In Reply: "...and the man who was coming at me I think tripped over the tent peg, fell towards me, and that’s when I said ‘You assaulted me.’" - Steven Crowder

In reply to: What Did Steven Crowder Say About His Video Editing? - Forbes

From the article:

I asked Crowder why that initial assault was edited, he responded:

"The camera pans away because the camera was jostled, the camera man was shoved around too, a bunch of people were being shoved as the protesters tried to tear down the tent. A tent which wasn’t their property. They were tearing down a tent with women and children in it, and the man who was coming at me I think tripped over the tent peg, fell towards me, and that’s when I said ‘You assaulted me.’ Right after that he sucker punched me. My guess is that he was on his way down, he grabbed me, and started shoving me.”

---

If Crowder knew the guy tripped and fell into him–which is the story he’s telling here–then it was awful dishonest of him to claim he was assaulted there in the video BEFORE the guy ever got up or threw the first punch.

However the guy went down–and even if he believed Steven Crowder put him down, somehow–trying to clock Crowder repeatedly wasn’t the moral/spiritual/legal response. (I don’t know where justice will come down on this, since it’ll probably be one guy’s word against the other’s, with video that isn’t conclusive about who did what first…assuming that matters, that is.) But eye-for-an-eye caveman behavior is a part of who we are, and there’s some aspect of “being a man” that calls for it, which for me anyway, makes the response to being knocked off one’s feet and thinking it was done on purpose understandable…Still subject to civilized law and Christian standards of behavior, but understandable.

The fact that Crowder stated ahead of time that he was there to prove that union folks were thugs, AND the fact that he made the knowingly false assault claim above–in real time in the video, AND that he intentionally edited the fall out of the video he released on youtube, AND that he has yet to file charges with the police–instead walking this weird tightrope between “I’m a victim” / “I’m an MMA tough guy” and taking part in the vaguely vigilante-looking “wanted/reward” postings on various rightwing websites, all suggests to me that something isn’t quite Christmas morning with his version of events…even if he’s telling you the truth, and honestly played no part in the union guy’s initial fall…but I’m suspicious as to whether that’s the case, as well… (…And not only that… This isn’t the first time Mr Crowder has claimed to be assaulted–by a woman, the last time. How many wolves are in these pastures, anyway?)

One other thing… It sure looked to me like from “Tony’s” appearance at :33 to the edit at :38, he was focused on and arguing with the guy in the grey hat/black earmuffs to Crowder’s left, NOT Crowder. Post edit, that guy goes out of frame, and I never notice him again. (Even in the FoxNews less edited version, the guy kinda slips away.) I don’t know how significant that is, but I did notice it…and that I think you’re misstating the facts to say that “Tony” was actually approaching Crowder in those 5 seconds. (Part of me even wonders whether it was the Gray Hatted Man who knocked “Tony” down…)

Posted (in two parts) Friday, 12/14/12 and about five minutes after the first.
---

ADDED: Not an admission that Steven Crowder was himself responsible for "Tony" ending up on the ground, but he's obviously aware that the man did not simply trip over a tent post, and an admission that he himself was among the people who "got into a physical confrontation with the union activists.":

However, during an interview with a conservative blogger, Crowder noted that the scuffle began when pro-union protesters tried to bring down the white tent on the site provided by the group Americans for Prosperity.

The Fox News contributor then stated that he and other people defending the canopy did get into a physical confrontation with the union activists.

“We didn’t get violent with them, but we did try and push them off the tent,” he said, adding that the reason the man was seen getting up off the ground was because he was one of the people who were pushed away from the tent and fell to the ground as a result.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2012/12/15/steven-crowder-files-criminal-complaint-regarding-alleged-assault-pro-un#ixzz2FK9UuCm3

In Reply: Individuals Responsible For Their Individual Acts

In reply to the following comment at Chick-fil-A 'Kiss in' protest small compared to appreciation day - latimes.com

