Malkin Pours On The Spin-Love Little Jimmy O'Keefe

Not content with even attempting honest investigative journalism, James O'Keefe and his blind compatriots at Project Veritas have cranked out another completely worthless video "expose". This time attempting to do something along the lines of point out hypocrisy regarding people that own guns and the poor decision of a New York newspaper that printed a map of registered gun owners in the region. At least this is what we are lead to believe.

 The only problem is they just wasted time, video editing equipment, internet bandwidth, but - but at the same time - managed to maintain the uncheck, unwaivering, and fawning support of select members of the Modern American Right that lap up O'Keefe's nonsenscial prattling and context free experiemnts like so much cream. Naturally, Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air attempted - and poorly at that - to approach this from a semi-professional bit of spin, twitching serial misinformer and mouth-breathing sychophant jumps with glee, but it was Michelle Malkin's metaphorical hand-job for young Jimmy that really made me laugh. In her latest piece of Malking drooling over O'Keefe entitled WHAT I ADMIRE MOST ABOUT JAMES O'KEEFE, the Purse Lipped Rage Princess traded in her faux indignation for a warm hand and some lubricated language to prove her undying affections for little Jimmy:

…is his willingness and unmatched ability to go after the most sacred of sacred cows: The sanctimonious beasts of the Fourth Estate;

…his relentlessness in exposing media double standards;

…his entrepreneurial independence;

…his indefatigable humor;

…and his success in bringing a smile to my face every time he produces another classic video using the very techniques of those hallowed beasts of the Fourth Estate who feign objectivity.

let's take these preposterous bullet points ( no pun intended ) one at a time.

- his willingness to distort, lie, misinform, edit, and go after people whom have done no wrong is certainly there.

 - Ah, the dreaded media that doesn't tow the Right Wing line. I would ask her what her alleged "standards" are, but I think that would fall on deaf ears. We know what they are anyway

 - There is NOTHING even remotely "independant" about what Project Veritas do. He was at the beck and call of the late deacon of "nu-media" lies, Andrew Breitbart and WELL funded by the corporate overlords that funneled cash into Breitbart's media complex. However, he is at least marginally considered "entrepreneurial", if only in the sense that even a liar can make a buck.

- I'm wondering where Malkin gets that O'Keefe is humorous in any shape of the definition.

 - The last bit is where Malkin finishes off little Jimmy with her silver-tongued prattlings. It's actually pretty disgusting when you think about it.

 It truly is a sight to see what the Modern American Right consider investigative journalism. But it doesn't matter to them, so long as it can be destributed and they control the narrative across legitimate media platforms that feel compelled to waste precious airtime on discussing such pointless and meandering fakery. But unfortunately, it happens will continue to.

 I guess I at least a little guilty in that regard simply because of this post.

The Art Of The Hack Right Wing Blogger

Sure, hypocrisy knows no political alignment. I have to admit that I've caught myself more than a few times saying one thing while thinking another. It's something I've learned from and feel I have become a better blogger, and better person because of it. This apparently hasn't happened to Andrew Breitbart's least intelligent employee Jim Hoft ( aka: GatewayPundit ) who's hypocrisy is so transparent that it practically screams at you several hours throughout any given day.

Take this post for example:

Another Day – Another Leftist Attack
The left must be very proud tonight. Far left criminals defaced Sarah Palin’s bus tonight.



The left is upset that Sarah Palin just won’t go away.

Actually, the Left isn't upset that she won't go away, it's just that she makes herself such an easy topic for scorn and derision when she does and says some of the most preposterous things - like this

And you call this an "attack" and an act of "defacement"? Please, it's a piece of paper with tape on the back. Take it off, drive away, and stop the pity party.

What makes this even more of a point that Jim Hoft is so eager to digitally finer-bang Palin that he can't keep his media "hate list" in order, is that he actually sourced the website that published pics from her hacked account. Double standard much?

Just check out his sit tomorrow morning, as Hoft will likely have many more examples that expose his rank amateur status.

Of Family And Opportunities Not Wasted

I'll preface this post with the following:

Every time I see people within the Modern American Right speak about the need to find a "missing person" ( usually a white female as evidenced by multiple reports from Fox"News" over recent years ) there's a palatable undertone that is eventually coupled with a variety of "issues of the moment" - immigration, minority gangs, religion, media. The later two take center stage in this particular incident.

Malkin goes after NPR and Muslim comedian Maz Jabrini in an attempt to show that the public radio station and Muslims are "attacking her and her family":

If the obscure and has-been comedians who appear on National Public Radio want to mock conservatives and spread left-wing propaganda, they should do it on their own damned dime.

The government-sponsored radio conglomerate broadcasts a weekend show called “Wait Wait…Don’t Tell Me!” It leans heavily on laugh tracks to prop up the lame punchlines of the likes of liberal humorist Paula Poundstone and describes its purpose thusly: “Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me! is NPR’s weekly hour-long quiz program. Each week on the radio you can test your knowledge against some of the best and brightest in the news and entertainment world while figuring out what’s real news and what’s made up.”

The “best and brightest” include a Muslim comedian named Maz Jabrani, whom NPR has been promoting as “the face of Middle Eastern humor in America today.”

Judging from his latest bit performed on this weekend’s show, the face of Middle Eastern humor looks a lot like the face of your typical CAIR mouthpiece. Tea Party-bashers Ron Schiller and Vivian Schiller may be gone and the House may have defunded the public radio enterprise, but the conservatives=racist smear narrative is alive and well at NPR.

There are just a few problems with Malkin's claims ( and I'm not just talking about her insistence that it's a "canned laugh track" used in the program - like the one Fox"News" used on their own short lived and teeth gnashingly poor Half Hour News Hour ) about the program. The primary of which is twofold: that this was a direct assault on her family and her missing cousin and the allusion that NPR is primarily funded by taxpayer dollars.

And while Malkin is want to use issues of race, culture, religious background - and just about anything "non-right-wing" about a person to elevate her own ideological failings - what she is missing is that this particular skit on NPR is predicated on the notion that some people are going to fall for a particular story simply based on it's sensational nature. How ironic.

All one has to do is take a listen to the audio provided by NPR ( which Malkin even linked, mind you ) to realize that the story was false, as even the hosts revealed. Jabrini was using the continued notion of "birtherism" - something still rampant within the Modern American Right - in satirical fashion simply because so many people actually believe it.

Does the fact that a member of a person's family is going through a potentially tragic moment in their life mean that the person, like Malkin, in question is now officially immune to criticism? No. But to justify that based on how members of the Modern American Right act wouldn't exactly be fair either.

People like Michelle Malkin don't listen to NPR unless they are provided with a "tip" that there was allegedly something said that could be construed as "inflammatory" towards the Right in America that just might make for a good soundbite or talking point on their particular blog or on a Fox"News" program. That's the reality of how this story - and virtually all stories Malkin and her ilk are formulating regarding NPR - is gaining traction.

And while just about everyone within the Modern American Right will go to bat for Malkin anytime she misinforms, distorts, and fabricates herself, there's even a popular Right Wing blog that can't even get the clear and readily apparent facts straight on Malkin's missing family member.

