arrogant and pedantic.

Methinks you doth protest too much... The number and nature of the posts Dr. Douglas has written about the man speaks to his investment in Mr. Friedersdorf far more clearly than do his words of denial...
I'm interested in ideas. As I've noted, Mr. Friedersdorf has made some generally off-the-wall arguments on some key public policy issues. He's also embarked on a personal jihad against Mark Levin, who is currently the #1 bestselling conservative author in the country. That kind of personalization of political difference is itself worthy of rebuttal. And as a number of my good friends have joined the exchange, I thought I might behoove myself to throw them some support.

Given the number of posts Dr Douglas has devoted to "taking down" Andrew Sullivan, I'm not sure he should be suggesting anyone else is on a personal jihad against a political foe. (In fact, it appears that Friedersdorf only did two Levin posts, meaning Donald is already on more of a personal jihad than the person he's accusing...) Add to that the bandwagon mentality to which the professor freely admits, and a different picture starts to emerge. (Classy how Donald's "good friend," Dan "real man" Riehl, takes Conor down by calling him a girl. The macho man's fear of being feminized--implying that the female sex is weaker, and less worthy of serious consideration & respect, I guess--strikes again.)

I've responded to Mr. Friedersdorf with a number of detailed posts (here, here, here, and here.

(For the record, those posts--in order--are 1) "Is Waterboarding Worse Than Abortion?," a post from June 3rd in which Donald argues that Conor was suggesting that abortion clinic bombers should be waterboarded--something that is not at all apparent by the actual text (first mention in this post); 2) "Neoclassicons" from June 17th (I linked to one of Conor's comments from this post, above); and then 3) June 18th's "Conor Friedersdorf: Small-Minded Narcissist"; and 4) June 19th's "Conor Friedersdorf: Hammered on Multiple Fronts, Threatens Dan Riehl" posts, both of which I linked to above.) As to whether one believes these posts are detailed and substantive, ad hominem-laden smearfests, or some mix of both, I leave for each reader to decide.
Mr. Friedersdorf's silence in engaging them goes beyond disrespect.

One can intelligently speculate or flat out wildly guess as to the reasons why a person chooses not to reply to another's posts or comments--and Dr Douglas does a good deal of one of those things, just below--but unless a person actually asked you to write the posts, or in any way suggested that they would read and reply to whatever you put forth, there is no disrespect in his/her ignoring your words. And when your post(s) are largely disrespectful to the person from whom you're demanding the response(s), there is no earthly reason why they should respond. Claiming that s/he is disrespecting you by not engaging your posts--whatever their content, but especially when their content is largely an attack on them--at the very least, doesn't hold water, and may be evidence of an ego problem, as well. (Who thinks themselves so important that their words demand reply, and that one's failure to do so is a sign of disrespect?)

Frankly, as is the case with Mark Thompson and E.D. Kain, it's most likely that Mr. Friedersdorf is simply overwhelmed by superior firepower; and rather than further expose the superficiality of his intellect, he adopts a variety of coping techniques: avoidance, obfuscation, and prevarication are the first tactics that come to mind.

Someone say something about ego? (Oh, wait... Apparently it holds more meaning if I say "ego." God love the dictionary... I guess Doctor Biobrain and I finally got to Mr. Douglas, and he's actually citing the words he uses, occasionally. The next step, which has been years in the coming, would be to get him to provide examples of how the words he uses to tar people actually apply to the people he's tarring with them. According to him, we've all been nihilists for years though--while he has whipped out a dictionary once or twice, he's never shown how the definition applies... Think he'll do so as regards Conor?) Donald's superior intellect is largely a product of his own imagination. I'm not saying Dr. Douglas isn't smart; but smart ain't worth a damn, if you cannot or will not apply it to real situations.

Readers can check Mr. Friederdorf's comments to the links above. Let me first note the most recent for some flavor:
Conor: Look man, if you want me to address your arguments, just state one clearly enough for me to respond!

This response fits with any of the tactics I mentioned above, although I'd add the noun "dishonest" as well. Readers might check my search of "Conor Friedersdorf" posts. All the argument I've made are "clear" and compelling. That Mr. Friedersdorf chooses not to engage them simply confirms his penchant toward avoidance and more.

One only has to backtrack from the comment link Donald offers to see exactly what piece of Donald's writing Mr. Friedersdorf was replying to in that comment. It was the second time in that thread that Mr. Friedersdorf asked Dr. Douglas to offer one, clear concise argument, rather than a laundry list of complaints. Donald refused to comply. (As to whether that exchange provides evidence of anyone engaging in avoidance, obfuscation, prevarication, or dishonesty--and if so, who--I again leave it to the reader to determine.)

I actually wrote on Mr. Friedersdorf's essay attacking "war on terror hawks." As I said at the time, Mr. Friederdorf "equates the actions of one lone wacko with those of an international terrorist network that's responsible for the 9/11 attacks, as well as a number of other terrorist atrocities around the world in recent decades." (From: "Is Waterboarding Worse Than Abortion?")

Here's the thing, professor. Saying a thing--particularly without offering anything in the way of evidentiary support--does not make it so.

Mr. Friederdorf has never responded to this substantive, AND APPARENTLY CLEAR, point.