"The LGBT wants people to think that they have been unfairly mistreated. Two lesbian women decided to present themselves as victims of hate. "kill the gays" was painted on the front of their house. They claimed to police that their neighbors had done it and they were in fear for their lives because they had recieved death threats. The different LGBT "activists" were getting ready for a pitty party and i can bet the media was giddy with glee at another chance to report on all the supposed "bigots" that are hurting innocent poor gay people. The police started their investigation and it did not take long to find the truth that the two women had done it themselves. They were so selfish and focused on promoting their agenda to silence all the "bigots" that they did not even care that one of their innocent neighbors would not only face charges for vandalism and death threats but would be hate by everybody because the Liberal media would be sure to plaster their "hateful" face all over the news for a very long time. Needless to say we all know the Liberal media kept the story hush hush when the truth was found out and it barely made a splash and could only be read about by the lucky person to accidently come accross it. This sort of thing makes me wonder if the LGBT does this all the time. It sure does make it harder to believe any of their other claims. Now they have painted on a Chick-Fil-A and it just shows me the ones presenting themselves as victims of hate are the very thing they accuse others of being."
---

Not so crazy to think this vandalism might've happened the other way then, based on what you're saying.

Of course, your whole thinking only goes one way; Two lesbians do something stupid for propaganda, you place the blame on all gay folks. A message against bigotry spray-painted onto a Chick-fil-A building--for which there are no suspects, but for which the propaganda value AGAINST the marriage equality movement is obvious--and you still blame the whole of the gay rights movement. It probably was a person in favor of marriage equality who committed that act of vandalism, but whether that or an agent provocataur from the "traditional marriage" side manufacturing a controversy to exploit, the only person(s) responsible for that vandalism is (are) the vandal(s), not the whole movement from which they came.
---

Posted 6:30 PM (or so)
---

Turns out it was a marriage equality supporter who vandalized the building:
Chick-Fil-A In Torrance, Calif., Graffitied With 'Tastes Like Hate'

Manny Castro

In Reply: Osama and the Twin Memes of the Right

In reply to a series of comments at Raid that got bin Laden was culmination of years of work, senior administration officials say | Philip Klein | Politics | Washington Examiner
---

Any chance you could cite that NYT article that discusses this 2007 discovery of the courier's name at Guantanimo by title and author... Because the article I read said they learned the man's name four years ago (2007), but doesn't say that any Gitmo detainee was the source of that info. (We did get his nickname from a detainee, but that was "not long after 9/11.") The article I'm reading is titled "Detective work on courier lead to breakthrough on bin Laden," and was authored by Mark Mazzetti and Helene Cooper. Please show your work as well because, as I've been saying in the comments to this same article posted here at the Washington Examiner ten minutes earlier, no one yet has offered anything conclusive on the twin memes that 1) closing Guantanimo anytime after 2004 or so would've had any effect on the killing of bin Laden, or 2) that harsh interrogation techniques elicited the intelligence that lead to the Abbott & Costello compound where bin Laden was located.

I look forward to your reply.
---

Posted 5/2/11 11:25 PM

John Gibson: Heartless scumbag (with audio)

Fox News' John Gibson calls Jon Stewart a phony after mocking his post-9/11 return to air comments and show of emotion. What kind of a heartless bastard does one have to be to make fun of another person's grief? I never had much respect for this guy in the first place... ...but now I have even less. Follow the link for the audio...

read more | digg story

Here's a link to a video of the original show opening, September 20, 2001. Have tissues handy (unless you're more the heartless Gibson type...)



I suggest watching the video, particularly if you've never seen it. (I hadn't, until tonight.) The transcript doesn't do it justice:

September 20, 2001

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Show. We are back. This is our first show since the tragedy in New York City and there is really no other way to start the show then to ask you at home the question that we asked the audience here tonight and that we’ve asked everybody we know here in New York since September 11, and that is, "Are you okay?" And we pray that you are and that your family is.

I'm sorry to do this to you. It's another entertainment show beginning with an overwrought speech of a shaken host--and television is nothing if not redundant. So I apologize for that. Its something that, unfortunately, we do for ourselves so that we can drain whatever abscess is in our hearts and move on to the business of making you laugh, which we haven’t been able to do very effectively lately. Everyone has checked in already. I know we are late. I’m sure we are getting in just under the wire before the cast of Survivor offers their insight into what to do in these situations. They said to get back to work. There were no jobs open for a man in the fetal position under his desk crying. . . which I gladly would have taken. So I come back here and tonight’s show is not obviously a regular show. We looked through the vault and found some clips that we think will make you smile, which is really what’s necessary, I think, right about now.