But this is to be expected, when they are just as much "concerned" with distorting and misinforming about NPR as they are about finding this young woman.

Do I hope that this young woman is found? Of course. But I don't think we should sit idly by while Malkin uses this incident as a stick to beat her ideological opponents with. That, despite what she claims about NPR, is something that is truly disgusting.

EXIT QUESTION: Could NPR or their guests have known about Malkin's cousin prior to the recording of this program? I'm sure that they could have - provided that you work up your material predicated on the fact that you specifically look for information on your subject based solely on a potentially tragic incident involving a "non-immediate" family member.

Their Own Weapons Against Them

Over the past week and a half, I have been researching the union protests in Wisconsin with considerable interest. What we are seeing is not only a reversal of script considering who some of the more vocal of protesters have been the past two years, but we are seeing the tactics of the modern American Right used against them.

Chief of these is the idea first espoused by a saint of the Right, Ayn Rand.

It's called "Going Galt".

First, some background.

The entire premise of Rand's seemingly endless preamble - which culminated with a 70 plus page speech from Galt on what would become known as the foundation of "objectivism" - is that is the "producers" separated themselves from the rest of the country, that they would prosper, as people relied on them - as they "produce the wealth" that all Americans enjoy.

For the avid reader of Rand, her prose is akin to Holy Writ, but upon further examination of the woman, she comes across as more of a hypocrite than a patron saint of modern American Right theology.

So how does this connect with the 14 lawmakers in Wisconsin that have left the state to prevent a "quorum" in the State House?

First, we have to look at how many of the loudest voices on the Right are criticizing the tactics they once embraced.

Vocal protests, suddenly the "thing to do" amongst "real Americans" after the election of Barack Obama have become something to joke about, to smear, to claim are nothing more than astro-turf gatherings that benefit no one but the "hidden" behind the scenes. Naturally, this was to be expected, as the modern American Right are want to embrace the Pee Wee Herman defense on a variety of issues.

But what has happened of late, and something that the 14 Democrats from Wisconsin might not have realized, is that they are using Ayn Rand's/John Galt's positions against them. And as this is something difficult for the modern American Right to reconcile - considering how they rallied around Sarah Palin's swift exeunt from Alaska - it becomes all too apparent that the double edges of this "Galtist" standpoint likely won't work for either party like they want.

For the Right in America, this idea of "leaving" would benefit no one outside of those that they idolize - the "producer". For the Left, those that "leave" are likely to face some form of punishment while those they are helping will see the bulk of the benefit. And in that, we see the clear separation of how the "Galt Cultists" in modern day America have a distorted view of whom needs representation.

That being said, the union workforce in America - in relation to the remainder of workers in America - is quite small. The number floats around 7%. But what is happening in Wisconsin has more to do with "disparate impact" than anyone on the modern American Right is willing to admit. It starts with teachers in Wisconsin and then spreads through the country like wildfire. And it's already happening in Indiana and Jersey. But why teachers? That's one of the real questions here.

Public school teachers have been a target of the modern American Right for decades, and will likely remain one regardless of what happens in Wisconsin. Why? The answer is one that is ultimately far too simple to be true, but it is. Public teachers that have organized simply desire a minimum of compensation for what they get each year and what they would get upon retirement. And to that, we need to face the reality that the Right in America have a seriously distorted view of what teachers make and what they do each day.

Does the average public school teacher make a salary equivalent to the average CEO? Not by a long shot. How about "Federal Employees"? No. But that is another point where the modern American Right shows their utter hypocrisy - not only in their accounting used but in whom they are really speaking about. Are we to believe that ALL Federal employees agree with and vote for Democrats? No, but this is what stories of this nature are designed to produce - a false equivalency. But this also goes by to what the Right often pushes as one of their pillars - being held responsible for your individual choice. Was one person forced into working for local and state government while another forced to take a job with a private company? No.

What will happen to the 14 Democrats from Wisconsin when/if they return to their State Capital? The narrative from the modern American Right reveals much, but nothing that would do much but benefit one side. Why are teachers being targeted? And that's the real question here. It's all a matter of perception versus perspective, as the former is being seriously skewed.

This goes beyond teachers, beyond Wisconsin, and far beyond simply just the average workers desire to fair treatment in the American workplace. This is about creating a wider income disparity, a decrease in the middle class, and a further elevation of monstrous private sector usurpers that want to control government to protect their own interests. This is the M.O. of the modern American Right, and it will ultimately see the downfall of even the least of them - they just aren't willing to admit that yet.

Placing Blame And Absent Accountability

While prominent conservatives like Michelle Malkin attempt to cobble together disparate "examples of left wing hate" - keeping in mind that her particular definition of "hate" shifts multiple times throughout her meandering and seemingly endless preamble - it should be pointed out that what happened Saturday in Tuscon is clearly a direct act of violence against a specific target perpetrated by a person who has far more in common with the modern anti-government movement in America than a person whom is simply a Palin fan or one that reads Saul Alinsky.

But while it is all too easy to try and pin this on one particular person, there is a shared responsibility within the modern anti-government movement; both on the LEft and Right. This isn't specifically about Palin, Angel, Glenn Beck, Fox"News", or any Right Winger on AM talk radio. This also isn't about those on the fringes of the Left either, be they the Black Panthers, Code Pink, La Raza, or any anti-war group still railing against our continued presence in Iraq or Afghanistan. There are people unstable enough on both sides with the potential to perpetrate heinous acts of violence against anyone with whom they disagree.

The problem on the Right is that they are more concerned with removing themselves from being accountable on any level, no matter how innocuous it may seem to them. The problem on the Left is that they are going to try to make the Right understand that there are consequences to violent rhetoric.

Let's examine this from both sides of the socio-political spectrum, based on the information on Loughner that we have that is of a verifiable nature. I think it is important that regardless of the incident being discussed that the data used can be accurately sourced. Much of what is being used - primarily by conservative outlets across multiple media platforms in order to blur issue - is what could be described as specious. A good example of this is the heavy usage of opinions from people who once knew Loughner but have not had contact with him in a number of years. Recent accounts from fellow students at the community college where he was ultimately dismissed from do paint the picture of a "strange" person that caused others to be concerned for their own safety do have a more credible tone to them.

So, let's take a look at the message coming from the Right.

Despite the fact that virtually all conservative - and more than a handful of self-identifies Libertarian - commentators, bloggers, television, and radio hosts have the same information available to them, there is so much noise being generated around this story that the line between accuracy and speculation has been completely erased.

A good example of this is how, despite a much larger list of books being highlighted on Loughner's YouTube page, conservatives are focusing solely on The Communist Manifesto.

Phillip Klein at The Spectator pontificates.

Liberals who have attempted to exploit the tragedy in Arizona for political gain by trying to connect Sarah Palin to the shooting should be ashamed of themselves. At this point, we have more reason to blame the revolutionary writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels for what happened....

From a pure journalistic perspective, there is absolutely no evidence that alleged shooter Loughner had ever seen Palin's famed target map, let alone that he was motivated by it. Yet in a YouTube page believed to be created by Loughner -- and widely cited in the media as such -- the alleged shooter actually names the Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite books and, unlike the subliminal message liberals attribute to Palin's map, Marx and Engles explicitly advocated political violence.