(Note here that Dr. Douglas makes this claim, and then spends the rest of this paragraph, along with the following three, arguing against the response that Mr. Friedersdorf "never" gave. In fact, Donald even links to one of those responses that seemingly are not there, right there in the statement he makes. Crazy.)

He did retreat to denial, of course.

If Dr Douglas can resort to assertion, I see no reason that My Friedersdorf cannot respond with denial. As I've said to the professor several times, "quod gratis affirmatur, gratis negatur; "what is affirmed free of proof, may be denied free of proof."

But he has not systematically defended his argument that conservatives should treat suspected abortion killers just like captured Islamofascist jihadis - that is, he suggests conservatives should support waterboarding for both. It's not possible to pose a hypothetical like this a priori if the proponent of the scenario doesn't in fact see the two categories of antagonists ("combatants") in equivalent terms.

Not only hasn't Conor defended that argument, he denies even making it (The denial is right there at the "Mr. Friedersdorf has never responded" link, above.). What we have here instead, is Donald's straw man, which he doesn't even have the decency to knock down, himself.

Nowhere in the piece to which Donald is ostensibly replying does Conor make or defend the argument that "conservatives should treat suspected abortion killers just like captured islamofascist jihadis" or suggest that "conservatives should support waterboarding for both" (or in fact, "either").

Instead, Conor asks whether, in the event of an ongoing terrorist campaign run by fringe pro-lifers to shut down abortion clinics, [w]ould these predominantly conservative officials, commentators and writers [who believe the executive branch possesses broad unchecked powers to combat terrorism, including the designation of American citizens as enemy combatants, the indefinite detention of terror suspects, wiretapping phones without warrants, “enhanced interrogation techniques,” and other powers initially claimed by the Bush Administration and its defenders] be comfortable if President Obama declared two or three extremist pro-lifers as “enemy combatants”? Should Pres. Obama have the prerogative to order the waterboarding of these uncharged, untried detainees? Should he be able to listen in on phone conversations originating from evangelical churches where suspected abortion extremists hang out?" It isn't about terrorists (domestic or otherwise) at all, but about Presidential power, and what the limits of his power are... ...or should be.

In fact, Mr. Friedersdorf claimed that he "did not equate" the actions of the abortion murder suspect to global terrorist barbarians.

Umm... Are we now talking about Roeder (and if not, who the heck is "the abortion murder suspect"?) and , when (& more importantly, why) did we change from discussing a hypothetical situation where "an ongoing terrorist campaign [is being] run by fringe pro-lifers to shut down abortion clinics," to the very specific legal case of Roeder?
He then demanded that I explain what "leads you to believe otherwise."

Another change. In point of fact, rather than asking Dr. Douglas to "explain" what lead him to believe otherwise, Mr Friedersdorf says, "If you disagree, please excerpt the portion of my post that leads you to believe otherwise." I leave it to the reader to "explain" to themselves why Donald changed the wording of Conor's request, noting how conveniently it allows Donald to continue:

And so I did,"explain, in Donald's words" rather than "excerpt, from Conor's" here. (Keep in mind that professor Douglas is about to explain why he believes Conor is equating actions of the abortion murder suspect to global terrorist barbarians):

At your original post I cited weeks ago, "A Question for War on Terror Hawks," you assert moral equivalencies between a lone U.S. murder suspect and the untold number of violent jihadists within the global terrorist network - including many, of course, who were captured on the battlefield and held as enemy combatants in a real war on terrorism. Your post, as it proposes partisan payback for the robust anti-terror policies of the Bush years, basically endorses an Obama administration policy of declaring domestic anti-abortion terrorists as identical enemy combatants; you also deploy taunting language in saying, "I wonder how 'War on Terror Hawks' would react" if President Obama had the "prerogative to order the waterboarding of the uncharged, untried detainees." The scenario is not simply a hypothetical. It's transparent advocacy in furtherance of ideological retribution. Most of all, your post is dishonest hackery, and your defense of it is peurile idiocy.

Leaving alone the fact that there was nothing in Mr Friedersdorf's actual words that Donald could excerpt to make his case--and thus he changed the request Conor made from "excerpt" to "explain"--how did he do with the explanation? Did Donald provide anything in the way of physical or personal evidence, or did he simply repeat his initial claim, saying that "you assert moral equivalencies between a lone U.S. murder suspect and the untold number of violent jihadists within the global terrorist network," still without showing any physical, personal, or circumstantial evidence. I say the latter.

Also, there was nothing in Mr Friedersdorf's post that "proposes partisan payback for the robust anti-terror policies of the Bush years, [or] basically endorses an Obama administration policy of declaring domestic anti-abortion terrorists as identical enemy combatants." Just as with Donald's previous assertion. there is no citation that Donald can make. To many--myself included--it appears that Conor is arguing against treating domestic terrorists the same as international terrorists, or giving the executive branch unfettered power to mistreat either.* And, since Obama has no such policy, it is impossible for Conor to endorse it. (*This sentence edited to add missing words that were intended to be in the original text, thus improving clarity, @ 8:43 AM, AmNi blog time--about 6 hours after initial posting.)

To this, Mr. Friederdorf DID NOT ALLEGE vagueness on my part. Indeed, he asserted that my argument - offered in good faith at his request - was "a paranoid theory."

