A Blog Version Of The Inside Of My Head. The place where politics, film, the media, music, pop culture, and random topics collide in an orgy of neo-philisophical randomness that would make your mother scream.
Shortly after finishing their protest at the funeral of Army Sgt. Jason James McCluskey of McAlester, a half-dozen protesters from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., headed to their minivan, only to discover that its front and rear passenger-side tires had been slashed.
To make matters worse, as their minivan slowly hobbled away on two flat tires, with a McAlester police car following behind, the protesters were unable to find anyone in town who would repair their vehicle, according to police.
While I doubt that people like Rand Paul would even begin to consider instances like a liberal business owner who operated a local restaurant denying entry to local and regional Republican politicians, I find it quite interesting what an entire town did to the Westboro Baptist Church. I think that this, more than anything as so now, shows us that "freedom of speech" doesn't come with "freedom from consequences".
That being said, I in no way condone the actions of anyone destroying property in order to make a socio-political statement. But, is there any nuance here? Was the van purchased with tax-free donations to the church? Sure, that might be a reach, but the larger point here is that these people should be realizing that their message - if they even have one - is not one reciprocated by the average American.
Come to think of it, it would be interesting to hear what both Maddow and Paul have to say about this.
- When reading something like this you get a much clearer picture as to why this is aptly referred to as Bush's oil disaster. After all, when your administration is allowing a regulatory body to shirk their duties, then you bare the lion's share of responsibility when a dangerous practice like off-shore drilling goes horribly wrong.
- I appears that we are close to an end of DADT. It wasn't until I became quite politically minded about my country that I started to ask this question - why would anyone deny a person to serve their country? After all, from my perspective at least, the implementation of this absurd law was one of the low points of the Clinton administration. And many of those that whole heartedly supported this law either never served in the armed forces or have a seriously canted perspective of what "patriotism" means.
- I'm not about to claim that all Republicans are guilty of sedition, but one has to but look back just a few years at the more reasoned and logical complaints of liberals/progressives against the Bush administration and realize that they pale in comparison to the level of vitriol and hate leveled at Barack Obama. Sedition? On the part of some, quite possibly. Ignorance? 100% across the board.
- Fox"News" loves the editing bay at the studios. They do their best to make Bill O'Reilly look like his brainstem is fully attached at least half the week. Palin can barely exist on her own outside of the Fox"News" environment without being heavily edited so it's a given that she needs it. But what Fox really loves to do is edit footage of Democrats in order to make a hamfisted point that their easily lead fanbase will accept as the gospel truth. This is no less true for what has recently been done to Obama when he gave the commencement speech at West Point.
- I can recall when AIDS was first spoken about in the media. I was quite young and didn't really comprehend that this was about to become a health issue of global proportions and that America was sitting idly on their hands while people died. I guess that South Carolina favors that stance again.
Seems that Republicans have a difficult time not only understanding how the internet works, but how to process criticism on the internet without turning it into a grand Glenn Beck style conspiracy.
Pennsylvania prosecutors are dropping their grand jury subpoena to Twitter demanding the identity of two account holders who used the microblogging service to criticize Attorney General Tom Corbett, a spokesman said Friday.
Corbett, the Republican candidate for governor, was seeking to unmask the account holders ahead of Friday’s sentencing of Brett Cott, whom Corbett targeted in a political corruption investigation.
Corbett wanted to know if Cott was the one anonymously disparaging Corbett and the ongoing probe, Corbett spokesman Kevin Harley said in a telephone interview. Prosecutors believed that linking Cott to one of the Twitter accounts criticizing Corbett would show the defendant had a bad attitude that should earn him a higher sentence, Harley said.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but doesn't this seem to be not only a blatantly hypocritial move on the part of Corbett but an egregious misuse of grand jury power?
Republicans are no strangers to whisper campaigns, smear tactics, and simply coming out in unblushing fashion in level all sorts of specious and outright false accusations against opponents. So why the righteous indignation on the part of Corbett?
With Republicans clamouring to misinform their constituency regarding a multitude of issues, the internet really isn't something they should be toying with in this fashion. After all, since freedom of speech is an alleged cornerstone of conservative thought, it really doesn't serve their cause well by attacking those that exercise it.