But when one takes a look at Loughner's "favorites" as a whole, there isn't so much a cogent theme, but a picture certainly taking shape of a person that is attempting to make connections between a variety of belief systems in order to validate an apparent world view.

Here's the list:

Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver's Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.

What immediately jumps out is that there are books that both the Right and Left have used as validation tools for a variety of social and political issues. To say that one book, and one book only, was the catalyst for what happened in Tuscon is quite the stretch.

Secondly, the Right are making this more about how there shouldn't be ANY accountability for any rhetoric coming from their side. This is the ultimate narrative that comes from the modern conservative movement - the perpetuation of the culture of their own victimhood status. Rather than focus on the motives behind what Loughner has done, the Right are attempting to shift focus from the crime to what they perceive will be direct attacks against their "freedoms".

I can't but wonder how anyone aligning themselves with the modern conservative movement would be more concerned with the specter of unwritten legislation they perceive will take away a "right" in light of a tragedy of this scope rather than show active concern over the fact that a man deemed too mentally unstable to be in college or be accepted into the Armed Forces could walk into a retail outlet and - despite a background check that didn't even pay attention to Loughner's arest record - could legally purchase a gun.

Moreover, this assassination attempt was motivated by political mistrust, as Rep. Giffords was the intended target. Documents found at Loughner's residence reinforce this. But the discordant noise is beginning to drown out what should be the central focus of this tragic event. From speculation that Loughner was a "Truther" to recent assumptions that he was involved in the occult the Right is gaining more leverage to push their own pre-formatted narrative.

But what of the Left? Are they no less guilty of using what happened to Giffords?

One of the problems of the liberal/progressive movement is that they try to put a very sharp focus on a variety of issues while not realizing that this has always been used against them. This is in direct contrast to the American Right, whom distort and blur better than anyone. The problem with placing direct responsibility on a person like Sarah Palin, Sharron Angel, or even Glenn Beck, is that many on the Left ultimately ignore the fact that they weren't the ones that perpetrated the act. Are they complicit in any way? I am comfortable in saying that they nurture an environment of governmental distrust and are more than capable of understanding that there may be those out there that take what they say to the utmost extreme. But this takes us directly to the second problem that the Left in America face - that they think the Right will stand by what is allegedly one of the keystones of their ideology; calls for accountability.

I'm reminded of a scene from Mark Pellington's film Arlington Road, where Jeff Bridges' character Micheal Faraday - a teacher obsessed with Right Wing extremism - tells his class about how America has a "need" to find "one person" to blame for an incidents that are so large and so evil in scope that we can't seem to bring ourselves to reconcile them on our own. To me, this reflects the consumerist nature of modern Americans. We need a set of iconography to define whom we are and to rationalize specific acts by others. What the Left needs to understand - and this is something that I have struggled with as I have become more and more involved in the modern American socio-political discussion - is that things that fall in parallel with what transpired in Tuscon are much bigger than Palin or Beck or anyone that the Right identifies with. There are those within the Left that realize this, but they aren't going to be the voices you hear on CNN or even MSNBC and most certainly not on Fox"News" - though the later will certainly be sure you don't pay attention to those voices either. They are out there though.

I keep asking myself why the Left continually think that the Right are going to own up to the fact that "free speech" is not without consequence? I also keep asking why the true voices of the Left simply can't make it out there while those that harm our cause more than help it get all the attention. Does the LEft really believe that each and every time they hold a mirror up to anyone on the Right think that they are going to admit that it is, in fact, their own reflection they are looking at?

So who is Jared Loughner?

Is he a Right Wing extremist? Maybe

Is he a Left Wing radical? Who knows.

Who is to blame? Well, Loughner is, of course.

People like Loughner are precisely the ones that succumb to anti-government sentiment and fear-mongering. To this, the modern American Right should be given pause if they wish to continue to deify people like Palin and Beck as "leaders" of their movement. But the Left faces just as many challenges as they are more often than not particularly religious or read and research topics from a variety of sources to gain a deeper understanding of how certain groups act. To that end, the Right has a tool to make almost any Democrat who posts on Daily Kos and doesn't go to church look like a potential violent offender. Both sides will claim that Loughner belongs to the other.

But there are other questions we should look at.

Was Giffords targeted because of who she was politically or simply because of the proximity she had to Loughner? I doubt that her legislative stance had nothing to do with it, as Loughner could have gone after a number of governmental figures in his region.

Why did Loughner wait over three years to enact his "vengeance"? Is it pure coincidence that this happened in a state that has so dominated socio-political discussion over the last year? For those claiming that his original contact with Giffords back in 2007 exempts Palin, Beck, or any highly vocal member on the right should really look at the timing of this incident.

Will this happen again?

Holding A Mirror Up To Contextual Edits

While I do oppose racial slurs, I do understand how and why they were/are used in literature and even in modern music. It's all about context - that word that just about every conservative in America loves to use but doesn't understand.

To that end, this is just as bad as the Tea Baggers claiming that no one in their ranks uses racist speech.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Mark Twain wrote that "the difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter." A new edition of "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" and "Tom Sawyer" will try to find out if that holds true by replacing the N-word with "slave" in an effort not to offend readers.

Twain scholar Alan Gribben, who is working with NewSouth Books in Alabama to publish a combined volume of the books, said the N-word appears 219 times in "Huck Finn" and four times in "Tom Sawyer." He said the word puts the books in danger of joining the list of literary classics that Twain once humorously defined as those "which people praise and don't read."

"It's such a shame that one word should be a barrier between a marvelous reading experience and a lot of readers," Gribben said.

Yet Twain was particular about his words. His letter in 1888 about the right word and the almost right one was "the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning."

The book isn't scheduled to be published until February, at a mere 7,500 copies, but Gribben has already received a flood of hateful e-mail accusing him of desecrating the novels. He said the e-mails prove the word makes people uncomfortable.

Twain is one of our national literary treasures and knew full well what he was doing when penning these masterpieces of work. Those that are attempting to distort the context within the hallowed pages have about as much knowledge of Twain's message as they do of how an analog synth works.

They need to stop destroying American literature.

The reason that I bring up the Tea Baggers and their accurately and clearly documented use of racist language, imagery, and animus of a variety of sorts is because of a posting by none other than one of their greatest apologists - Michelle Malkin:

If it’s Tuesday (or Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, etc., etc.), it’s Political Correctness Run Amok Day in America’s education establishment.

The latest salvo? A publishing house will release p.c.-policed versions of both The Adventures of Huck Finn and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer with the words “nigger” and “Injun” deleted.

The tiresome war on Mark Twain’s novels is older than Al Sharpton’s hair grease. I’m reprinting a piece I wrote about the whitewashers’ attempt to expunge the word “nigger” from Huck Finn in 2001. America’s schoolchildren have been robbed by ignorant censors who are too busy counting Twain’s words to understand them and feckless educators too lazy to teach them.

That last paragraph always brings up a chuckle, as Malkin - and so many more conservatives like her - are telling us that there's "nothing to see here" and that "we don't understand what the Tea Parties are about" - "we" being anyone that has the ability to research the Obama administrations legislative goals, their pasts, and their widely documented actions from a neutral and non-hysterical perspective.

