Black Caucus: Whites Not Allowed

Black Caucus: Whites Not Allowed

When I first heard this story (I think it was on Tucker Carlson, God help me), I wasn't sure how I felt about it. I wanted more info about who was saying what. But aside the news article above, just about all I could find was commentary from the rightwing perspective. (Needless to say, they're thrilled that there's a group of black Democrats, several of whom were leading advocates in the civil rights movement, restricting membership to their group on the basis of race.)

The only website for the Congressional Black Caucus I could find was from the 108th Congress, and defunct. (I'm not going to bother providing that link. Anyone who feels the need to go to a dead site can do their own search... In fact, I wonder why I'm even writing this... If you're that curious, go google it. If you're ok with trusting me on the fact that there's really nothing there, stay here. But either way, it's time to quit reading this paragraph. Go. Look somewhere else. Right now. I mean it. Go.)

But then I stumbled on this site. I didn't notice the name of the place on the way in, but I liked what I was reading. Very thoughtful stuff...

I hit a post about a quarter of the way down that started:

===============
"Black empowerment and unity does not require white interloping. Just look at what happens when whites intrude into The Blackprof: manipulation, division and out right lying."
====================

I started thinkin' "BlackProf? What the heck is The BlackProf?" It was then I realized I was reading a site that was primarily by & for black college professors. It didn't matter... The ideas and arguments were far too good to leave (& far, far more cogent than the ones I found on the RW sites), even if that one poster did think I was intruding. After reading the rest of the thoughtful comments, I even decided to post my own...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
First off, I'm white liberal male, so any who feel I don't deserve a place at this table can skip this comment. (Judging by some of the comments above, there are some who feel that I have no more business being here than Cohen does being in the CBC.)

I'm troubled by any organization that rejects membership based on the criteria that is usually cited as discriminatory. (age, gender, race, sexual orientation, class) The fact that the folks doing the accepting/rejecting are lawmakers who are otherwise charged with creating laws that protect minority rights makes the situation even worse.

It would be one thing if it was a matter of self-selection, where no one except blacks / or women/ or homosexuals wanted to join the Black / Women's / Gay & Lesbian caucus, but once someone outside that group pledges support for the goals & methods of the organization & wants to join... ...well, it gets troubling.

As some said above, it really is a question of whether the caucus is about the politicians themselves or about the people they represent & the causes they wish to champion during their time in office.

I can appreciate the need for folks who define themselves by their religion/race/gender/sexual orientation/age/??? to want to congregate together and set their own agenda on their own terms, without imput from those who do not share their unique social/cultural experience. While it is discriminatory (& sometimes illegal) to do so, perhaps it is right and necessary, like the discrimination one needs to tell the black letters from the white page, and therefore read. There are some things that have to be lived to really be understood, and cannot be taught.

I also believe it is necessary for folks with shared goals to join together without regard for age/gender/race/etc., even when their goals concern a particular "discriminatory" group.

The CBC wants to be both kind of groups at once. They have the goals of helping all black americans in their mission statement, but they don't seem to believe that anyone who isn't black has the ___ (heart?, social/cultural experiences?, right?) to help achieve those goals.

Perhaps their ought to be a group for those who care about _______ people, as well as one for those who are _______ people...

For what it's worth...

Posted by: repsac3 | January 26, 2007 05:10 PM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tom Tancredo wants to ban minority caucuses, saying that they promote racism. Considering the number of nutty caucuses & whatnot there are in Congress, (here's a list of 'em), I'm not in favor of that, but I would like to see an end to membership restrictions that concern anything aside one's ideological position on the issue the caucus is about. I wouldn't want anyone on the shellfish caucus that doesn't give a damned about mollusks anymore than anyone else would, but as long as they do care, a black lesban baptist who likes peanut-butter is as fit to be in that caucus as a heterosexual white atheist who doesn't.

Keep the caucuses, lose the restrictions...