This was discussed over the weekend, so I'm a little late to the game.
Turns out that Florida doctor Jack Cassell made it clear of his distain for the Obama administrations healthcare reform ( he placed a sign on his door telling those that support it should go elsewhere ) but his complete lack of knowledge of reform is being brought to light.
He was interviewed by Alan Colmes recently and Colmes challenged him more than he was by Neil Cavuto.
COLMES: Do you really think the government wants people dead?
CASSELL: Well I think that they’re cutting all supportive care, like nursing homes, ambulance services –
COLMES: What do you mean they’re cutting nursing homes?
CASSELL: They’re cutting nursing home reimbursements.
COLMES: Isn’t what they’re cutting under the Medicare plan what was really double dipping; they were getting credits and they were getting to deduct them at the same time.
CASSELL: Well you know, I can’t tell you exactly what the deal is.
COLMES: If you can’t tell us exactly what the deal is, why are you opposing it and fighting against it?
CASSELL: I’m not the guy who wrote the plan.
COLMES: But if you don’t know what the deal is why are you speaking out against something you don’t know what the deal is?
CASSELL: What I get online, just like any other American. What I’m supposed to understand about the bill should be available to me.
COLMES: It is; it’s been online for a long time; it’s also been all over the media.
And Think Progress points out that his little "free speech" stunt is losing him patients.
A local TV station in Florida spoke to one of Cassell’s patients, who said that while the doctor’s care has been “wonderful,” he’s never going back after this political stunt. “Keep politics out,” said patient Steve Berger. “I mean, he can have his opinion, but what’s the next sign saying? If you’re Catholic, you can’t come? Or you’re an Arab, you can’t come in, or you’re a Jew? It has to stop somewhere.”
The Fox"Nation" seems to favor a stand with the corporations rather than the average American. But this shouldn't be a shock at all, since they are owned by NewsCorp, who is now free to run ads making all sorts of outlandish claims not just against Obama but any political figure with whom they disagree.
But there is something that the Fox"Nation" don't seem to realize - the SCOTUS ruling has the potential to lift the veil on corporations like NewsCorp ( Fox"News" in particular ) whom wish to disseminate propaganda under the guise of free-speech. I'm wondering how much longer Fox"News" is going to be able to hand on to their "fair and balanced" meme. After all, no one believes it anymore.
I was thinking this morning that aside from the recent SCOTUS decision to allow big corporations/labor unions the same "free speech" rights as individuals wouldn't necessarily be a complete molestation of the political process. The reasoning behind this is rather easy to see when you realize that you'll be able to see what companies are backing a particular candidate. And, considering Wall-Street's love of Republicans, wouldn't it stand to reason that this should be an eye-opener for perspective Republican voters?
But the broader question is this - will the GOP care if people know who stands with them, because they sure are loving this decision.
– Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): “It is about a nonprofit group’s ability to speak about the public issue. I can’t think of a more fundamental First Amendment issue. … [The ruling could] open up resources that have not previously been available [for Republicans].” [NYT]
– Rep. Steve King (R-IA): “The Constitution protects the rights of citizens and employers to express their viewpoints on political issues. Today’s Supreme Court decision affirms the Bill of Rights and is a victory for liberty and free speech.” [Statement]
– Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN): “If the freedom of speech means anything, it means protecting the right of private citizens to voice opposition or support for their elected representatives. The fact that the Court overturned a 20-year precedent speaks volumes about the importance of this issue.” [Statement]
– Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY): The court took a step toward “restoring the First Amendment rights [of corporations and unions]. … By previously denying this right, the government was picking winners and losers.” [AP]
– RNC Chairman Michael Steele: “Today’s decision by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC, serves as an affirmation of the constitutional rights provided to Americans under the first amendment. Free speech strengthens our democracy.” [Statement]
– Senate Candidate Marco Rubio: “Today’s SCOTUS decision on McCain-Feingold is a victory for free speech.” [Statement]
There is a fair bit of Republican camouflage being thrown around with this decision. They are framing this purely as a "First Amendment" issue, that it's private citizens that will benefit. This completely ignores that fact that large corporations will have more control over the voices of politicians that claim to have "private citizens" best interest at heart.