A lot of folks have asked me, "What are you going to do when you get back? What are you going to say? I mean, jeez, what a terrible thing to have to do." And you know, I don’t see it as a burden at all. I see it as a privilege. I see it as a privilege and everyone here does. The show in general we feel like is a privilege. Even the idea that we can sit in the back of the country and make wise cracks. . . which is really what we do. We sit in the back and throw spitballs--but never forgetting that it is a luxury in this country that allows us to do that. That is, a country that allows for open satire, and I know that sounds basic and it sounds like it goes without saying. But that’s really what this whole situation is about. It’s the difference between closed and open. The difference between free and. . . burdened. And we don’t take that for granted here, by any stretch of the imagination. And our show has changed. I don’t doubt that. And what it has become I don’t know. "Subliminible" is not a punchline anymore. Someday it will become that again, Lord willing it will become that again, because it means that we have ridden out the storm.

The main reason that I wanted to speak tonight is not to tell you what the show is going to be, not to tell you about all the incredibly brave people that are here in New York and in Washington and around the country, but we’ve had an unenduring pain, an unendurable pain and I just. . . I just wanted to tell you why I grieve--but why I don’t despair. (choking back tears) I’m sorry. . . (chuckles slightly) luckily we can edit this. . . (beats lightly on his desk, collects himself).

One of my first memories was of Martin Luther King being shot. I was five and if you wonder if this feeling will pass. . . (choked up). . . When I was five and he was shot, this is what I remember about it. I was in school in Trenton and they turned the lights off and we got to sit under our desks. . . and that was really cool. And they gave us cottage cheese, which was a cold lunch because there were riots, but we didn’t know that. We just thought, "My God! We get to sit under our desks and eat cottage cheese!" And that’s what I remember about it. And that was a tremendous test of this country's fabric and this country has had many tests before that and after that.

The reason I don’t despair is that. . . this attack happened. It's not a dream. But the aftermath of it, the recovery, is a dream realized. And that is Martin Luther King's dream.

Whatever barriers we put up are gone. Even if it's just momentary. We are judging people by not the color of their skin, but the content of their character. (pause) You know, all this talk about "These guys are criminal masterminds. They got together and their extraordinary guile and their wit and their skill. . ." It's all a lie. Any fool can blow something up. Any fool can destroy. But to see these guys, these firefighters and these policemen and people from all over the country, literally with buckets, rebuilding. . . that’s extraordinary. And that's why we have already won. . . they can't. . . it's light. It's democracy. They can't shut that down.

They live in chaos. And chaos, it can't sustain itself--it never could. It's too easy and it's too unsatisfying. The view. . . from my apartment. . . (choking up) was the World Trade Center. . .

Now it's gone. They attacked it. This symbol of. . . of American ingenuity and strength. . . and labor and imagination and commerce and it's gone. But you know what the view is now? The Statue of Liberty. . . the view from the south of Manhattan is the Statue of Liberty. . .

You can’t beat that. . .

Dishonest Debate Tactics - Shifting the Burden

Now that I'm taking all the political stuff outta here (Have you seen the spiffy new blog, Wingnuts & Moonbats?), I figure I can focus on other things, here...

Today, I'm thinkin' about using language and debating, & specifically about folks who want you to disprove their points or statements.

Some of the following examples will be real. Some will not be real. Either way, I'm not interested in discussing the veracity of the statements, but only their value in confrontational conversation.

You suck. Go on, prove you don't.

The anti-war movement is anti-American.

You stole my sandwich.

Conservatives hate free speech.

Anarchists and Liberals share the same basic political philosophy. They're Nazis.

These statements (& every other affirmative statement under the sun) all share a similar feature. The onus is on the person making it to prove his/her statement is true, by offering evidence. That's the way it's supposed to work, and we have every right to expect that proof, rather than just accepting the veracity of the statement. In it's absence, one has every right to flat out dismiss the statement as being without merit.

Sometimes, that's where the trouble starts...

Sometimes, the party making the statement tries to turn it around, and requires YOU to prove what THEY said is untrue. They're not proving anything... Instead, they're trying to shift the burden of proof to you. And, they're asking you to prove a negative, which, if you really think about it, is just about impossible.