One more bit about racism, having nothing to do with congress. Two links:
YouTube - A Girl Like Me
blackprof.com: Black Doll Bad, White Doll Good

Fun with Ilana (& Bill), part B 1/2

I was going to completely skip this topic for today...

There is no rush, anymore, as Ilana has closed off all further comment on the Hornbeck / O'Reilly entries on her blog. (From what I can tell, this is not unusual behavior. All of her blog entries except the most recent few have their comment areas closed to further comment.) So, there is no reason to rush, as it's unlikely that she & I will have much further contact. I still plan to finish the saga, however... I just figured it'd be nice to take a day off from it.

But last night, I noticed that Ms. Mercer had posted her vicious little Defense of Bill O'Reilly screed at a new site: Free Market News Network. And, to my delight, they had a place to post Feedback. I suppose you can guess what I did next...

Yep, I finally got to post my whole reply to Ilana's defense of O'Reilly article. It was vetted, & perhaps edited slightly by Free Market News--so slightly I cannot tell, for sure--but it appeared earlier today.

That made me feel good enough, but a few comments below mine, a person using the nom de keyboard, "concerned" began his/her comment thusly: "repsac3, your post was the most reasoned comment on this event I have read." Makes me jazzed to be a vocal American!!

YouTube - Asylum Street Spankers Video

Very funny video!!!
But not suitable for children or uptight cow orkers...

"Sure we Americans love our troops. Check out the number of SUVs with them magnetic ribbons stuck on 'em."

Joshua Sparling: A swiftie spitting swiftly

Joshua Sparling could well turn out to be the little swiftboater who cried traitor.

First he is the recipient of the hate-filled "Christmas card" while in Walter Reed (A white supremist took responsibility, but there is some question as to whether he actually did it, or was just seeking a little notoriety for his cause.)

Next there was the alleged airport incident (in which Mr. Sparling, in a wheelchair due to injuries sustained in the occupation, is stopped at a security checkpoint because he doesn't have his boarding pass (it's being held at the gate that he's trying to get to, somewhere past the checkpoint), and while he's arguing his with security, a woman (passenger? airport security?) says nasty things to him about his service in Iraq. The situation is finally made right by three heroic W.W.II vets who were just passing by, and a different airline than the one he was going to fly out on.)

And now, poor Mr. Sparling's been spat at, again by someone who disapproves of his service in Iraq. While the NYT article says Joshua spat back, I understand that he now claims he did not. (I'm sure the article is correct about the rest of the incident, though, right? Even though it fails to have very much information about the identity of the assailant, the distance between the parties, what "words" preceded the alleged spit-fire, whether the writer witnessed the assault or reported what he was told by Joshua and the Freepers he was with, or a quote from any witness who doesn't have something to gain by the story. There isn't even a photo of a wet spot on the sidewalk.)

Here are some other sites asking questions:
Media Matters - Questions for the NY Times about the alleged spitting incident during anti-war protest
Spitting on the truth (with an action alert) | TPMCafe
Media Matters - Still more questions for the NY Times regarding the alleged spitting incident
AlterNet: Rights and Liberties: Did Spitting 'Victim' from DC Protest Cry Wolf?

The Christmas card incident resulted in a flood of gifts and well wishes for Mr. Sparling and the other patients at Walter Reed (over 20,000), and appearances on Fox News. He & his family also attended the 2006 State of the Union address, as guests of Dennis Hastert. I bet Mr. Sparling was quite honored to receive all that attention.

Could it all be true? I suppose it could. But it's still pretty unusual that this one guy has been accosted three times by anonymous folks who don't support the occupation. Google reports a few allegations of mistreatment of Iraq vets who are not Mr. Sparling, and just about as many allegations of anti-war folks being abused by pro-war activists. (All but one are reported on sites who's slant matches the story they're selling... ..I mean, telling. Just like with Joshua's claim, there are few names or independent witnesses.)