This story, and that of Sarah Palin's continuous parading of her children as part of her political theatre, are more divergent than almost anything immaginable. Whereas Barack Obama has mentioned his children limited times and never in the context of a politicized statement, Sarah Palin has multiple examples ranging from her infomercial on Fox"News" with Bristol and her new grandchild to nearly every speaking engagement having one of her three ( if not all ) her daughters in tow ready to vamp it up for the cameras. And Palin was even noted to have taken her entire family on "business" trips.
So, considered the reality of the situation, it is difficult for anyone to swallow the meme of "leave my children alone" that Palin trots out each and every time someone makes a comment about her using her kids as set-dressing.
Now the Obama's are getting a taste of this from conservatives. And this time, it is completely without warrant and shows not only the very real racist component that has resided within many corners of the conservative movement for generations, but the rank hypocrisy that threads itself through nearly every facet of their ideology.
The conservative blog Free Republic posted this pic of Malia Obama and asked commentors to give their thoughts.
A typical street whore." "A bunch of ghetto thugs." "Ghetto street trash." "Wonder when she will get her first abortion."
And this is coming from the same people that decried any mention of Sarah Palin's children.
While it should be pointed out that there were ( and probably still are ) the fringe members of the liberal / progressive movement that believe that Bristol Palin is the real mother of Sarah's child Trig, that meme was mainstreamed by people like Michelle Malkin, Hot Air, and conservative talk radio. Not that they advocated the theory, but they made it out to be a much larger, more pluralized, opinion than it every was or will be.
The comments directed toward Sarah Palin's diabled child were swiftly denounced by the Left but the conservative movement is still trying to keep that story alive. Truth-be-told, it is the only example ( save David Letterman's comedic riff ) that can be construed as an "attack" or a "smear" on the Palin family.
So what do other bloggers have to say about this?
BlueGal @ Crooks And Liars has a point that dovetails with mine.
Anyone who has ever blogged knows that there are the occasional commenters who post things that embarrass us. If a blog in question has a commenting policy that forbids racist, abusive, violent, or otherwise inappropriate comments, we at Crooks and Liars don't make an issue of it if, on a blog we disagree with, some commenter slips through their gate with a comment that violates those policies.
We also know that some right-wing blogs, namely Michelle Malkin and her Hot Air brigade, run through our comment threads regularly looking for comments that might embarrass us. That's not the reason for our policy, we simply have standards.
When this Free Republic "spokesman" is given an opportunity to distance himself and the blog from some ridiculous comments that he and the blog were not initially responsible for, he instead uses his fifteen seconds of fame to exclaim that the left wing blogs "have no standards." Really.
And I agree with BG - there isn't a blog around that is going to be able to prevent all the idiocy that gets put up on their stie. This is a concept that Bill O'Reilly struggles with even today.
But when Free Republic spokesperson Kristinn Stewart was given the opportunity to state that these comments were offensive and out of line he decided that he would lambast liberal / progressive blogs for "not having standards".
Shuster is correct - this and what people are saying about Sarah Palin or her children is completely different.
But, such is the slippery slope of free-speech. And that is the ultimate argument that will be waged by the far-right - it is their right to free speech to say these things. It's becoming increasingly more and more apparent that the far-right conservatives within the Republican party can't seperate blatant hate-speech from criticism.
Having grown up in a part of the US where abject hatred towards not only blacks but any ethnicity other than "white" is acceptable - and apparently passed down as tradition - I have become somewhat numb to the racial epithets that I have to hear on virtually a daily basis. But this is simply beyond the pale.
Earlier this morning, I posted a piece about Sarah Palin "quoting" Newt Gingrich in a speech at an Anchorage event earlier this month. In it, I described how conservatives pander to those who hold higher positions of power in the hopes that they will be seen as "team players". Newsbuster writer Rusty Weiss takes this to a whole new level.