Not to be too picky, but Conor's reply, which in full reads: Donald, It's quite a paranoid theory you've developed. But it is unsupported by any evidence. Should you take the time to converse with me like a gentleman, I'll happily engage your substantive arguments, and I think you'll find that your wrongheaded assumptions about me will change. Or you could keep engaging in juvenile ad hominem attacks. But what's the point of that?, and is in reply to an entire post--titled Conor Friedersdorf: Small-Minded Narcissist)--rather than just the part the professor excerpted. Conor's reply could well be about any part of that post, or all of it, taken together. At the very least, there is nothing to make one assume that it was only or at all in response the part Donald chose to highlight.
I'm not prone to paranoia, actually, so there's little to make of Mr. Friedersdorf's comment other than a one-off bit of snark. It is a good example, however, of my point above, which is that Mr. Friedersdorf resorts to avoidance, obfuscation, and prevarication when confronted with superior argumenation.

Rather than guessing, one might ask Mr. Friedersdorf what he meant by his "paraniod theory" comment, and challenge him to back his words with the same kinda proof he's requesting from Donald... On the other hand, there is nothing so far to suggest that Mr. Friedersdorf was in any way resorting to avoidance, obfuscation, or prevarication. Maybe next time.

And that's actually kind of sad for him. The man clearly hopes to make an intellectual contribution of some sort. But as we see here, he's flummoxed with a case that deploys inferential logic as a matter of straightforward argumentation. It's simply not that complicated, much less unclear. So why no response from Mr. Friedersdorf? He rebuked me for not defending my original post, and then he turns and panics when I stand up to him. Readers can see why I question this man's capabilities.

While Dr. Douglas' take on the matter is interesting, I wonder about a man who so often needs to declare victory over another. Surely if it was so decisive, everyone would see it for themselves. Conor isn't flumoxed by Donald's response to him; if anything, he's flumoxed by Donald's inventive ways of seeing the world, and his refusal to accept Conor's more reasonable explanation of his own words. (Has the professor never heard that the least complex answers are usually the right ones? Why assume that when Conor says "A," he really, secretly means "B"--particularly when he tells you flat out that "A" means "A", and not "B"?) And how can Donald rail on about how wrong Conor's response is, and then deny Conor responded, at all? Readers can see why I question the professor's abilities, too.

But that's not all. I offered a detailed and highly reasoned argument in my essay, "Neoclassicons." Mr. Friedersdorf appears to be among a number of bloggers seeking to claim the mantle of today's "genuine conservatives." As I noted at the post, "From Conor Friederdorf to David Frum, to Daniel Larison to Andrew Sullivan, and then E.D. Kain, there's a movement afoot that wants desperately to be "conservative," but one that is failing miserably."

Once again, Mr. Friedersdorf refused to respond. He did make some lame, and completely irrelevant, points about how he'd been "defending Rod Dreher," as if dropping some names of people not even tangentially related to the discussion might possibly be considered a rebuttal. Mr. Friedersdorf apparently does that thing quite a bit, so we shouldn't be surprised.

No, as with the last post, Conor Friedersdorf did respond (see the link our man Donald offers right there in the same paragraph where he says Conor refused to respond.)... He just didn't respond to whatever it was Donald Douglas deemed he should have, hence the professor's claim that Mr. Friedersdorf "refused to respond." His mention of Rod Dreher had nothing to do with namedropping, but was clearly in response to Donald saying: "So, I might as well comment on Dan's remark earlier on the conservatives schism (David Frum vs. Rush Limbaugh, etc.), when he noted that "To be honest, I wonder if this whole moderation movement isn't simply about purging the social conservatives."' and the professor's subsequent discussion of "theoconservatism," where he says (of the neoclassicons, including Conor) "These folks, let's loosely call them neoclassical conservatives, or neoclassicons, are driven by an essentially leftist-libertarian domestic policy orientation that is primarily animated by an intense hatred of "theoconservatism."

In reply, Mr. Friedersdorf says "I haven't any desire to purge social conservatives. I spent 14 years attending a religious private school, I've spent the last two weeks defending Rod Dreher, a religious and social conservative, against those who want to purge him..." How Donald could misinterpret that as "name-dropping," rather than the response it so obviously was, makes one wonder about Donald's ability to understand simple english (or was it more of a "willful misunderstanding?")

My main thesis at "Neoclassicons," in any case, is that these folks are not "conservative." I especially indicated that Andrew Sullivan - who is the ideological lodestar for these people - is not a conservative. Hardly anyone would situate Sullivan on the right of the ideological spectrum nowadays. Andrew's colleague at The Atlantic places him at "the center right." And even liberals now think of Sullivan as one of their own.

Except for the fact that the line about the Atlantic should probably read "center-left," rather than "center-right," I accept that this is Donald's thesis. That neither makes his thesis true, or has anything to do with this Conor guy that this piece is supposed to be about. Let's move the story forward, Don...

