In Reply: I condemn Cliven Bundy's racist remarks, Donald Sterling's racist remarks, and the commentary of those who try to explain away or excuse the bigotry of either of them.

Revised and extended, in reply to this untitled post at No More Mister Nice Blog:

Donald Douglas has been mad since Cliven Bundy exposed himself, and has been desperate to turn the tables ever since. How desperate? THIS desperate: Sick Leftist Jamelle Bouie Attacks Alleged Racist Rancher as Demonic 'Cloven' Bundy.

In Douglas's hate-filled partisan mind a simple typo becomes a demonization of Bundy. (Some may recall how he did the same thing when he saw a kid holding a "Sasquatch Is Real" "protest" sign in NY. Intentionally or not--and I'm willing to accept not, though that doesn't change anything--he misread the sign as "Sasquatch Israel," and then spun a myth out of thin air that this kid was an anti-semitic liberal, and that his sign was saying that like Bigfoot, Israel does not exist. For those who don't know or remember the story, yeah, this really happened.)

As with "Sasquatch Israel" of years past, bitter partisan ideology trumps reason and logic and even good sense. Jamelle Bouie's hitting the "o" instead of the "i" right next to it--typing "Cloven" instead of "Cliven"--is not just a typo, but the writer literally L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y demonizing the racist rancher. (Why he's not "cowing" the rancher, I don't know.) And as with this Donald Sterling story, Donald repeatedly sent tweets alleging this "Cloven = the Devil" meme to seemingly every single Slate employee he could find a twitter handle for, demanding that they respond. Then he sent more tweets to every one of his conservative allies, hoping that they'd back him up. And then for good measure, he did all that again. I don't think anyone bit on the "Cloven" smear, and so far it's only the real partisan hacks who're nibbling on this one too. (That may change, and it won't surprise me much if it does...but "Sterling as Dem torchbearer" is still just as ridiculous and desperate an allegation as "'Cloven' typo exposes Dem demonization.")

Donald Douglas is desperate to turn those tables and find some racist or bigoted Democrat with which to tar all Democrats. Personally, I think the donations from 20 years ago is kinda thin gruel on which to hang one's hat. (How's that for a mixed metaphor...) But even if Sterling is or ever was a Democrat, so what? Anyone who claims that any one Democrat or Republican represents ALL Democrats or Republicans is an idiot.

I condemn "Cloven" Bundy's racist remarks, along with the verbiage of those who tried (and are continuing to try) to excuse them or explain them away.
I also condemn Donald Sterling's racist remarks, along with the verbiage of anyone who tries to excuse them or explain them away...should anyone actually do that, that is…
And in both cases, I don't care which party or political movement the people saying or defending the bigoted remarks come from...

One set of standards for friend and foe alike...
---

Posted Sunday, April 27, 2014, 12:05 AM

In Reply: The Partisanship Hidden in the "Independent" Numbers

In reply to the No More Mister Nice Blog post MOSTLY SAY "HOORAY FOR OUR SIDE"
---

I also suspect that a significant amount of the right's mirror image is hidden in the Pew poll's independent numbers. A good number of "republicans" prefer to see themselves as "independent" tea party supporters, conservatives, or libertarians.

It would be interesting to see how those independent numbers would break if Pew, et.al were to seperate the Nader / Green party independents from the Ron Paul / Tea party independents... Or even just clarify how their pool of independents self-identified when the earlier polls were taken.

("Independents" have no set political philosophy as a group, and I suspect that the balance of their in-group political leanings shifts depending on the party currently in power and the availability and viability of other ideological options. Including independents in a poll without identifying the leanings of the respondents is pretty meaningless.)
---

Posted Monday, June 10, 2013, 10:22 PM

In Reply: The Answer to Speech is More Speech

Revised and extended, in reply to No More Mister Nice Blog: WHAT WOULD BE THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR WE MAY BE STARTING HERE?, about Chick-fil-A, and the aldermen and mayors making threats to use their political power and legal means to keep them out of their area:

It's one thing to say "don't eat there" (or even to say "I'm opposed to your setting up shop in my city," though that's right on the line). It's another to use political/legal might to forbid them from doing business in a particular city/town...

If they were stopping gay folks from eating or working there--which I'm pretty sure is ALREADY against the law--I could see trying to run them out of town unless they stopped doing that.

But really, all the guy did was express the opinion of his faith which, like it or not, sees homosexuality as a sin. While I don't share that opinion myself, and will do all I can to avoid financially or otherwise rewarding those who believe and express it, religious freedom and the right of conscience allow him his beliefs, just as they allow me mine.

One has to meet speech with speech and action with action, which is to say, as long as Chick-fil-A and their CEO is using speech--talking about his beliefs, donating to political and religious organizations in furtherance of his beliefs--political figures should respond the same way; speaking out, and donating/urging donations to organizations and groups in favor of his/her goals. Chick-fil-A has every right to speak, and should not face official government punishment for what they say.