Wasn't it just a couple of days ago that the crew over at the Daily Kos was fretting about how conservatives as a whole are equally as complicit in the murder of George Tiller as the shooter himself? And of the details being reported to better understand the background of the actual killer, Scott Roeder, doesn't one major detail involve the posts that he left on anti-abortion Web sites?
With that in mind, how concerned should we be with a blog post that fantasizes about the death of conservative columnist Michelle Malkin?
Bowing in reverence to Michelle Malkin will sometimes get you play on either her site or HotAir. She loves the attention and her fan base is exhaustingly rabid in their devotion. But there's something that Mr. Weiss is missing out on.
Of the 11 comments ( that's right, 11 ) that this diary received, the bulk of them thought the diary in very poor taste and some even asked for it to be deleted. So much for Rusty's claim that DailyKos, as a whole, thinks the same way the diarist does.
But, such is the thought process of a conservative, especially one blatantly trying to get Michelle Malkin to notice him.
By and large, the diary is an easy target for Weiss. It takes on one of the biggest stars of the fringe-conservative movement and is posted on a website that those same conservatives love to hate.
Even though the diarist is exercising their right to free speech, it was done in poor taste. But, equally as poor is Rusty Weiss' blatant cry for attention from Malkin and her admirers, which I will admit to giving him attention this once - if only to point out his lazy form of reportage, in rushing to Malkin's aid. Rather than searching for a poorly written piece of fiction on DailyKos, Weiss could be looking into the broader implications of the Tiller assassination, a subject that he connected with the Kos diary.
Michelle Malkin seems to think that people should have tolerance for hatespeech:
If you want your kids to go to a university that teaches tolerance for dissent, respect for free speech, and the ability to debate ideological opponents without screaming at them and waving ferrets in their faces, do not — I repeat, do not — send them to the University of Massachussetts....
Malkin is refering to a speech at The University of Massachusetts given by conservative pundit, writer, and blogger Don Feder.
His abreviated speech, specifically tailored to insight anger amongst many in attendance, focused primariy on the following:
Hate crime laws are fascism, fascism in the guise of protecting minorities.
Excepting laws against libel and slander, we have the freedom to spread lies and disinformation, the freedom to spread lies that are hurtful and even hateful, we have the freedom to say things that would enrage those who would suppress speech in the name of tolerance
Ah, the "fascism" bit. How original.
From the start, this event was doomed to end and be a nice little talking-point for people like Malkin.
Granted, there were verbal interuptions ( and someone was escorted away that had a ferret, but there was no mention of it being waved in someone's face ) but Feder seemed ready to end his speech before he even started.
While disrupting a speech is a rather poor way to show that you disagree with a speaker, it's almost expected when you have a someone like Feder who is doing the speaking. It's people like this - as well as Ann Coulter and David Horowitz - who provide nothing to advance the national dialogue on specific issue, but prefer to "shock".
So, the question to Malkin would be - are you advocating hate-speech?
When someone compares his audience to Nazis, I don't really see that there is anything to gain from their words.
Republican Club vice president Brad DeFlumeri, who organized the event, had this to say:
...the leftists who did attend made it quite clear quite early that they intended for the event to be shut down, that they intended to infringe upon Don Feder’s first amendment free speech rights.
Was there intent on their part?
It could easily be argued that Feder gave-up his free-speech rights because he realized that the audience had no desire to accept his hatred.
What is it with teacher / student relations that makes the teacher in question feel that he / she can potentially damage the educational record of a student on what amounts to nothing more than a whim?
The lawsuit, filed Monday in a Florida federal court, concerns Katherine Evans, now 19, who was suspended as a senior last year after creating a Facebook group devoted to her English teacher. The group was called "Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I've ever met!," and featured a photograph of the teacher, and an invitation for other students to "express your feelings of hatred."
After people's comments derided Evans for the online stunt, and expressed support for the teacher, she deleted the group. But Pembroke Pines Charter High School, which did not respond for comment, suspended Evans for three days for "disruptive behavior" and for "Bullying / Cyber Bullying Harassment towards a staff member," according to the lawsuit, which is backed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Evans was removed from her from advanced placement classes "and forced her into the lesser-weighted honors classes." The lawsuit alleges the black mark on Evans' permanent record is "unjustifiably straining her academic reputation and good standing."