And this is the key thing in all of this: Mr. Friedersdorf seems to think that the most important intellectual developments today are taking place on the left of the political spectrum

Sadly, no, Dr. Douglas... At least not based on the article at the other end of that link, anyway, which was titled "Lefty Blogs Chart Course for Future," and discussed the fact that--at least according to Conor, anyway-- liberal blogs use more graphics (pictures, charts, maps) than conservative blogs. Hardly proof that Mr. Friedersdorf thinks that the most important intellectual developments today are taking place on the left of the political spectrum... I mean, in the same post, Conor gives cons credit for their focus and use of twitter. What does that say, hmmm?
This fact helps explain Mr. Friedsdorf's jihad against Mark Levin. The latter, as I noted, is the hottest thinker in conservative politics today. Levin's Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto is essential reading for anyone who's seriously thinking about the future direction of the American right. And Mr. Friedersdorf is attacking him?

It takes no great leap of imagination to see that not only is Mark Levin threatening to Conor Friedersdorf, but also that Mr. Friedersdorf's attack on him are less about ideology and more about self-promotion. "Hey, if I attack Mark Levin I can score some points with the Andrew Sullivan and the left-libertarians."

Jihad, schmihad... It was two or three posts, out of a whole lot, from what I've (now) seen... And Mr Friedersdorf was primarily discussing Levin's behavior, rather than his politics, perhaps to say that acting like an asshole doesn't make one any more (or less) right, but it may make fewer people listen who aren't already on your side which to me, says alot... A real liberal would just let you continue to act like assholes, and sing to that same old 20-something % choir. Believe it or not, it's true... Only your best friends will tell you, and politically, that ain't the likes of me...)

That's really all there is to it. As I've shown at this post, which is now a lot longer and more detailed that I'd anticipaed, Conor Friedersdorf is an essentially dishonest man with an inflated sense of self-importance. I can hardly be more clear in saying this, but being that as it may, I'm not expecting a response to the arguments I've made in any case. Mr. Friedersdorf doesn't have it in him, and in all of his recent slurs, he's mostly out to gain attention for himself rather debate those who really do care about the movement.

Professor Douglas, you say some very unintentionally funny things... I'm not sure what you've actually shown, but it don't appear to me, anyway that you've made your case...

I've enabled comment moderation. I won't be publishing Mr. Friedersdorf's drive-by snarks here. If he responds with a post at either of his blogs, I'll reply in kind if they are substantive - and if in fact they move the debate forward.

That also, says alot...

Otherwise, I'm moving on ...

One doubts it...But one can only hope.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Snoop, the Left Never Was Proud of its Left Wing Extremists...

...and that may be the point.

In reply to the article Is The Right Still "Proud To Be a Right-Wing Extremist"? , which appears on the People For the American Way's Right Wing Watch blog, Mark Harvey (AKA Snooper) offered the following:

Is The Left Still "Proud To Be a Left-Wing Extremist"?

This was going to be one more rewrite of articles the Leftinistra like to pawn off as fact but I changed my mind.

Right off you can see where this guy is coming from. "Leftinistra"? Yeesh...

The original article posted by one named Kyle is entitled, "Is The Right Still "Proud To Be a Right-Wing Extremist"?" Isn't it interesting how these frauds never ever challenge their own? Isn't it interesting how these frauds on the left side of life never ever acknowledges the heinous acts of their own?

Two things:

Kyle's Right Wing Watch post was replying to those among the right who, in response to the Department of Homeland Security Report, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”, [pdf] chose to call themselves right wing extremists.

Of course, as Kyle points out in his piece:

The report was not a warning about mainstream conservative political groups or lawful anti-abortion activists or religious organizations - it was a report about violent, radical extremists. But it was the Right that intentionally conflated the two and now, in the wake of two high-profile violent acts carried out by right-wing extremists, it is the Right that is insisting that they have nothing in common with such people.

And that is exactly the point: the report was not about them, but they made it about them because they thought they could score some political points and raise money by doing so.

How ridiculous and crass this phony controversy became can pretty much be summed up by these cards, which the Liberty Counsel is still selling on its website, that, in light of the recent attacks, seem to be in pretty poor taste:

They claim to be right wing extremists themselves when the report first came out (even though the report was clearly about protecting the American people from the possibility of violent right wing extremism, given the political and social climate), and do everything they can to distance themselves and their ideas from real violent right wing extremists when the nutjobs DHS was talking about actually do show up.

Second, it is unlikely you will find your run of the mill leftist applauding left wing extremism, or claiming to be left wing extremists themselves, like those on the right have done. There are no "Proud to be a Left Wing Extremist" cards on sale at liberal websites. Mr Harvey's assertion that the left "never acknowledges or challenges the heinous acts of their own" doesn't hold water...

1) Daily Kos: Why "We're fighting them over there...." is the Biggest Lie of the Bush Administration (Several paragraphs of acknowledgment & challenge to Earth Liberation Front terrorism & sabotage.)

2) Here are a few libs discussing and challenging the actions of the Animal Liberation Front (called PETA in this first link, but corrected here) and some of the 60's radicals. Another. Last one (or two, as the comment just below it continues the conversation.)

3) Finally, here's a link to me from 2008, discussing the idiot blac block ninja wannabees that sometimes show up at peace protests: About Peace Thugs

So much for that leaky bucket...

For instance, the Jihadi that assassinated an Army Soldier in Arkansas. He hated America as well. The left hate America and all she stands for seeing that the left cannot reconcile anything they believe in with the United States Constitution. Ever.

This is just moronic. First off, we libs love America, which is why we keep trying to defend it from the batshit dumb thinking of wingers like this guy.