If Chick-fil-A were violating anti-discrimination laws, THAT would be the time for government action. I am aware of no evidence that they are, though the company must be aware that many eyes will be on them and that it isn't only the right who engages in video stings.

Nothing prevents citizens (including elected officials) from speaking out or protesting in favor of or against marriage equality or any other issue. Companies who take a stand on controversial issues--even if they do nothing more than send out a press release--have to know they're going to gain some customers and lose others, whatever stands they take. There is nothing wrong with "voting your values" by spending more money with companies who share your values and less with those who do not. If money is speech, there's no reason yours shouldn't help you say the things you think need saying.

As an exit question, though... How is what these mayors are threatening to do ANY DIFFERENT from what certain republican legislators and governors are doing as regards abortion providers, setting up trap laws that regulate every aspect of the clinics and providers in such a way that they cannot meet them, and thus will have no choice but to close... The answer, of course, is that there's ZERO difference, except that these Republican governors and legislators have actually done what these anti-chickfila mayors are only threatening to do, even if some people choose to stick their fingers in their ears in a desperate attempt at willful misunderstanding and denial...

Finally, there is a line between religious beliefs and bigotry, on both sides of this issue.

As I said above, the interviews Dan Cathy gave expressed his support for the religious tenets of his faith. While my faith and my personal moral compass don't agree with those tenets, he didn't say anything hateful or bigoted. (I have since learned about donations Cathy and the Chick-fil-A corporation have made to more extreme anti-homosexual causes, whose stated beliefs and concrete actions go further than much of Cathy's religion has chosen to go, and yes, I do find those donations more problematic.)

On the other hand, not every person who speaks out against Chick-fil-A is an anti-Judeo-Christian bigot, either. It is possible to say "I disagree with the church on this issue" without actually hating God and everything Jesus stood for. Even being an atheist isn't an expression of hate. (Some folks claim it's another kind of faith, and thus should be protected by religious freedom.)

As I've said elsewhere, I have no problem with 99% of what faiths other than mine preach and teach. People can believe as they wish, and live according to the customs of their faith, with my blessings. The tolerance stops when you try to legislate aspects of your faith into secular law, forcing those to don't share your church's understanding of God and morality to nevertheless live as though they do. It's fine for individuals to choose to live according to what their Bible and preacher tells them. It's also fine for individuals--especially individuals who don't go to your church--to reject the teachings of your Bible and preacher, whether in favor of what their preacher teaches, or in favor of their own moral code. Religious freedom goes both ways.
---

Posted THURSDAY, JULY 26, 2012, 7:23 PM

In Reply: Whiny Wingnut Victimization and Unsubstantiated Speculation Masquerading as "News"

In reply to No More Mister Nice Blog: I DON'T BELIEVE THE AURORA MASSACRE WAS POLITICAL

The "poor me" whiny wingnut victimization is getting entirely too thick. Brian Ross's problem wasn't a hatred of the Tea party types, but unsubstantiated speculation masquerading as news. (Same goes for the asshole(s) at the Breitbart sites speculating that the shooter may've been registered to vote as a Democrat...as though one's voter registration is somehow relevant. And no, their childish pleas that "they--that is, Brian Ross--did it first" in no way absolves them. If it's wrong to speculate, it's wrong to speculate, no matter who's "side" your speculation helps or hurts.) Michelle Malkin has a piece up crying about what a victim she is in all this, and the lower--tier bloggers are all following suit. (I even saw one ass blaming Steve (the "No More Mister Nice Blog" blogger)for his quote of the Breitbart piece above and blaming Steve, not the Breitbart author or Brian Ross, for the speculation about Tea Party involvement. Even after the facts were pointed out to him, the same blogger repeats the lie a second time. UPDATE: Same blogger goes for the threepeat of that same lie. Steve M. searched the guy's name--just like Brian Ross, and just like John Hawkins at Right Wing News. Steve did not restrict his search to Tea Party members, nor did he report that the shooter was a tea party member--though he did quote a Breitbart blog post, which in turn quoted the Brian Ross piece, when THEY discussed the Tea Party angle. Donald Douglas is lying--and at this point, there is no doubt that he is aware of it, which calls his credibility--if not his sanity--into question.)

I can understand discussion of relevant issues like US gun policy--whether one believes that there ought to be stricter laws for the purchase of guns or that if everyone was armed, shootings like this wouldn't happen or would result in fewer innocent casualties--but linking a particular shooter to one political party based on voter registration, especially in the absence of any obvious political motive, is evidence that the speaker is awful desperate to shill for his/her own political point of view, regardless of the facts.