What bothers me most about this is that the school seemed all too willing to go along with the suspension of a student that was doing nothing more than expressing her opinion of a teacher.
As a student who has had to sit in Ms Phelps' class has a unique perspective and a right to discuss if this teacher is being effective in the classroom or not. Due to the fact that the Facebook page has been deleted ( is there a cached version? ) it is difficult to discern whether or not Katherine Evans' rhetoric could be seen as threatening.
The broader implication is this - where is the seperation between protected and non-protected speech of a student? Why did her punishment also include her removal from Advanced Placement classes?
This seems more like a case of an angry teacher that blatantly abused the power given to her.
This would not be a story had Attorney General Micheal Mukasey collapsed during his speech to the Federalist Society. But since he did, and since "someone" had heckled him at one point, the "heckler" is getting just as much attention from right-wing bloggers.
It turns out that the person that shouted at Mukasey was Washington State Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders.
After listening to Mukasey defend the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policies — its detainment practices at Guantánamo Bay, its interpretation of the Geneva Conventions’ reach — Sanders stood and shouted “Tyrant! You are a tyrant!”
“Frankly, everybody in the room was applauding or sometimes laughing, and I thought, ‘I’ve got to stand up and say something.’ And I did,” Sanders told The Seattle Times Tuesday. “I stood up and said, ‘Tyrant,’ then I sat down again, then I left.”
More ( plus an interesting comments section ) here @ THINK PROGRESS
Michelle Malkin - that twitchy siren of "truth" amongst her own adorning fans - seems to think that Sanders shouldn't just make a formal apology, but one that meets her "standards".
Over the weekend, I wrote about Washington state Supreme Court justice Richard Sanders, an old friend of mine from my days in Seattle who had been identified on Friday by lawyer Wendy Long as the man who heckled Attorney General Michael Mukasey during his Federalist Society address........To be clear: I don’t think this is a massive scandal. But I would like to know the truth and I think people in Washington state deserve to know it, too. Sanders earned my deepest respect as I covered his pro-life, pro-liberty stands. When he was unfairly accused of judicial misconduct in the past, I said so. And if I think he violated the spirit of the code of judicial conduct at the Federalist Society dinner, I will say so, too.
A sitting judge acting like an unhinged Code Pink protester would certainly seem to cross the line.
Moreover, dancing around a simple factual question now is, at the very least, annoying. And unseemly.
So, the question stands - did Justice Sanders violate his "code of conduct"? Moreover, do sitting Judges have free speech rights when they are not "sitting at the bench".
Considering the fact that Malkin, and many like her, are so concerned about Judges "legislating from the bench" and her previous defense of Sanders, it seems that Malkin doesn't think he has the same rights as others. I'll not venture into the la-la-land of conservative debate - the "what if..." line of thinking - but when you look at how easily Malkin maligns Sanders with the likes of Code Pink ( one of Malkin's favorite boogie-men ) you begin to see that something as simple as a person being "heckled" is an outrageous - or unhinged - act in Malkin's eyes.
It appears that no one is able to express their emotions without being accused of being part of a "mob", or have the mentality of one. It is becoming more and more evident that the lunatic-fringe - of which Malkin is a primary voice for - consider any and everyone that expresses their voice, even though they may agree with them on other issues, somehow tainted and unfit to serve the office of which they are elected.
The point, if in fact malkin has one, is that free speech extends only as far as her own ideological thinking.
Yesterday, I blogged about the Colorado 5th grader that wore the "Obama - Terrorist" shirt to school.
Make no mistake about it, this kid's father convinced him to do it.
Various conservative sites talked about it without addressing the issue at hand - indoctrination of children with the intent of disrupting an educational environment.
While some have claimed that the boy's right to free-speech was violated, I am finding it increasingly more shocking that so many in the conservative realm are willing to force-feed ideology to their children rather than having them develop their own, original, opinions.
It was with little shock that I watched Zack Dalton and his father talk with Martha MacCallum and Trace Gallagher on Fox"News" about the incident.
Zack, for lack of a more appropriate phrase, is scared shitless.