But even assuming "the left" did hate America, the syllogism (or in this guy's case, "silly gism") he's offering doesn't make sense, and is a perfect example of why some fathers should've pulled out sooner than they did.

Mr. Harvey's basically saying:

Humans drink water.
My pet cat drinks water.
Therefore, my pet cat is human.

Brilliant. Just brilliant.

I have tried to get at least ONE member of the Leftinistra to at least TRY and support their rhetoric with our Founding Documents but none have come up to meet the challenge. Ever. And I don't expect any to try, either. Why? Because they cannot.

Though I predict it'll be fruitless, given this guy's intellect & biases, I'd be glad to support my rhetoric, constitutionally... Pick a subject, Snoop.

They all accuse others of that which they themselves do.They have the Eco Nazis that run around burning buildings down that aren't green enough adding poison gases into the atmosphere. They have arsonists that run around fire-bombing Recruiting Stations across America and the list goes on and on and on.

I'm not sure whether these are supposed to be examples of liberals "all accus[ing] others of that which they themselves do"--the first might be, the second, not so much--or just the next part of the rant, but yes, some liberals exhibit some "do as I say, not as I do" thinkin' (just like some cons), and yes, some libs and cons engage in hypocritical, self-defeating acts (although first off, I've never heard of any eco-terrorist burning a building down because it wasn't green enough--sometimes it's about the land it's on, sometimes it's to cost the company that owns it money, and sometimes it's to destroy records--and second, there are levels of good & evil. Nothing is 100% pure, and one would have to be an idiot not to understand that (but then, look at who I;'m talking to... A guy with a "human" cat.). The terrorists may believe that a little poison smoke is less evil than the company &/or whatever bad thing it's doing.)

To put it in terms Mr Harvey may understand, it's like those wingnuts who kill abortion doctors. They believe all life is sacred in principle, but also believe that murdering one doctor is worth saving all those unborn lives.
Hypocritical? Maybe, but that's how domestic terrorists like Harvey's "eco-nazi's" & my rightwing extremist anti-choice folks think.

You won't find any right-wingers participating in any of those activities.

Well no, that'd be silly... Right wingers by & large are not environmentalists or opposed to military service. Besides, a few of 'em are too busy shooting doctors and potentially gay folks in church, and police/security officers/minorities in the streets, of late... ...just like George W. Bush's Department of Homeland Security said they might be. (Snooper does realize that that report was written while Bush was in office, right?)

Certainly, you will not find right-wingers attending a DNC election convention or any other DNC meeting of the mindless tossing bleach at their opposition. You won't find any right-wingers dropping rocks, bricks and or sandbags from overpasses onto passing vehicles occupied by their opposition. You won't find any right-wingers stealing campaign signs from the front yards of their opposition. You won't find vitriolic attacks on their Leftinistra version of Sarah Palin coming from the right-wingers, either.

I'm not going to try to dig up each & every one of whatever bullshit stories Mr. Harvey is referring to, here... If he's too lazy to back his claims with supporting evidence, why should I?

Suffice to say, yes, there are individual morons on both sides of the aisle who do bad things, and Mr Harvey's denialism (Thanks, Professor!!) that right-wingers ever do such things shows how far off the reservation Snoop really is. One can argue that the birthers are pretty vitriolic, and the hate overheard at Palin rallies is documented truth--& don't forget McCain (to his credit) correcting the idiot accusing Obama of being a muslim. (Which to too many on the right, means "terrorist.")

Tell ya what... The campaign sign thing is just too easy...
1) ginger's-obama-sign
2) Dawn Teo: YouTube Those Campaign Sign Thieves for the Pleasure of Local Police and the Global Public

And sometimes, Snoop, you right wingers even victimize each other, campaign sign-wise:
3) Mike Huckabee President 2008: Romney Campaign Caught Stealing McCain Signs

But you just keep up those denials, Mr Harvey... It shows everyone who you really are...

You won't find any right-wingers trying to get their opposition removed from the internet because they might be dangerous or that they disagree with anyone. Need I go on? You won't find any right-wingers trying to hack into a web site they don't like.

Woops. Here's one... | Right Wing Hackers Target IndyMedia Network. Look!! Here's another. Brave New World: Hack Attack: The Talk of the Town: The New Yorker As the kids say, Epic fail, Snoop.

You won't have any right-wingers running all over Blogspot and hitting the "FLAG" button because they won't "shut up". You won't find any right-wingers writing emails to their opposition describing how dead they want them to be.

1) Gawker - On The Internet, Everyone Knows You Want to Kill Them - we get letters
2)Daily Kos: Saturday hate mail-apalooza
3) Hating the Hate Mail | Media and Technology | AlterNet
4) The Online Lunchpail ™: When PBS got right-wing hate mail

All of that comes from the left-wingers. Period. End of discussion.

Well, all except that stuff I mentioned (as well as a good bunch I didn't.) Sorry Snoop, but your claims are demonstrably false, and your unwillingness to see it shows you to be the fraud you are.

You won't find any right-wingers defecating, urinating and desecrating any flag of any sort in public at "peace rallies" or "anti-war rallies".