I've no doubt that among all the folks who are against this occupation of Iraq, there are a few who are violent, or rude, or otherwise lack good graces. Even all of Mr. Sparling's stories turn out to be true, it says very little (if anything) about the anti-Iraq war movement. A majority of Americans want the occupation to end. Given the number of people in that majority, it's inevitable that some of 'em will be bad eggs. It'd be a mistake to judge the whole group by their most offensive members.

Joshua Sparling is fast becoming the Iraq occupation's John O'Neill. While I appreciate their service, the lies told by Mr. O'Neill & his fellow "swifties" have evermore put a stain on the honorable service of every vet who served on a swift boat. Their smear campaign was targeted at John Kerry; but their tactics and the name, "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", made collateral damage of the reputations of every man who served on one.

Fun with Ilana (& Bill), part B

First off, Bill O'Reilly's been bad, again. BillO did another segment about Shawn Hornbeck on "The Factor(fiction), 1-29-07. He just won't let up...

Also, I neglected to add this link, one of several posts concerning the Devlin case, and the first to discuss Bill's dubious contributions, on The True Crime Blog.

Now back to business...

When we last left Ilana Mercer's Defense of BillO, I had just received the following reply from Ilana:
=================

[Thanks for your contribution. Indignant huffing and puffing does nothing to discredit opposing views—and almost always conceals straw arguments. I have never said children are, developmentally, miniature adults. They are not. But neither are they amebas. To follow your determinism, one might as well not impart any direction or moral instruction to a child, because he is incapable of so much as calling home if lost. My perspective arises from a non-deterministic view of human beings. You might want to read up a bit also on Posttraumatic Stress Disorder—the real deal, not the version the public has been brainwashed by. Thanks. —ILANA]

=============

I guess before I continue, I have to rant a little more about the way Ms. Mercer chooses to run her blog.

According to the rules, she decides what comments (or portions thereof) will appear. Aside from the things I said yesterday about moderated blogs, it also creates a lag between the time one submits a comment and the time Ilana gets to her blog to moderate (& hopfully approve) the posts her readers have submitted. Once, it took a matter of minutes; usually, it takes several hours.

(For some reason, though, it LOOKS to you like your post is there immediately, as long as you're using the same browser & computer. I discovered this when I sent a friend to the site to read a post I had just submitted, and he wrote back telling me it wasn't there. He was right. On Safari (the browser I used to post the comment) it was there; on Netscape, it wasn't. I discovered later that "unposted posts" will remain there in limbo until Ilana moderates them. Approved posts show up for all to see, and rejected ones vanish...)

Also according to the rules, you're limited to 200 words. (I suppose you can guess how well I do with that!! 8>) I try my best--though I suspect I've been over the limit just about every time--but it kinda limits how much of her article one can respond to at a time.

If you've read everything up to now, you'll note that I've barely said a word about the original article, In Defense Of Bill O'Reilly, except to say that Ilana lacked compassion & heart. (As I wrote it, I had visions of the Grinch's "two sizes too small.") I'd been distracted by the comments, most of which had little to do with what O'Reilly actually said, or Ilana's defense of his comments.

That's not to say I hadn't written them; I had... But given her rules, I had to figure out how to reference the part of the original article to which I was replying without wasting any of my 200 words by quoting it, and then chop my thoughts into 175-225 word chunks.

So, rather than replying to Ms. Mercer's PTSD comment--which I figured could wait--I sent in my first chunk in disagreement with her defense of Bill... (My reply to the PTSD comments appear at the end of this post.)

My blog, my rules... I'm returning the original article quotes, but sticking with the chunks, so as to avoid misrepresenting the sequence of events over on Ilana's blog. In other words, While the relevant sections of Ilana's article are shown below, all that appeared on Ilana's blog were my "replies" (edited, in one case)

---------------------------------
Ilana Mercer, from In Defense Of Bill O'Reilly:

Indeed, in Newsweek’s telling, “The 11-year-old boy no longer had to go to school. He could watch TV and play videogames all day. He was given an iPod, a computer, an Xbox 360 and a bike.” At 15, he had a girlfriend and a best friend, with whom he regularly rode his bike, went skateboarding, hung around the mall and played videogames.