(I'm more torn when there is a possible political motive. On one hand, I agree that crazy folks can just as easily be "inspired" by partisan political rhetoric as by "talking dogs" or the shapes they see in their mashed potatoes, but on the other, why is it considered any more crazy to kill folks over ones political beliefs than it is to kill in the name of greed or vengeance? At some level, there has to be something wrong with folks willing to murder others, no matter their reason, but I'm not so sure that folks who kill others in the name of their political or social beliefs are any more or less crazy than folks who kill their spouses lover out of jealousy or murder innocent people while committing a bank robbery. YMMV...)

Posted 7/20/12, 8:52 PM
---

More unsubstantiated speculation:
Shooter as...
...tea party member
...Registered Democrat (Breitbart)
...Occupy Black Bloc Member
...Enemy of Judeo-Christian Beliefs'
and--perhaps most dangerous of all--
...Medical Student
---

Searching for "James" (or "Jim") Holmes" on the internet (and in some cases, irresponsibly publicizing what they found without verifying that the James (Jim) they found was the one who did the shooting.):
Colorado shooting: ABC News draws possible James Holmes tea party connection - POLITICO.com
No More Mister Nice Blog: I DON'T BELIEVE THE AURORA MASSACRE WAS POLITICAL
Is This James Holmes’ Facebook Page? | John Hawkins, Right Wing News (Hawkins wisely removed the link to the wrong guy's Facebook page, but issued no apology for pointing the finger at the wrong James Holmes in the first place.)
---

The Dishonest Donald Douglas posts, and related material:
#1) "And Steve at No More Mr. Nice Guy was out of the gate looking for a tea party perp..."

Twitterer @kathykattenburg tries to steer Dr. Douglas toward honesty: "@AmPowerBlog And I think u should read Steve's piece again because he does not "search for a tea party perp." That is a complete misreading."

Needless to say, the facts had no effect:

#2) "Recall that Steve M. also searched James Holmes' name to find tea party ties, only to find out he was too young to be the "James Holmes" he'd found at the boards."

#3) "The decent, human thing to do would to be to gather facts, and especially not go looking around the Internet to see "what party is this insane person in?", or what tea party organization, as did No More Mr. Nice Blog did. That is, the decent, human thing would not be going all gonzo trying to score partisan points to destroy your enemies." (Talk about irony...)

And the title of the blog post about which Dishonest Don complains?:
I DON'T BELIEVE THE AURORA MASSACRE WAS POLITICAL

Yeah... really.
---

Also: Half-Assed Media Speculation About the Batman Shooter - Hit & Run: Reason.com

In Reply: Rationing healthcare based on effectiveness and necessity, or rationing based on one's ability to afford treatment?

In reply to: No More Mister Nice Blog: SO MUCH FOR "EXTREMISTS ON BOTH SIDES", and in particular Donalde's suggestion that discriminating between effective, necessary medical treatment and ineffective unnecessary treatment amounts to "rationing care" or vindicates Sarah Palin and her make-believe "death panels," using an article that instead suggests limiting the amount and quality of health care based on what one can afford (You know, the way it used to be, before heathcare reform.)
---

My favorite part of Donalde's (with an extra "e," for his tactical elan) argument is his oft linked USATODAY.com editorial (reposted three or four times at his AmPow blog since it was first published in mid-October, and even more often via tweet) suggesting that the provisions of healthcare reform will clog the system and lead to overuse, because people will now be able to get medical care they previously could not afford.

The man who wrote the editorial (and Donalde, obviously) believe that this will necessitate rationing care, oblivious to the fact that care was being rationed before healthcare reform, based on who could/couldn't afford it. This is the kind of rationing and death panels folks like Donalde prefers. Survival of the financially fittest, and those who can't come up with the scratch are judged unworthy by the financial panel of death that is conservative healthcare.

Folks like Dr Douglas lack compassion. They're not against rationing of care; it's just a matter of who gets it, and who doesn't.
---

Relevant Links:
American Power: Paul Krugman Was Against Death Panels Before He Was For Them

American Power: If You Oppose ObamaCare You're RAAAAACIST and UNEDUCATED!!

Twitter / @Donald Douglas: @singlepayer 'ObamaCare will clog America's medical system' http://is.gd/gOe6q

(There are almost certainly others, but I haven't the time to ferret them out.

In Reply: Please Don't Feed the Troll

In reply to: a whole bunch of willful ignorance and intentional misunderstanding by one guy in several comments attached to this "No More Mister Nice Blog" post.
---

It strikes me that "dude" is best ignored... He has nothing new to say, and willfully fails to grasp the concepts offered him. At this point, continuing to feed the troll the same substantive meal he's failed to consume and digest this many times before is a waste of everyone's time... Perhaps it's best to just allow him the last repeated set of wingnut talking points, and only respond to (or offer) new thoughts and ideas (including from him, should he actually have anything that goes beyond what little original thought he's already mustered, and should anyone be willing to bother engaging him, given his past history in this thread alone...)

In the end, there's just no upside in trying to teach a pig to sing... Everyone involved gets dirty, only the pig enjoys it, and the squealing never gets any more melodic.