Perhaps not at peace rallies, but at anti-illegal immigration protests? Whole other story:

1)Group burns Mexican flag in front of consulate - KVOA News 4, Tucson, Arizona - If you prefer, here's the report from Freeperville, home of Roeder & von Brunn: Group burns Mexican flag in front of consulate (Tucson AZ)

2) Spoke too soon. This mexican flag was torn down & stmped at a peace rally by an "Eagle," YouTube - american eagle stops on mexican flag at pro war~anti war rally

You will fiind that after a right-wing gathering, the area is left behind cleaner than it was when they got there.

Well there are all those symbolic tea bags...

The murder of Tiller the Baby Killer was a gross act of stupidity and the right-wing immediately yelled out for this cretins' just in prison or worse.

Not all of 'em, Snoop...
Drake: Tiller's Murder "An Answer to Prayer" | Right Wing Watch
From two Freeper threads: Little Green Footballs - Bad Craziness Watch: Right Wing Reaction to the Tiller Murder

Yet, when attacks on Soldiers and other military personnel across this nation take place, not a peep of outrage comes from the alleged most tolerant people on the globe.

First off, bringing soldiers home safely is one of the big reasons libs protest against unnecessary and poorly planned military missions like the one in Iraq. But aside that obvious fact...
Kos: Daily Kos: Another Religious Nut With A Gun Shoots Army Recruiters.
Juan Cole: Balloon Juice � Blog Archive � Soldier Dead in Arkansas
C&L: Crooks and Liars � Now the right-wingers want to blame military-recruiter slayings on liberals

And then there's the stupidity of even comparing the two murders, in the first place:
Dr. Tiller and the Army Recruitment Station Killing | Lean Left

They are a lot of things but tolerant is at the bottom of the list. The worst of the worst are in the Bay Area in California. Just ask Code Pink - the people that sent in excess of $600M in "aid" to the enemy to kill, wound, maim and fight our Troops. There's tolerance for you right there. I call that treason and you won't find any right-winger doing that at all.

Jordanian authorities ban protest by US anti-war group: "The group recently sent 600,000 dollars worth of humanitarian aid to residents of the Iraqi town of Fallujah who were displaced by a massive US-led assault in November."

Humanitarian aid to help the unintended victims of war, the citizens we went there to liberate...
Isn't that what our government is doing to this very day, with all that rebuilding of hospitals, schools, roads & whatnot? How much did the Bush administration alone send to Iraq & Afghanistan, for the very same purposes? Treason my ass, Snoop. I call bullshit. Put up or shut up.

You also won't find any right-wingers spying on their own country and passing of vital national secrets to the enemy either. That is reserved to the left-wingers. Facts are hard to hide people.

Hard to hide, but impossible to show any of 'em in your post, apparently... Left wing spies?

Besides, right wingers expose their state secrets in front of TV reporters: Those "National Security" Republicans Are Disclosing Intelligence Secrets. Gee, Wonder Why? | Crooks and Liars and spy on fellow American citizens, instead: Is the Pentagon spying on Americans? - Lisa Myers & the NBC News Investigative Unit-

The Leftinistra are the singularly most ugly, mean-spirited pieces of trash outside your viral Haji yet the Leftinistra support the enemy over their own nation and those that protect their very rights to exist. And yes, the Leftinistra toss the term "neocon" around like they know what a "neocon" is or something. I merely laugh in disdain because their use of the term "neocon" is allegedly a term of derision - tolerance at work I am sure. If they ever learn what a "neocon" is, they would drop it like a hot Pelosi panty.

Unsubstantiated trash talk like this deserves no reply. If you're going to take the time to speak, you ought to actually say something folks can understand...

The Leftinistra labeled the holocaust Museum shooter a right-winger when it has been shown that he was/is nothing of the sort.

Snoop, even the FBI & Homeland Security are calling him a right wing extremist. "In another alert, the agencies said von Brunn was associated with right-wing extremism." [Link] You folks really ought to give up denying it... It only makes you look blinded by partisanship, and out of touch with current events...

All we hear no is silence from their sheeple.

Liberal silence? Really??...

He was one of their own - a hater of Christianity, an anti-Semite (there are no anti-Semites on the right-wing) and a hater of the "neocon".

Have you really never heard of Paleoconservatives? Does the name Pat Buchanan ring a bell? (Scroll to the section on Jews.)
Nope... No anti-Semitism there, Snoop.

Amazing isn't it? Yet the fools on the left try and blame others for what they themselves partake in on a regular basis and call it good. Why? Because they did the deed and the Leftinistra never do anything wrong. Just ask this buffoon Kyle.

Mr Harvey cannot quote Kyle (or me, or much of any other lib) saying the left never does wrong, because it'd make us look as stupid as Mr Harvey does here, denying that von Brunn was/is a right wing extremist. Of course libs make mistakes large & small. Alot of 'em, more'n'likely... And yes, there are certainly left wing extremists here in America. (See Snoop... It isn't so hard to admit your side isn't perfect... I bet you could do it too, if you really tried...)

Right Wing Watch? By all means, watch. We are watching back and we are better at it and I wear my Right Wing Extremist Badge with honor and courage.

You do that, Spanky... ...but then, don't get all bent outta shape when real right wing extremists like Roeder & von Brunn make you look like an asshole for voluntarily claiming that title for yourself, thus willingly associating yourself with murderers and kooks. (Some people are just too damned stupid to come out of the rain...)