I'm thinking Mrs. Malkin - and anyone else within the Tea Bagger ranks that is twitching in teeth-gnashing rage over this pointless and ridiculous republishing of Twain's work - should consider the irony of their standpoints.

Now, before anyone thinks I'm comparing any Tea Bagger to Twain, it should be clear that Malkin and her easily swayed automatons are the Alan Gribben's and NewSouth Books' of the socio-political realm. While that should be obvious to most, I just thought I'd throw that out there.

The Dangers Of Over-Simplification

Anyone recall how often you hear an "anchor" on Fox"News" ask a guest to answer what is truly a complex question on a heavily nuanced issue to answer with a "yes" or "no"? O'Reilly and Hannity do this just about every night. The remainder of the conservative line-up is really no different, but those two are champs at it.

The modern conservative movement - and much of their libertarian allies - feel that all issues can be reconciled in the simple ways with absolutely no consequences to them or any of their fellow Americans. That is, of course, taking into consideration that they think anyone outside their skewed view of the country are "fellows".

This holds no less true for how many reactionary conservatives view proposed legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=68283700

That's right, 2 pages titled with a fringe conservative talking-point that does nothing within it's limited text to replace it with anything, keep anything that conservatives had agreed with prior to Obama taking office, nor one ounce of legislative language that would prevent problems within the healthcare industry from escalating.

In total, this is just a Tea Baggers way of stomping their feet and throwing a tantrum in front of everyone without worrying about how they are going to be viewed later on.

Brain Leakage

The completely unchecked hubris being vomited from Sarah Palin is truly something to marvel at.

Here ghostwriter took to Twitter immediately after the WikiLeaks document drop and made Palin look like a fool in under 140 characters:

Inexplicable: I recently won in court to stop my book "America by Heart" from being leaked,but US Govt can't stop Wikileaks' treasonous act?

Too bad that that doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense. Not because it's equating Palin's hardbound idiotic drivel with "classified" cables from world embassies is laughably preposterous - and it is - but because excerpts from her book WERE leaked and they were still available across many corners of the internet right up to when the book was released.

But Palin's "tweet" was only the start, as her writing staff decided to pen a longer op-ed piece that took the standard route of over-simplification that Palin and her mouth-agape followers crave.

We all applaud the successful thwarting of the Christmas-Tree Bomber and hope our government continues to do all it can to keep us safe. However, the latest round of publications of leaked classified U.S. documents through the shady organization called WikiLeaks raises serious questions about the Obama administration's incompetent handling of this whole fiasco.

First and foremost, what steps were taken to stop WikiLeaks director Julian Assange from distributing this highly sensitive classified material especially after he had already published material not once but twice in the previous months? Assange is not a "journalist," any more than the "editor" of Al Qaeda's new English-language magazine Inspire is a "journalist." He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?

What, if any, diplomatic pressure was brought to bear on NATO, EU, and other allies to disrupt WikiLeaks' technical infrastructure? Did we use all the cyber-tools at our disposal to permanently dismantle WikiLeaks? Were individuals working for WikiLeaks on these document leaks investigated? Shouldn't they at least have had their financial assets frozen just as we do to individuals who provide material support for terrorist organizations?

Exit question: Since when are conservatives concerned with the integrity of diplomacy? They don't seem to understand how it works, or feel the need to equate diplomacy with coddling to terrorists.

Limited Speaking Engagement

Considering that conservatives are doing their level best to formulate a narrative surrounding Nancy Pelosi's eminent departure as "speaker", her hopes to become Minority Leader in the House, as well as continuing with the "San Fransisco Values" talking points sheet, I am actually thinking about whether or not all this Pelosi prattling is worth my time.

Essentially, it's not.

To borrow a phrase that Republicans and many Libertarians that I have recently debated don't like - Let Me Be Clear.

Most of Nancy Pelosi's critics are her critics simply because she is from San Fransisco. Can you recall all the times that the name "the San Fransisco Speaker" was battered around Fox"News" and talk radio? Despite what conservatives will claim until their final breath, they might as well be saying "OMG! Teh Gay is in Congress!!!!".

Rather than waste time with that poor line of attack on Pelosi, here's what I think she should do........

..............whatever she wants.

Why is that? Regardless of what she does - be that running for minority leader or leaving Capital Hill all together - Republicans are going to go after her with all they have. And honestly, this shows that they are more than willing to put aside all that they claim to be "pressing issues" for the country simply because they have a temporary upper hand of sorts.

Has Nancy Pelosi been a perfect example of what it means to be Speaker Of The House? I would have to say no, but that is predicated on the fact that she seems to have no cared all that much about refuting the deluge of criticism that has been leveled at her. That being said, did she really need to take on all her detractors? I'm fairly sure that had she done that that she would have been labeled "unhinged", or "unfit to serve", or even "whining". After all, responding to conservative complaints never does people any good in the modern socio-political climate.

The noise machine is fully prepared to shift the narrative as needed, and the bulk of media is more than eagerly lap it up.

The Foxiness Of Projection

Having been at work most of last night as further news unfolded about Keith Olbermann, I feel I need to respond to at least some of it, as most of it has ended up as either rank speculation or nothing more than sophomoric prattling disguised as intellectual discourse.

First, here's Glenn Beck - the man that recently donated a HUGE amount of money to the US Chamber of Commerce. And let's not forget that that action was predicated on the fact that they were doling out money to help bolster the campaigns of conservative, Republican, candidates.

--- clink link to watch clip ---



Beck is most certainly the last person that should be deriding Olbermann for his stance on not voting but giving donations instead.

I'm not going to try and reconcile how the two are different means of socio-political action, but I do think that there is a separation between the two. Though that difference is subtle, Beck would rather take the approach of that of a spoiled rich kid taunting a classmate. To put it a more blunt way, Beck's only ammunition is to either fabricate to insight fear or too mock the messenger rather than address the message. Classic conservative posturing.

Hot Air's mysterious Allahpundit took the predictable route of saying "Fox is more news than MSNBC" - a stance somewhat akin to sticking your thumbs in your ears, wiggling your fingers, while sticking your tongue out and making a mouthy drone. How "professional" of him.

In his response to Olbermann's suspension and the completely unfounded accusation that Keith won't be back - from an anonymous source on less - he referenced a challenge laid forth from the same man that gave Olbermann the temporary boot. That challenge was to show where MSNBC openly "fundraised" for Democrats.

The link provided was to Olbermann stalker Johnny Dollar who referenced less than a handful of examples from Ed Schultz and one from Keith. And while the guests on those specific shows do mention their respective websites, this is nothing in comparison to what the "fair and balanced" folks at Fox"News" do every night. Fox"News" openly encourages their guests that are currently engaged in campaigns to openly ask for support. Then again, that's nuance that conservatives don't seem to understand.

But this is ultimately about the continued war between Fox and MSNBC. For former quite literally coddles to conservativism while the later has booted hosts for even lesser offenses than what Obermann has done.

Michelle Malkin, in full on purse-lipped rage might as well have put her foot in her ever gaping maw as she went on a none-to-clever tirade about "disclosure". Really, Michelle?