His father, Dan, attempts to frame the story as if it was Zack's idea to create and wear the t-shirt. I find this a rather difficult pill to swallow. No in-so-much as an 11-year-old isn't capable of formulating an opinion on people, but that he would make a t-shirt that falls directly in-line with conservative talking-points that Fox"News" has been rehashing for months.
While i'm sure that Zach's home is filled with Dan's seething right-wing rage on a daily basis, the video is pretty clear in revealing to the audience that this wasn't something that Zack was passionate about and that he was coached - possibly forced - into creating and wearing the t-shirt. If this had been his idea, one would think that a person of such conviction would be willing to talk about it. It's also interesting to point out that not even Dan was comfortable talking about it. It's easier for him to act out his agressions by forcing his son to do things he doesn't want to do.
Now that he has succeeded in getting his son suspended, Dan is planning on suing that school. I hope the judge throws the book at this pathetic excuse for a father.
Leave it to Michelle Malkin and her band of drooling compatriots to blame the public school system for any and everything.
The latest example is of an 11-year-old that wore this t-shirt to school:
The story, as reported by MyFOXColorado.com, reads as such:
An 11-year-old in Aurora says his first amendment rights are being trampled after he was suspended for wearing a homemade shirt that reads “Obama is a terrorist’s best friend.”
The fifth grader at Aurora Frontier K-8 School wore it on a day when students were asked to wear red, white and blue to show their patriotism.
The boy’s father Dann Dalton describes himself as a “proud conservative” who has taken part in some controversial anti-abortion protests. Dalton says the school made a major mistake by suspending his son for wearing the shirt.
“It’s the public school system,” Dalton says. “Let’s be honest, it’s full of liberal loons.”
…Aurora Public Schools would not talk about the case but said the district “Respects a student’s right to free speech, such as the right to wear specific clothing,” but administrators say they review any situation that interrupts the learning environment.
Paperwork submitted by the school district says Daxx Dalton was not suspended for wearing the shirt, but for willful disobedience and defiance.
So, the question is - does a student have the right to wear whatever they want to school. No.
There have always been dress-code rules in schools. Some very stringent, some lax.
By throwing out the "I'm exercising my free speech" line, you should be able to recognize that another student or school official has the right to express there's. From the school official standpoint, they are required to enforce the dress-code if it has been violated.
The Malkinites jumped at this with there oh-so-predictable "If it had been an anti-McCain shirt" drivel.
For more reasons that I can explain at this point, conservatives feel the need to operate in an alternate reality from the one that is presented to them.
Most of the commentors on Malkin's site are not even addressing the fact that an 11-year-old child is being indoctrinated by his father to associate Barack Obama with "terrorist".
to rationalize this, they are attempting to convince anyone that reads the posting that their own children - some as young as 8 - are "well-versed" in politics.
On September 23rd, 2008 at 11:10 am, TxSkirt said: My kidlets are 10 and 8 and are both well versed on the differences in the candidates in this race. I want to raise conservative adults. I am not of the “let the kids decide for themselves” school of thought. I also don’t allow them that all sugar diet they’ve been asking about. I’m all mean like that.
My kids have been to the republican headquarters and watched the convention. Of course, we home school so I don’t have to worry about a dress code. But if they were in public school, I would work extra hard to make sure they have the critical thinking skills it takes to question this tripe and not swallow it whole.
Some even went so far as to say that they were politically active at 11
On September 23rd, 2008 at 10:52 am, bansharia said: disclosure: I was rabid GOP kid at 11. lived in Nixon’s home town and RR was gov hm I would have prob gotten expelled for kicking “shins” of any teacher that had a problem with shirt. that said my class mates were not as passionate nor are some of my neighbors as an adult!! we just don’t know enuff on this issue MM posted.. see ya will stop back and yammer later perhaps. enjoy this day He has created
For the reactionary masses that make up the neo-conservatives that flock to Malkin's site, there is no need for facts, no need for addressing the reality of the situation. Simply divert attention away from the problem by claiming the problem lies within another source. If that doesn't work, just make stuff up.
Of all the comments posted, only a few actually addressed the issue at hand while the remainder seem to favor indoctrination of children.