The Leftinistra do not because they are the very cowards they hate. The self-loathing of the Leftinistra is all too obvious.

Perhaps the Left-Wing Extremist Report by the DHS is "right" after all, eh?

Well yeah, that report probably is right, Snoop. Does anyone doubt that left wing extremists will use the internet itself to attack? (And, does anyone doubt that right wing extremists will follow suit, or are we still denying they exist... ...or suggesting that they're too stupid to understand how to hack, like we leftists?)

I have a question for these cretins on the left-wing. If the right-wing is as you all claim that we are, seeing that there are millions of us and we are all killers, murderers and such, is it wise to back us into a corner and piss us off?

Just sayin'. Think about that.

Yeah... Because after insisting on linking yourself with murderous nutbag extremists--even going so far as to proudly call yourself one--the next thing you want to do is threaten folks with violence. Gotta love it.

The thing that Mr Harvey fails to understand is that almost no one here on the left is calling him or his fellow right wingers murderous killers. HE'S doing that, by insisting on wearing his DHS approved Right Wing Extremist badge so friggin' proudly. Unless he was fixing to hurt or kill any of his fellow Americans because of his political beliefs, THE REPORT NEVER WAS ABOUT HIM!!! One of the very first paragraphs of the report talks about VIOLENT RADICALIZATION. Not violent? You're probably not a radical... at least as far as DHS is concerned. It's clear as a mountain stream, except to those who refuse to open their dang eyes.

We can debate issues and beliefs and argue various programs, policies and laws on their constitutionality or not. We are willing but the Leftinistra are not because they would lose every time.



Remember, Conservatism wins every time in elections and that is why in tough races, democrats put up conservative candidates against liberal republicans...and win. John McCain lost because he might as well join the DNC because he is in fact one of them at heart, just like his esteemed colleague Arlen Specter and Lindsey Graham. There isn't a conservative bone in their bodies.

But um... Wasn't McCain still more conservative than Obama? And, for that matter, aren't the Republicans in those races against the "conservative" Democrats generally MORE conservative than the Democrats they're running against? Can you explain why the Dems won in those cases, Snoop, if conservatism wins every time?


Thought not... Another very leaky pail of nonsense...

This is why candidates like Sarah Palin frighten the Leftinistra on the democrat side and the republican side.

Been there, done that... Palin ran, and Palin lost. Perhaps she'll do it again, but few fear her... She's played the game once on the national stage, and the American people already judged her unfit...

I am neither.

If I have a label, I am a conservative libertarian constitutionalist. Neocon? Don't make me laugh.

Always convenient, when one doesn't have to adhere to any political party's platform... Makes it easier to criticize the ones actually in the game, too.

Catch the chatter of those that agree with little boy Kyle at Memeorandum.

Another Leftinistra moonbat spanked.

Someone was spanked, that's for sure...

Though not part of the original argument, I came across this comment while researching for this post. It succinctly explains why the DHS report applies to von Brunn.: trex on June 11, 2009 at 3:50 PM

Also, a h/t to Professor Douglas at AmPow... His post on this was a cut'n'paste of Mr Harvey's, and said very little else... (In fact, the best thing about Donald's version is that it elicited Cracker's wise & witty take on Mr Harvey's assertion that there are no anti-Semites on the right. He's got a way with words, that boy...)

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Reply to The Other McCain: Gays. And marriage. And rights.

The Other McCain: Gays. And marriage. And rights.

RSM sez:
"Men and women are different. They were created different, designed with a natural complementarity, to fulfill specific life functions. There is a natural order to human life, and marriage between man and woman is part of that order. The legal status of marriage did not create marriage, but is rather a recognition of a pre-existing natural order -- an order that was not created by human agency, but by the Creator."

I'm sorry, but childbearing/rearing is incidental to the state's legal interest in the marriage contract. From the science I've read, the "pre-existing natural order" was an at first unformalized, but increasingly formal, polygamy. According to David P. Barash, an evolutionary biologist and professor of psychology at the University of Washington, "...before the homogenization of cultures that resulted from Western colonialism, more than 85% of human societies unabashedly favored polygamy." He also believes the instinct toward it is still there, though as humans, most of us have the ability--and these days (post Western colonialism), the desire--to control it.

And then we come to God...

"The gay-rights movement would like you to believe that sexual behavior can be divided into two categories: Gay and straight. But according to the Creator, this is a false distinction. God divides sexual behavior into two categories: Righteousness and sin.

Righteous sex is the love between man and wife that creates human life, and which through that God-ordained intimacy knits together the couple in a permanent and exclusive union: "One flesh."

Everything else -- everything else -- is sin. And this was once recognized by Anglo-American jurisprudence, which in one way or another imposed sanctions against every type of sexual behavior except between man and wife. But in the decades after World War II, in the name of "modernizing" the legal code, these sanctions were gradually repealed. "Sexual liberation" was the name of the game, divorce skyrocketed and the lawyers cheerfully liberated wives from husbands, liberated husbands from wives, and liberated fees from clients."
"To cite the most authoritative source -- the Word of God -- is to be accused of superstition, or of seeking to "impose your values" on others. But my values (or Dr. Douglas's values, or anyone else's values) are irrelevant. What counts is God's values, and these are not subject to amendment or public opinion polls."