Olbermann’s sanctimony and hypocrisy only compound his core failure to disclose the donations before Election Day — especially during the show in which he hosted one of the beneficiaries of that cash.

Whatever NBC’s guidelines may be, it was the basic journalistic failure of the Murrow wanna-be to disclose the donation on the night he hosted one of his cash recipients that seals his fate and undermines whatever iota of credibility his station has left.

So, financial contributions are "free speech" unless an individual does it.

In terms of Malkin's accusations - and actually everyone within the modern conservative movement - that all news networks that aren't Fox are somehow "in the tank" for liberal causes is not only preposterous when even given a rudimentary glance, but that narrative is completely destroyed when considering what MSNBC has done to it's more left-leaning commentators in the past.

To end, here is Racheal Maddow's response to all of this:



Even thought some of the people that I follow on Twitter, some of those in the liberal/progressive blogosphere, and some within my community that I have discussed this with are saying that it's not right for Maddow - or any Democrat - to simply say "well, if Fox does it we can to" is to clearly be missing the point that Racheal put forward; a point that can be seen daily when one watches Fox"News".

What this boils down to is Fox openly campaigning for their Republican and hosting events to raise funds, MSNBC is simply at fault for not attacking their Democratic guests for mentioning their campaign websites on air.

Another distinction that should be noted is that Fox does not have an "ethics" policy like MSNBC does. Also, MSNBC doesn't operate under the false premise of "fair and balanced", and has a clear separation between their news and commentary. But also, isn't that something that Olbermann's detractors are clearly not admitting - that his show is "news and commentary"? After all, those exact words are part of his intro.

To end, I'm not going to remove the fact that Olbermann violated alleged company policy by not disclosing his financial contributions. Also, I'm not going to pretend that this isn't at least fractionally connected to Comcast's take-over of NBC Universal - even though that process is not fully complete. This action by Phil Griffin is clearly one to curry favor with his new bosses prior to their complete placement as NBC Universal owners.

Regardless of what happens to Olbermann, MSNBC management has made a poor decision and conservatives are equally as ignorant to claim some sort of moral victory in this.

Loud Noises!!!

A brief summary of why the recent Gawker "exclusive" about an alleged "one night stand" would-be Senate-hopeful Christine "I dabbled" O'Donnell had with a man works more for the modern conservative movement than anyone else.

For starters, it allows people like Michelle Malkin to shriek and cry about how women are treated - even though this is a tabloid publication we are talking about here - all the while knowing that she exploited a child and his family in an equally disgusting fashion. She even went so far as to highlight who Gawker's advertisers were; apparently in the hopes that a boycott would ensue - you know, just like that one that conservative laugh about when the boycott is pointed at their own Glenn Beck.

While the alleged incident is related through an anonymous source, one has to question the timing of this story. While I won't go full "truther" on this, it isn't outside the realm of possibility - considering our current socio-political climate - to at least postulate that this is a calculated move by conservatives in order to aide the O'Donnell campaign. It's likely, if my hypothesis is correct, not going to be enough to edge O'Donnell's poll numbers up enough to get her elected to the US Senate, but it is enough to ensure more conservative enthusiasm in the days and years to come. In other words, look for this to come up again, and again, and again, in relation to conservative women attempting to make political gains.

Personally, I don't pay attention to what Gawker says specifically because they are a tabloid site that traffics in sensational material just like this. Is this story about O'Donnell true? Who's to say. Regardless of the story's merit, the modern conservative movement has already seized on this opportunity to decry not only Gawker, but anyone that would even pose relevant questions to Christine O'Donnell.

Freedoms, Fears, And Fox

It appears that a new narrative has begun threading itself through the modern conservative movement - a new definition of the freedom of speech.

And it all ties in with Juan Williams and NPR.

First, let's be quite clear - Juan Williams' freedom of speech was not taken away nor infringed upon. What happened was his employer exercised their legal right to end his contract and thereby his employment with them. This is something that conservatives don't seem to understand. Freedom of speech does not include freedom to gainful employment.

As Racheal Maddow sums up quite nicely:



This same sort of rationalization was more recently used when Sarah Palin came to Dr. Laura's defense after her use of racist language on her former radio broadcast:

Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")

Again, modern conservatives love to wave around The Constitution but either haven't read it or don't understand the parts that are quite clear.

What this all boils down to is that conservatives are unwilling and incapable of understanding the very basic concept they once championed - accountability. To put it another, more blunt way, freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.

In what I can only assume is a tactic to help mask this complete misrepresentation of the First Amendment and the rights of employers, conservatives have opted to take two roads: vilify NPR and use the spectre of Islamic jihad to stir the base emotions of reactionary conservatives.

Michelle Malkin takes a two pronged approach in utilizing the fear of "state run media" - not to thinly coded rhetoric of media that is government controlled and designed to decimate disinformation and propaganda tilted towards a specific agenda - as well as language used to create the appearance of Americans sympathetic to the causes of jihad:

Not one more red cent of public money should go to NPR, PBS and CPB. Let the speech-squelching progressives and jihadi-whitewashing apologists pay for their own propaganda. Free the taxpayers!

Malkin's article also includes an anecdote that Megyn Kelly used in her "interview" with CAIR spokes man Ibrahim Hooper - that NPR correspondent Nina Totenburg's comments regarding Jessie Helms were not met with similar force by NPR. However, are we simply to take Malkin and Kelly at their words, that no corrective action was taken? And while Totenberg's comments weren't exactly as Malkin is presenting them, as they are only highlighting an 18 second clip from a more broader discussion surrounding Helms.

While some conservatives will argue that I am claiming "context" while not examining Williams' statements in the same manner, perhaps they should read my previous post in which that is very much taken into account.

A more interesting, if not bizarre, approach that conservatives are taking up is that Fox"News" is somehow more tolerant than NPR.

So says Michael Barone in a must-read analysis of the firing of Juan Williams. But don’t take his word for it, because NPR’s omsbud says essentially the same thing in NPR’s defense.

Despite the fact that ombudsman Alicia Shepard isn't even remotely saying what Ed Morrissey is claiming, this line of defensive action by a conservative is leaving out one important factor - Juan Williams all too often towed the conservative line with his fellow Fox"News" employees - even going so far as to be a repeat guest host on Bill O'Reilly's program - but to being nothing more than a gimmick to help reinforce the "Fair and Balanced" meme.

I don't think Morrissey, or anyone for that matter, can claim there is a "tolerance" within the confines of Fox"News", as evidenced from this "interview" yesterday on Megyn Kelly's continued prime-time-opinion-program audition when she was "tolerant" of the views of a Muslim civil rights group representative:



What Fox"News" is tolerant of is, from not only my perspective, abject hatred of other's religions and races. Once can easily recall how Sean Hannity devoted a full hour to spin Duane "Dog The Bounty Hunter" Chapman's racist tirades, as well as giving Don Imus his own show on their "business" channel not long after he was fired from MSNBC for racially charged language. Bill O'Reilly even kept his job after his shock that black people behave themselves in a restaurant setting. Tolerance of the opinions and language outside the conservative realm doesn't seem to get the same, by any means.

Juan Williams is not suffering by any means, as his "freedom of speech" has just netted him a newly minted 2 million dollar contract and a wider role at the conservative home for all things "pro-Constitution".