There is no conclusive evidence I could ever offer that I didn't steal something. I could produce people who saw me somewhere else, but the accuser says, "So you didn't steal it at that time... But prove you didn't steal it, at all." A search of my property reveals no stolen item. "Maybe you hid it. Proves nothing." No physical evidence on my person. "You were careful, wore gloves, and showered. You still could've done it." No matter what I said, I could never ever prove I didn't do it.

That's why legally, ethically, & logically, the onus for providing proof always falls on the original speaker. Don't get trapped, and don't accept the claim that you're only "playing word games, or semantics," which often indicates that they know the jig is up; you recognize their "word game," of shifting the burden of proof for their words onto you. Make them keep the burden they came into the conversation with. Make 'em prove what they say is true.

If a person is unwilling or unable to prove the statement s/he's making is true, you are under no obligation to accept it is true, and can therefore reject it as unproven, & therefore untrue.

If you still don't believe me, just try to prove you don't suck.

(When you can't, it won't mean you do suck. or that you don't suck. or anything else, at all. And that is the point.)

Some of those statements above have other problems, like being sweeping generalizations, as well. Perhaps I'll hit that one next time.

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.

Book Revue & Bias

One of the best independent bookstores on Long Island has just lost my business...

A few years ago, I began to notice that they hosted more rightwing authors than leftwing ones. At first, I thought it was a fluke... Perhaps no liberal author wrote a book the same month Bernie Goldberg released Bias...
Maybe Jim Hightower wasn't doing a book tour for Theives in High Places...
But gradually, I came to realize that month after month, there were more rightwing authors showing up at Book Revue than those from the left.

So, about a year ago, I sent them an e-mail letting them know I'd noticed this trend, and requesting that they do something to set my mind at ease... Have more authors from across the social & political spectrum (preferable) or host less from the right. In short, show me that this wasn't intentional...

I got no response to my e-mail. Not only didn't they respond directly, nothing changed as regards the authors doing the appearances. Hannity has had a signing for every one of his books, and also shows up to help sell the books of others he supports, like Goldberg, above. O'Reilly. E.D. Hill. Pat Buchanan. And the final straw, at least for me, Ann Coulter (again, with Hannity, who even did a live broadcast from my formally beloved bookstore.)

So, with sadness in my heart, I bid farewell to my bookstore, by sending them this email last night:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In honor of yet another appearance by Fox News (Hannity, together with Ann Coulter, this time), I hereby revoke my patronage of your establishment.

I was a resident of Huntington from 1969 through 1996, and spent many hours and a good chunk of money in your store in the late 70s & throughout the 80s. One of my good friends, Jeff B, was an employee of yours. I worked in Chartiers, right behind your building. (I also spent a lot of time in Oscars, but preferred your store.) In the last few years, I've occasionally driven in from Mastic to shop in your store (it is among the best independent bookshops on Long Island, and my politics urges me to spend my money in line with my values--including my disdain for the big boxes that're slowly destroying our local main street businesses.) I even have a frequent buyer card, even though I don't spend nearly the time or money in your shop that I used to.

It was that history, along with your selection & status as an independent, that allowed me to forgive your seeming penchant for hosting right-wing authors a good deal more often than similarly prominent authors from the left. Hannity (HOW many times can this guy appear?), O'Reilly, ED Hill, The Bias guy, Pat Buchanan... ...and the list goes on, I'm sure... (I'm going from memory...)

In a similar period, you've had Amy Goodman, & (perhaps) Al Franken. I'm sure I'm missing a liberal or two from the last 5 years, but the number has got to be half that of conservative appearances in the same period.

The final straw was Ann Coulter. She is trash, and I will not continue to support any person or entity that gives her (& the Fauxes) a platform to spew that kind of bile. There are other independent bookstores that are more in line with my personal, political and social beliefs, and thus have earned my patronage. I will always value the books & the memories I have because of Book Revue, but I cannot continue to give money to an institution that allows the likes of Coulter & these creeps from the Murdoch/Moonie media to spew their harmful, hateful views, and then fails to present authors from the other side to rebut them.


W. James Casper

Mastic, NY 11950
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------