Shawn surfed the Web. On at least four occasions he was stopped by police late at night and given a ride home. Not once did he so much as mutter under his breath, “I’m that kidnapped kid.” And get this: young Shawn even filed a police report when his brand-new bike was stolen, but failed to mention that its owner had been nicked too.

Tony Douglas, the bosom buddy, would sleep over at Shawn’s place. He attests to the chummy interactions between Shawn and his kidnapper, Michael Devlin. Shawn, in turn, spent holidays with Tony. A “neighbor, Krista Jones, observed Devlin teaching the boy to drive his pickup truck, while others saw the two pitching a tent outside the apartment.”

These are the unsettling facts in the Hornbeck case. Naturally, they make people uneasy. If not for the ersatz experts waiting in the wings to rape reality with dubious theoretical constructs, a torpid public might have grappled with some of these discomfiting realities.

My Reply:
Some of Shawn's behaviors while "away" from home are disconcerting. And questioning them is fine. Wild speculation as to the answers to those questions, whether by psychologists & social workers, or those that oppose them, is not.

Ilana:

Newsweek, Olbermann, and our execrable experts asserted that Shawn “was almost surely threatened with gruesome consequences if he said a word about his abduction to anyone else.” Based on what evidence? The freedom Shawn was given to come and go as he pleased? One Dr. Terri Weaver got carried away in trying to explain why, while on his bike rides, out with his girlfriend, at the mall, or at a slumber party, Shawn failed to dial 911 on the cellphone he owned. Devlin could have threatened to kill the boy’s family and pets, she hyperventilated. Another tele-twit asserted, sans proof, that Shawn had decided to sacrifice his needs to save his family. To date, there is no evidence that the boy was molested. Devlin is charged with “felony kidnapping and felony armed criminal action,” but not with sexual assault.

My Reply:
There is no evidence as yet that Shawn was threatened or molested. There is also no evidence as yet to suggest he was not. That is the point of my disagreement with Mr. O'Reilly and your defense of him.

While accusing these tele-twits & execrable experts of creating scenarios without proof, you & Mr. O'Reilly are doing the very same thing. They are attaching psychological motives to Shawn's actions. You are simply substituting their psychobabble motives for your own motivation of free will and personal responsibility. They claim to know that Shawn was with Devlin because he was psychologically trapped. You claim to know that he was there because he chose to be.

{Ilana edited away all but the first sentence of the preceding paragraph.}

I agree that the experts are jumping the gun, and haven't the facts to know. But I submit that you haven't the facts & don't know, either. They're coming at it from their "expertise," and you're coming at it from yours, & neither of you are wearing any clothes. There isn't enough evidence yet to understand the motivation underlying Shawn's behavior, no matter how certain you, Bill, the psychologists, or anyone else sounds whilst making their claim.

All we have are a few troubling behaviors. Many of us wonder about them. But anyone who claims to be able to explain them using the few facts we currently have, no matter what their expertise or brand of belief, is kidding themselves as well as those they're trying to convince.
--------------------------------

Ilana attached the following to this post:
=========================

[Once again, you miss the point entirely, perhaps because you are unfamiliar with my writing–and the work of others who refute the therapeutic worldview. O’Reilly is not one such individual; he just happened to hit a home run, initially, on the issue, but was soon subdued by viewers like you, and by “the experts,” because he hasn’t a philosophy to speak of. This is not a matter of two sides of the coin. That teenagers have a modicum of free will and an ability to tell right or wrong is an immutable truth; it isn’t subject to the vagaries of this or the other expert analysis. Sure, there are mitigating factors, but teenagers are still capable of the above. Americans, prior to the advent of the Managerial State, knew this, and brought their children up in accordance with this natural, universal truth. Hayek, in The Constitution of Liberty, says that treating people as if they have these qualities is integral to liberty, even if, say, you don’t believe people have free will. The therapeutic abolition of free will has resulted in the disintegration of conventional morality–and right and wrong. The facts of the case do not change this immutably true reality.–ILANA]
By W James Casper on 01.28.07 4:29 am