But what of NPR and the ever evolving firestorm of criticism from conservatives? Well, it was inevitable, but Jim DeMint is planning on introducing legislation to the longstanding organization that, apparently, most conservatives have never really listened to.

Conservative Republican Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina today announced plans to introduce legislation stripping federal funding from National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service.

The move comes following the firing of NPR contributor Juan Williams for comments about Muslims. Williams said among other things that he gets "nervous" when he sees Muslims on his airplane flights.

The firing prompted calls from Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and others on the right to strip NPR of funding, and now DeMint, who is beloved in the Tea Party movement despite his Senate perch, has taken up the call.

Much in the way that ACORN lost it's federal funding due to reactionary posturing by Tea Baggers in Congress, I'm not thinking that this is going to proceed much further than the "let's make a bunch of noise to distract from the issue" process. And more to the point, if Williams really is a liberal, would people like DeMint, conservative voters, and Republican Presidential hopefuls to be on his side?

At the end of the day, the freedom of speech is afforded to all of us. What we are not afforded is the freedom from consequences. But if you're in good with the folks at Fox"News", and your rhetoric is filled with enough red meat goodness, there's likely a nice financial windfall coming your way - maybe even your own show.

Why NPR Was Right And Conservatives Are Still Wrong

Yesterday, NPR terminated the contract they had with Juan Williams for comments he made regarding Muslims. And I say they were right in doing so.

But while a publicly funded company has to take into consideration all of those that help them stay in business, conservatives are using this as proof that this is nothing more than PC culture run amok.

The standard conservative defense was implemented from the start: it's all about "context".

Does watching an entire segment and hearing remarks in context also conflict with NPR’s editorial standards and practices? The Right Scoop has the entire six-minute-plus segment, and do what NPR failed to do — watch the whole thing

OK, let's watch.....



It's pretty clear what Williams is doing, which is precisely what he always does when he appears on Fox"News" - play both sides against the middle. He's being quite clear and up front with how he feels and then plays the "balance" roll in saying that people should act completely opposite from how he does in order to resolve a particular situation.

He's done this for years and I've always known that this was bound to happen.

But conservatives didn't stop there. Michelle Malkin George Soros into the "debate" in hopes to further the narrative that this was somehow his doing:

Reminder of George Soros’s NPR cash infusion this week:

NPR has received a $1.8 million grant from the Open Society Foundations to begin a project called Impact of Government that is intended to add at least 100 journalists at NPR member radio stations in all 50 states over the next three years.

Anyone can see that the initiatives that Open Society takes up are indeed contrary to those of the modern conservatives movement. After all, ensuring that the playing field is leveled for people all around the world, that health, wellness, and equal justice are benefits we all can enjoy simply doesn't blend well with the conservative narrative of "I before we". I suppose that "We the people...." only operates in certain instances. But I'm getting off track here.

Malkin also goes on to tie in an incident that had nothing to do with NPR:

Worth noting: NPR affiliate employee Sarah Spitz at public radio station KCRW wishes death on Rush Limbaugh…not a firing offense.

And while Sarah Spitz's comments towards Limbaugh do nothing but make her look like the multitude of conservatives that wish ill of Barack Obama, she was never in the employ of NPR.

....Spitz has never been an NPR employee. For many years, she has worked for KCRW, a public radio station in Santa Monica, California, as a producer and publicist.

KCRW is one of some 900 independently-operated public radio stations across the country that air NPR's news, talk and entertainment programming. Like network TV affiliates, they air national programming but act autonomously.

Not to delve too deeply into the "what if..." realm that conservatives all too often live in, but had this decision been made by a private company, it's likely that this would have been a much smaller story about who did the firing and more about the white-washing of Islamaphobia and the victimhood status of a Fox"News" employee.

The spin has been going full steam since news broke that Williams was terminated.



I'm guessing that Bill O'Reilly doesn't listen to NPR, based on his characterization of the organization. What Bill is really saying is that since NPR isn't like Fox"News" that that is what makes them an evil, liberal, propaganda outfit.

One last "what if...." point of reference that should put this into perspective.

What Williams did is essentially the same as saying that when you go to grocery store and see a black family, you're immediately going to assume that they are going to buy up all the watermelon and chicken and pay for it with food stamps. It's the same thing, and it's just as wrong.

To reiterate, NPR is an organization that is funded by people all over America and the world. They have to take into consideration their entire donor base when presenting news stories and allowing all voices to be heard. If you take just a few hours each week to listen to NPR, you're going to hear more "balance" to their programming than Fox could even pretend to muster over an entire year.

I don't feel sorry for Williams in the least. He is an example of what "accountability" is all about. I'm sure that he will be able to churn out at least one other book and lots of airtime on Fox"News" to milk and contort this story so that the modern conservative movement can further demonize anyone that doesn't follow Fox's narrative about what America is and isn't.

Defense Mechanisms

With the Angle/Reid and O'Donnell/Coons debates complete, isn't it great fun watching the entire modern conservative movement literally falling over themselves to find just one aspect of how these completely off-the-rails amateurs bested their opponents?

Allahpundit at Hot Air references the single line from Gloria Borger that virtually every conservative in the country was repeating the following day regarding Coon's apparent demeanor:

Coons can can barely contain his disdain for his opponent.

And while followers of the overly peddled "body language" metric are taking this completely at face value, I would argue that Coons showed more disinterest in O'Donnell's presentation of her "argument" rather than revealing to the audience his contempt of her as a person.

But that line just isn't going to drive up your audience share on your next program on Fox"News", is it?

Where Coons fell short - actually REALLY short - was his explanation of the "bearded-Marxist" line, which conservatives continue to fall back on like it's actually a credible piece of evidence against his candidacy.

Rather than explaining how this satirical approach to his political leanings was used in his writings, he relied on the "ah, I was only kidding" defense, which really isn't much of one.

That aside, I'm quite certain that O'Donnell - like most within the Tea Bagger movement - don't really know what a Marxist is, only that it sounds scary and creates the illusion that you have more validity to your side of any particular issue. Kind of like conservatives screaming about the "Constitutionality" of just about everything Democrats have doing and will do. Rather reminds me of a Micheal Bay film - all special effects and no plot at all.

And then there was Sharron Angle and Harry Reid.

Quite literally the only aspect of Angle's performance - or lack thereof - that conservatives are using for her defense is nothing more than childish taunting. But then again, that is their stock-in-trade.

Malkin's Monday morning quarter-backing of Angle's performance is truly something to marvel at:

In style and substance, Lady in Red Sharron Angle trounced the four-term Democrat Senate incumbent and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at tonight’s Las Vegas debate.

And in the quotable quote of the night, Angle pricked Reid’s delusions about the teetering Social Security system with two terse words:

“Man up.”

Angle smiled, channeling Reagan’s warrior optimism, and asked for Nevadans’ votes to restore prosperity and freedom and American exceptionalism. Without notes.

One could almost sense the collective "face-palm" of High School debate coaches shivering at the thought of the back and forth at competitions resorting to nothing more than "you man up!", "no, YOU man up!"