Here's the thing. According to US law, God and the Bible have no place in US law. That is the very reason that Judge Roy Moore (mentioned approvingly by RSM elsewhere in his post) is no longer a judge. That isn't to say that RSM is incorrect in saying that all forms of sexual congress deemed sinful by Christianity once were unlawful, but it's also worth noting that all of those laws that could not be justified by secular reasoning rather than Biblical teachings have been repealed. Religious freedom necessitates that we do not enshrine the tenets of any faith into our laws strictly on the basis of their being religious tenets. Whatever your "Good Book," it belongs in your church and your home, but not in our legislative halls or at our judge's benches. Those who do not worship your God, or do not worship your God in the same way that you do, have as much right to protection under law as do you. Even though Judeo-Christians currently have the numbers here in the US--and in fact, because Judeo-Christians have the numbers here in the US--it doesn't mean they get to write Biblical teachings into law. As conservatives are so fond of pointing out in other circumstances, we are a republic rather than a democracy. We're designed to protect the minority from mob rule.

So yes... In citing what you believe to be the most authoritative source -- the Word of God -- and more specifically, trying to enshrine the Word of God into the Laws of Man, you are seeking to "impose your values" on others. The fact that you believe your values are in line with God's values is what's irrelevant; God isn't the one imposing them on those who do not share them, by virtue of being non-believers, skeptics, or believers in other faiths. (If He were, this whole conversation would be a lot easier for all involved.) Freedom of religion means that no one need live under the laws prescribed by anyone else's faith. There are probably relatively few Americans who believe that God, Allah, Goddess Mother Nature, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are equal. But under US law, they are.

"The prophetic nature of the Bible is evidence of its authority, and if anyone wants to tell me that the successive disasters that have fallen on our nation in recent years aren't just a wee bit apocalyptic in appearance, the Bible can answer that, too: Let him that has eyes, see."

Maybe... But people alot like Mr McCain have been expressing thoughts a whole lot like this for a L-O-N-G - T-I-M-E...

A Brief History of the Apocalypse, 2800 BC - 1700 AD
Doomsday: 1701 - 1970
Doomsday: 1971 - 1997
Doomsday: 1998 - 1999
Doomsday: 2000 - Now (2005)
Doomsday: The Future (2004 ... ???)

But it's possible that RSM's got something on all those other folks... Right?

As for gay marriage, I think it's more a question of semantics and word choice.

Marriage is a religious rite. The state is free to recognize it, but not to regulate it.
Civil Union is a legal right. No God or church has any legal dominion over it, nor should they.

I think a good solution would be (& I'd like to see) the state give "Marriage" back to the church, and have all laws regulate "Civil Unions," instead. The state would be free to (& should) recognize the religious rite of Marriage as a particular kind of Civil Union, but it's special status would derive from the church and from God, rather than from the state. The church would be free to recognize or reject other kinds of Civil Unions as Marriages, according to the Word of God and the particular church's doctrine. In my view, having the state regulating a religious rite was the cause of the problem, and stopping the state from regulating a religious rite will be the solution.

Previous conversations & posts on the subject:
Wingnuts & Moonbats: My thoughts on Homosexual Marriage
Wingnuts & Moonbats: Is there a right to marry whomever one wishes?
Wingnuts & Moonbats: Special Comment on Gay Marriage
Wingnuts & Moonbats: Protect Marriage. Prohibit Divorce.
Wingnuts & Moonbats: Oppose Gay Marriage, but Approve Civil Unions?
Wingnuts & Moonbats: Take Government out of the Marriage Business: A better reconciliation on Gay Marriage

Saturday, March 7, 2009

Class Warfare

A real class act, this Kathy Shadle:

Times have changed and now the poor get fat

"Today's "poor" are the rich Jesus warned you about: fat, slovenly, wasteful of their money and other people's."

"He spends all his (our) money on cellphones and, most likely, tattoos and drugs and booze and other crap, and has no money left for a home and food. And why should he bother? We pay for his shelter and food anyhow."

"What's really funny in that news story by the way is what they're serving at the soup kitchen: risotto with brocolli. Obviously some rich white liberal did the cooking that day, feeling all proud of herself, and what thanks did she get? Some lowclass loser going, "You expect me to eat this weird crap?!""

The Christlike love and compassion makes you go all weepy, don't it?


Thursday, February 19, 2009

Yes Donald...

If you say stuff like this:

"Spencer's essay continues with an explanation of the intrinsic brutality among Muslim men, indicating that primordial violence against women is a central component to 'Islamic tradition.'"

or this:

"The notion that Asiya Hassan's husband was not in fact a moderate, and that he murdered his wife according to ancient Muslim culture and tradition, puts the lie to left's claims that Islam is just another religion - culturally equivalent - and that conservatives are 'racist' by identifying Muslims as a clear and present danger to national security on the basis of their beliefs. This backlash illustrates anti-Americanism through and through, and the left's pushback on this story just makes the entire case that much more significant for the debate over creeping Islamization of the West." (and dig the subtle defense of Geert Wilders, who wants to ban books, but whines about his fellow Dutchmen (& others) curtailing his own free speech)

...chances are pretty good that you're a racist (though perhaps, "religious/cultural bigot" would be more accurate). At the very least, you ought to get used to many of your fellow Americans saying you are... ...because they will.