=============================

It is here that some of my new submissions began vanishing. Maybe Ilana didn't approve of the content, or maybe there's some kinda glitch over at her blog that only allows you to have one submission awaiting approval at a time ('s'possible, right?), but whatever the reason, this bit, in reply to the "PTSD" comments at the top of this post, was submitted next, & never appeared.
--------------------------------------------------------
After reading your "Sloppy Science" article, as well as an interview with Marilyn Bowman, PhD, I'm still unsure where you stand on PTSD in particular or psychology as a whole.
I believe you're saying PTSD is a legitimate psychological disorder, but is far more rare than the mainstream psychological community would have us believe. Those born with a particular personality trait (neuroticism) or who suffer from other psychiatric or personality disorders are more vulnerable to PTSD. Treatment for those who are suffering from PTSD (or simply think they are) should be individualized (not a one-size-fits-all approach), & available for those who want it. No one should be forced into treatment against his or her will, or “for their own good.”

I agree with everything in my summary, &--to the extent that I understood the articles I read--with your approach to PTSD.

On determinism, I am not suggesting a child is incapable of calling home if lost. I'm saying that this child did not, but the reason he did not can no more be explained by free will than determinism without more information.

For example: Does Shawn suffer from any underlying psychological or personality disorder that would make him more vulnerable to any peri- or post- stress disorder? Knowing that fact (among others) would help explain his behavior.
----------------------------------------------------------

Alrighty... I guess that's enough for this entry...
(We're almost caught up, I swear, and nothing new has happened as regards this topic over at Ilana's blog--WHOOPS!!! Spoke too soon!!!--I was about say I've had a post awaiting approval there for the last 24 hours or so, but when I checked just now, it's vanished... Man, I hate that!!!)

Fun with Ilana (& Bill), part 1

In the beginning was Bill O'Reilly, and he was bad. Very bad. Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. (If I'm not mistaken, that's one "bad" for every segment Bill O'Reilly has done on Shawn Hornbeck to date. It's close, anyway...) If you are unfamiliar with the story, or are interested in finding more bits I've written about Billo's treatment of Shawn, follow them links & don't skimp on the "comments" sections...

Then one morning whilst doing a search, I came across WorldNetDaily: In defense of Bill O'Reilly, by ILANA MERCER. While I generally wouldn't bother reading anyone who writes for WorldNetDaily, I was interested in reading the first, and as yet only, person write, speak, or otherwise communicate in support of the thoughts Falafel Bill offered about Shawn Hornbeck on tv & radio. (To my knowledge, rumors of an interpretive dance in support of O'Reilly are unfounded.) As you may've guessed--particularly if you read Ms. Mercer's piece--I did not find myself agreeing with much of anything she offered in her defense of Bill. And, noting that she also had a blog on which she'd posted portions of the Worldnet article, I set out to offer another side.

Noting the rules,

Barely A Blog is private property. Posts are published at the discretion of the proprietor. The forum is moderated and missives edited for style and taste. Please keep comments concise (200 words, at most), run a spell check, and try as best as possible to be grammatical.

and knowing that what I wanted to say might not pass muster, I offered a very quick "test post." I said,

May you never be a victim.
But if you are, may you find more compassion in others than you possess in yourself.

Please seek spiritual guidance and reclaim your heart.

To my utter surprise, it appeared on the blog a few hours later. On it Ilana had added the following, in brackets & bold print that clearly identified it from my own,

[How do you know i have not been a victim? Yes, ass-uming again…]

I was perplexed. Curious, I replied

I “ass-umed” nothing. My wish for you never to be a victim addressed your future. I made no statement about your past, either way. For the record, I hope you never WERE a victim, either, but I’ve no way of knowing.

And seeing as how we’ve never spoken before, I also wonder why you claimed I was “ass-uming again”.