This is what the Tea Baggers have done to the intellectual process of debate - reduced it to nothing more than a "you're ugly and your momma dresses you funny" blabber-fest. Then again, conservatives are embracing the idea that you don't need higher education or experience to make your country a better place.

I will say this of Reid, he was - and is, really - too stiff and didn't really take it to Angle like he should have. Perhaps his confidence that he's going to win is showing just a little too much. But if he had been tougher on her, I'm sure the conservative narrative would have shifted from Angle being more effective in her responses to her being bullied. And I'm sure the sexist meme wouldn't have been too far behind.

Both debates were predictable and just a little more than disappointing to watch at times. I'm sure that both sides of the political aisle can agree on that aspect. But from a realistic standpoint, Coons was the clear winner on his night and Reid seemed to just be treading water. The later, to me at least, didn't have a clear winner and that fault falls directly at Reids feet.

What I will say is this - if Delaware elects O'Donnell and Nevada elects Angle, they are going to be sorely disappointed. Anyone recall the last time you heard a conservative shout from the mountaintops about the incredible, patriotic, pro-American job Scott Brown is doing?

Attack Everything

I'm guessing had Michelle Obama wrote each spouse of the delegates of the UN a personal letter that conservatives would concoct yet another conspiracy about how the Obamas are out to create a "one world government". But they've only got vegetables and a gift basket to work with this time.

A special recipe of pickled, hand-picked ingredients from the White House Kitchen Garden, including sun gold tomatoes, okra, cucumbers, chocolate bell peppers, carrots, lemon verbena, and fresh herbs are presented in jars with the First Lady's signature. The jars are topped with original artwork done by California artists, Michael Cronan and Karin Hibma, who were inspired by a photo of Mrs. Obama tending to the garden with children and a wheelbarrow.

That's right, a gift based around the idea of healthy eating, promoting American small-business, and the very ideals that make up the American spirit of creativity and exceptionalism.

Naturally conservatives want nothing to do with that at all.

As the world leaders were back in the City scheming to divvy up money that doesn’t belong to them, the spouses hung around with FLOTUS and received a basket that I’m predicting will come to be known as “the re-gifting heard ’round the world”

Because all Republicans have been taught since Obama started his bid for the Presidency that you can't eat vegetables anymore, as only "liberal elites" do that.
This actually fits in quite nicely with Glenn Becks tirades about his french fries. Wait, are they still calling them "Freedom Fries"?

Oh, and for an added bonus, check out how quickly the racial invective starts up at Fox"Nation" in their comments section about this story. Yeah, no racists in the conservative movement - none at all.

The Narrative Has Been Flipped

Michelle Malkin once again proves the longstanding point that conservatives are more than willing to be unblushing hypocrites when the time is right.

Case in point, the recently released video footage of would-be Tea Bagger Senator Christine O'Donnell's admission that she dabbled in witchcraft.

Narcissism. Blackmail. Distortion. All wrapped in his trademark smirk of pallor. Yes, it’s tired old liberal “comedian” Bill Maher trying to get Senate GOP primary candidate Christine O’Donnell to come on his show by baiting her with a brief video clip in which she mentions having “dabbled” in “witchcraft” and hung around people who practiced it.

The left-wing blogs (and a few short-sighted rightie ones) are having a field day. What they all seem to have missed is the context for the discussion. The AP says the “context of what led to the comment is not clear.”

But after chiding Maher for doing exactly what Andrew Breitbart makes a living doing ( actually Maher was much more honest and forthcoming about the footage he has than the blubbery rage we expect from the man behind the website "BigJournalism" ) and in typical purse-lipped outrage, Malkin takes to O'Donnell's defense. But why is Malkin defending a clear and unchallenged admission? Could it be that she has to defend the Tea Baggers at all costs, prior standpoints regarding Democrats be damned?

So, she tried it. She rejected it. And she learned from it.

Somehow, this Maher-edited clip (which was never aired on TV, by the way) warrants a declaration from my friend John Hinderaker at Power Line that O’Donnell’s career is “RIP.”

Nonsense. She has nothing to be ashamed of — except, perhaps, for going on Maher’s show so many times. He promises to release 22 more clips until she sits down with him in front of the cameras and brags, in typical TV chauvinist fashion, that he “created her” and that she “owe[s]” him.

Does anyone recall how the blood-thirsty conservative masses - Malkin included - were literally wetting themselves over rank speculation at what Barack Obama may or may not have done in previous years? It was an all out brawl to see who could be the first and loudest with regards to literally every aspect of Obama's fabricated past.

But it isn't just Malkin that is upset at the vetting process when it comes to conservatives. They simply can't stand to have their own words read back to them, for them to be challenged on their statements and actions. I'm just counting down the moments until Malkin finally goes all in with her whining and forgetfulness of even recent history and starts shouting "sexism".

What Rush Is Really Doing

While Media Matters highlights Limbaugh's predictable fear mongering in the tag line to the clip, there's something that they miss all together.



For starters, Limbaugh - right off the bat - calls the building of Park 51 a "trumped up story". From the conservative point of view, he's completely right, but he seems to forget that statement one moment later when he started calling it a "recruitment center".

But the oddity of Rush's statements don't end there, as he is claiming that Rev. Terry Jones' intent to burn the Koran on Sept. 11th isn't something we should worry about, as it's "silly" and "not worth the energy", even though conservative websites that continually go to bat for Limbaugh have been covering this quite literally 24/7.

And while Limbaugh claims to be "manipulated" into reporting on this story - you know, how Park51 has no money and how a blatant conservative is going to burn a Muslim holy book in order to prove some kind of point - he dives headlong into the theory that Park51 is going to be a recruiting center for terrorists.

The cognitive dissonance of this man should really be studied by modern neuro-surgeons.

This, Unfortunately, Isn't The Start

.....it's simply a continuation of what is already germinating in America.



Talking Points Memo has more details:

According to NY1, the cabbie managed to lock the passenger in the back seat while he called 911. Then both cabbie and crazy deranged passenger were taken to Bellevue Hospital, a few blocks away. According to NY1 -- and sort of incredibly -- as of late last night, the crazy deranged passenger had not yet been charged. No word on the condition of the cabbie at this point, either. Right now, NY1 appears to be the only source for this story (and their source seems to just be the police).

Okay so: Anyone else sadly not surprised at a Muslim hate crime in New York City these days? The anger that flared up at the anti-Mosque protest on Sunday sure looked like it could have led to something scary. Anti-Muslim invective is not a new phenomenon -- Glynnis MacNicol reminded me how after 9/11, many Muslim (and Indian) cabbies put American flags in their windows, to signal their patriotism. It's not just in New York, either: In San Diego, a cabbie was attacked in May after taking a pit-stop to pray. In Chicago, cabbies are now driving around with anti-Islamic ads on them, sponsored by a group called "Stop The Islamization of America." on Open Salon, a contributer wrote about hearing the 9/11 stories of cab drivers, particularly one Muslim man.

Hate crime, or opportunity for conservatives? If you guessed both, you're right - but that's not a good thing.

The apparent anti-Muslim assault on a New York city cabbie by a man shouting “Assalamu Alaikum. Consider this a checkpoint" produced an immediate round of recriminations over its connection to opposition to a New York Islamic Center and an apparent rising tide of Islamophobia.

But as often at the intersection of politics and violent crime, the story doesn't appear to fit any easy stereotype: The alleged assailant, Michael Enright, is — according to his Facebook profile and the website of the left-leaning media organization Intersections International — a student at the School of Visual Arts and a volunteer for Intersections, which recently produced a statement of support for the Park51 project and is funded by the mainstream, liberal Collegiate Church of New York.

Intersections did not respond to two messages, and the group does not appear to be picking up the phone. Enright did not respond to a message through his Facebook account.

But this appears to be the same man: Police described Enright as a resident of Brewster, 21 years old, and an employee of an "Internet media company who had recently spent time with a combat unit in Afghanistan filming military exercises until this past May."

While both Fox"Nation" and Politico play the "friend of a friend" game with this, it's rather easy to see through this paper-thin facade.

While the reactionary Right will claim that since this man was affiliated with Intersections, that THAT is conclusive proof that he is a leftist. That's a pretty sad argument to make, as people that want to break into visual media - particularly cinematography - will take on almost any available job that would grant them access to shoots that will boost their portfolio and hopefully garner them a position where they truly desire to be. Where you work doesn't directly reflect your political outlook. I worked for almost 5 years for a hydraulics firm packed with racist, Right-wing Palin worshipers and I'm definitely not aligned with them.

But then we are most certainly to see the "but he volunteered with them" argument that will be used to paint a portrait of "lefty-sympathy". It all wreaks of the continued conservative clamour to try and prove that it's the liberals/progressives that are the violent ones.

Exit question: Michelle Malkin's already got this man's name and place of residence, so why didn't she check his voter registration status like she has done so many times before to prove a point? Could it be that she wouldn't get the answer she wanted?

Not Seeing Is Apparently Still Believing

We are, by and large, a visual culture. We thrive on being able to "see" something in order to believe that it's not only true but that it is in important to us. This aspect of our existence has taken a very peculiar turn in recent years, as many of us are relying heavily on what others tell us is or isn't there. Many of us are no longer "seeing" what is actually around us but are merely "believing" what we are being told is there.

Early this morning Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight had a post that clearly illustrated this point as it relates to the alleged "Ground Zero Mosque" in New York City - Cordoba House. And while this is not specifically a "mosque" and most certainly NOT at "Ground Zero", the perceptions of far too many have been distorted by the likes of Fox"News" as far back as May, but has been disseminated throughout the conservative blogging realm by the likes of Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, to Sarah Palin.

Those that are against this Muslim center seem to be ignoring not only the facts surrounding it, but the realities of other buildings that are near "Ground Zero" that you can't see right away.

Recently, I came across a posting at Bob Cesca's blog that talked about a strip0-club that was located the same approximate distance that Cordoba House would be located from the former site of WTC Towers 1 and 2. And as the author of the piece rightly points out, where is the outrage surrounding the "exploitation of women" near such hallowed ground?

I can almost hear conservatives complaints that strippers and Muslims can't be compared, but I think this is also a matter of perception versus perspective. Not all strippers are coked-up floozies that take drugs and leave their children in seedy hotel rooms while they turn tricks and spread diseases. Likewise, not all Muslims are willing to strap a bomb vest on and charge into a building filled with children and blow the structure into dust in order to further their religious beliefs.

Modern American thought, and most certainly that since Sept. 11th 2001, toward Islamic faith is that everyone that practices it hates America and all that dwell within her borders. To be blunt, this is a complete load of shit. The ironic flip side to this is that modern American thought, most expressly shown by the conservative movement of the 21 century, is that Christianity is pure and untarnished, even though this is the religion that is used to excuse all manner of actions against gays, lesbians, members of other religions, or even how the average American - regardless of specific orientation - is treated do they not follow the socio-political guidelines of conservative teachings.

Conservatives of the modern era have become more and more susceptible to openly and unflinchingly embracing misleading information and outright lies surrounding a variety of subjects. This is troubling because their vision is being obscured by those they are framing the narrative they are following. Why is it that conservatives lack the ability to walk around their world and look at what is really there? I'm sure they would find that much of what they are being told doesn't match up with what they see.

As an aside, one can but wonder how people like Malkin, Hannity, or Palin would react if a Baptist church was build just a few blocks from a Planned Parenthood building that was attacked by an unhinged conservative.

Releasing The Predictability

Both Ed Morrissey and the woman he and Allahpundit affectionately refer to as The Boss are really reaching for something that really isn't there with their latest attempt at smearing the Obama administration.

Michelle's purse-lipped outrage:

Here is what Team Obama’s “smart” and sensitive form of diplomacy has wrought: A hero’s welcome home to Libya for the murderous Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, who was released last August claiming he had terminal cancer and three months to live. A year later, the jihadist is still alive, senators want an investigation, and The Australian reports that the Obama administration backed “compassionate release.”

And Morrissey's over-reaching narrative:

What the US actually wanted, short of continuing Megrahi’s imprisonment, was a sort of house arrest in Scotland, not Libya. That is what was meant by LeBaron’s suggestion of “compassionate release.” The White House didn’t want Megrahi stepping off of a plane in Tripoli to cheering crowds, the exact scenario that played out in the end. While having Megrahi outside of prison wasn’t the nominal situation, that at least would have kept Megrahi from rubbing his freedom in the noses of the Pan Am 103 victims’ families.

The letter did not give a green light to Megrahi’s parole to Libya. Nevertheless, it shows the kind of ineptitude that has plagued the Obama administration’s diplomacy from the “reset button” with Russia to this day. LeBaron’s note was a clear signal to Scotland that the US had lost most of its interest in Megrahi; recall that the US had insisted originally that any parole must include extradition to the US. The Scottish government must have presumed that we would not strenuously object to their release of Megrahi to the Libyans after LeBaron failed to raise that point and demand Megrahi’s extradition.

Also, it shows that the Obama administration lied about being surprised by Megrahi’s release. They knew it was coming, and while they may have been surprised that he went to Libya, the White House knew Scotland was going to spring Megrahi one way or the other.

But if anyone takes the time to actually read the article in The Australian, they would get a far different picture than what Morrissy and Malkin are painting.

The Obama administration were expressly against the situation that ultimately played out. But if one were to go by Malkin and Morrissey's writings, you would get the picture that the US signed off on the deal to sent Megrahi back to Libya. Michelle and Ed's strategy in framing the story in this fashion is that they are banking on the laziness of conservatives to do any sort of fact checking. Unfortunately, that line of thinking normally works, as conservatives have a desire to believe the worst about anyone from the opposition party. I'm almost certain that if Malkin and Morrissey knew they could get away with it, they would have reported that Obama himself opened the cell door and extended a welcoming hand to Megrahi.

The US government, despite what these two clowns think, doesn't control the Scottish Justice Department, their prison system, or even those that took Megrahi into custody. These two pieces are clearly designed to distort the reality of this situation. And while this could have been handled much differently, what exactly do Malkin and Morrissey think that the Obama administration should have done? Should they have flown to Scotland and barrackaded the prison doors? Maybe send troops there as a show of force? We aren't really meant to understand that, as it's easier to inflate a situation to reflect your agenda rather than report it from an honest perspective.