(Nitpicky, I know, but as a writer, I would hope you appreciate the need for careful wording in order to convey specific meaning.)

Thank you for posting my first comment (& hopefully this one, as well.) I am generally suspicious of blogs who edit for content prior to allowing a comment to appear. It often ends up that only those who’s comments are complimentary ever see the light of day, manufacturing a false impression that there is little or no dissent with the official blog position. I find that a coward’s way of winning an argument. I hope to find you feel the same.

When this comment appeared, it contained the following comment, as regards my "ass-uming" questions.

[I was referring to the general habit of assuming or asserting with no prior knowledge, which is a habit I encounter in many interlocutors these days. I am in the process of updating this blog post with a comment I hope you will ponder and address. So please check back]

To my thank you, she replied:

[Sure.]

So far, so good. In the meantime, comments were showing up from other readers. As I read them, it became all too clear I was not amongst friends... ...or sane persons. I note here that Ilana added none of her own bold, bracketed "words of wisdom" to either of these posts. One is left to assume she read 'em, approved of their content (& whatever else she looks for prior to permitting others to speak on her blog) and sent 'em on through... Two excerpts, from two different contributors (Same blog as before.):

Shawn’s life is what many children no doubt dream about - sort of like “Treasure Island” - going off on a ship and just playing games day and night.
===============
I’m amazed that O’Reilly had taken this position. This is a man who agrees with the likes of Susan Estrich and Wendy Murphy that young men under age 18 are too young and innocent to consent to or knowingly initiate sex with adult females, describes such affairs as “rape” and “child molestation,” and believes the “victims” are “traumatized.”

Raise your hand if you're a little frightened.
Me, too.

My third offering to Ms. Mercer's blog:

Wow…
Reading through the comments posted thus far… I’m almost at a loss for words.
“Treasure Island”?!? “…going off on a ship & playing games day and night”?
Am I misreading Michael’s comment, or is he advocating in favor of some kinda NAMBLA offshoot for women, where having sex with boys isn’t a crime, but a loving and beautiful act for all involved?

Forgive me for being a little bewildered, but the thinking expressed here is very new to me.
Are children just tiny adults to you folks? Are they just as capable of making decisions as you and I, intellectually or emotionally? Is there even any such thing as emotional development, or is that just more psychological claptrap? Should the actions of children be judged by adult standards, or are children… well… children? Is any psychological condition legitimate, or is it all–if you’ll forgive the expression–crazy talk?

And Ilana... Might it be fair to suggest that it wasn't me "ass-uming" anything in our first encounter, but you...?

I intend to get more involved with specific portions of both the original piece and the update, but fear that to begin in this comment box will put me over the posted word count.

This post also appeared, but Ilana chose to remove the line suggesting that she had made the assumption. (Too snarky? Too accurate? Perhaps we'll never know... I sent her an e-mail wondering why, but there has been no reply.)

But added comment? You bet there was... Ilana said:

[Thanks for your contribution. Indignant huffing and puffing does nothing to discredit opposing views—and almost always conceals straw arguments. I have never said children are, developmentally, miniature adults. They are not. But neither are they amebas. To follow your determinism, one might as well not impart any direction or moral instruction to a child, because he is incapable of so much as calling home if lost. My perspective arises from a non-deterministic view of human beings. You might want to read up a bit also on Posttraumatic Stress Disorder—the real deal, not the version the public has been brainwashed by. Thanks. —ILANA]

I shall end here, and resume this exciting adventure in a post in the near future. (Taking no chances on the possibility that some other topic may strike, and occupy the "next post." For the record, I have no other family or friends expecting a baby, so I think it'll be safe to assume part two will be next, but... 8>)

Welcome Ariana!! (Your uncle's a liar.)

Yeah, I know that in my last post I said "beginning in my next post..."

Well, life crept in, literally...

While I was still preparing that "next post," my wife called to tell me that her sister just gave birth to her second child, our first niece. (It don't take a rocket scientist to figure out that we already have a nephew.) Somewhere in Italy, & here in America, too, there's a whole bunch of happy family & friends bidding miss Ariana Romeo welcome to the world.

Barring any other earth-shaking events in my life, the next post will start that weird & wacky odyssey...

Moderation is for monks... ...and cowards.

It's happened again. This time two whole comments offered to Ilana Mercer's Barely A Blog disappeared after being submitted. (At this moment, two others are awaiting her approval. I can only hope they will make it through the process, and as written.)

As I said before, I think that many of the folks who feel the need to vet other's contributions to their blogs, yahoo/google/??? groups, & whatever else, turn out to be cowards. They want to spout their opinions, but prefer not to have to defend them. Those submissions that parrot the owner's views appear, and those that present an opposing view either lose salient points, or vanish into the internet aether, never to be seen. (Experience has taught me to keep copies, especially when dealing with moderated blogs. I'm not a speedy writer--I think I'm too critical of my own words, & thus spend way too much time rejiggering sentences & paragraphs--and to have all that time & toil just disappear because some disagreeable soul doesn't want to be contradicted on his/her blog really pisses me off.)

It's not as though a blog/group owner cannot delete off-topic or commercial posts or those that would likely offend the sensibilities of their readers, after the fact. (Blogs written for young children or God-fearing church folk chock full of "motherfuckin' bad language", ads for tampons, or death metal concert reviews don't fly with much of anyone. By contrast, blogs written for death metal heads have no need of the sermons of God-fearing church folk or the nursery rhymes of children. If there's a blog audience anywhere in need of tampon ads, I am thankfully unfamiliar with it.) My point is, there is little reason to moderate before the fact, as one can do so as problems arise. To treat everyone as though they are going to offend (or be off-topic, or post advertising) until they prove otherwise, doesn't fit in with my ideas of innocence & guilt, and makes me wonder a bit about the moderator. All this said, moderating for advertising, off-topic posting, & bad language is far preferable to moderating for intellectual content, as Ms. Mercer and others do.

I believe there's no reason for me to submit to Ms. Mercer's version of my posts, particularly when I have my own all-too-seldom-used blog. Should she choose to grace us with her presence, her posts will be welcome, and appear as written, even if she chooses to explain in detail just how far up my ass she believes I ought to shove the broomstick. Should she post a coupon good for 50% off her favorite brand of napkins, however, I can't promise I'll allow it to stay on my blog (though it will appear, initially)... A fella's got to have some standards...

So, beginning with my next post, and for as long as it takes, I will offer the saga of my one man odyssey into the classical liberal world of Ilana Mercer, focusing on her daring defense of Bill O'Reilly , and all that followed. Nothing will be held back, and all are welcome to join in and comment.

Ilana Mercer: In Defense of Bill O'Reilly

Barely A Blog � In Defense of Bill O'Reilly

This woman, as well as the majority of her commenting readers, frightens me.

I was content to comment away over at her site, until I discovered she intentionally cut a line from one of my posts. (Have I mentioned how cowardly I find bloggers who moderate the intellectual content of their comments, deleting those ideas they would rather not confront, and manufacturing a false aura of agreement with their ideas? If I hadn't before, I guess I have, now... 8>)

I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt for the moment--the line she cut WAS kinda snarky, but a direct rebuttal of an assertion she made--but I also won't be surprised when she does it again, or indeed turns out to be exactly the kinda coward that so many "moderated bloggers" are. Why engage a reader's argument, when you can just make it appear s/he never said it in the first place?

And then there's her defense of Bill O'Reilly's comments about Shawn Hornbeck... I must give her credit for going there (while opposing virtually every argument she makes in his favor)... Precious few legitimate writers are quite so foolhardy... Even if her debate tactics end up exposing her as a coward, it's a very brave thing to publicly defend a man who says Shawn enjoyed being with Deviln. She even goes so far as to expand that theory further than Billo ever took it. While I think she's a "classical liberal" (libertarian) kool-aid drinker, there is no doubt in my mind that she mixed it herself, and approves of every ingredient...