Those like Matt Taibbi, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Jack Cafferty, David Schuster, Dana Milbank, Chris Cilizza, to name a few, have long enjoyed deep cover because of their supposed stance on social issues. That does not nor never should have bought them a pass. These men purport to be journalists and serious commentators. Never was their vile behavior more evident than the sexist horror show of 2008 against Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Their vile, sniggering behavior continues unabated. In fact the only half-hearted apologies ever elicited from any one of these men has only come after a hand slap, a loss of ratings or advertisers…Is that the level of political discourse in this country when discussing women: She devil, bitch, Nurse Ratched, bubblehead?

Rush was forced into the same kind of apology last week. Was he sincere? Doubtful. Will he do it again? Very Likely. Has Bill Maher ever apologized for his endless litany of demeaning statements about women?

Rush Limbaugh is entitled to like or dislike whomever he wants, but if the best way he has to discredit Hillary Clinton is by saying she has “a testicle lockbox” or by calling her a “Femi-Nazi” – I’d say he’s lost the argument. And if Bill Maher likewise has to insult Hillary by saying “They fined CBS a million dollars for showing Janet Jackson’s nipple. Just think what they could get for Hillary Clinton’s c*nt,” and calls Sarah Palin a “c*nt” and a “twat” – it is pretty obvious that the cheap shot is all he is good for. It doesn’t say much for his mental capacity otherwise.

Bill Maher just made a million dollar donation to a SuperPAC with the mission of re-electing President Obama. How does that sit with the party of women’s progress? So we don’t care if you treat women like garbage – as long as your check cashes?

Limbaugh and Maher are shock jocks. That’s how they make their money. However, they also both function as commentators on different news programs. But whether they do or not, these two, along with David Letterman and Jay Leno, have powerful bully pulpits. They cannot hide behind the safety net of “comedian” or “host” when what they are selling is hate-speech. Their jokes, satire, rants, whatever you call them, have a devastating effect night after night that is just as costly as that of the vile pundits on MSNBC or CNN.

Just imagine the equivalent comment being made by any one of these guys toward President Obama? What is the equivalent comment to calling a man a slut, a whore, a c*nt, a twat, a moron, a mashed up bag of meat with lipstick, saying that a particular woman “reads copy with a big set of hairy balls in her mouth” (that was from Taibbi)…What if you made a slur against a Jewish person? A Muslim? Juan Williams made a general comment voicing his nervousness about Muslims traveling in traditional garb on airplanes and NPR fired him.

I have no objection to anyone taking a female candidate or a woman making statements in the public sphere to task on the merits. But let’s stick to the issues, shall we?

Why is it necessary for these men (or the complicit women who egg them on) to call women by the most denigrating names possible – as if their very gender was at the root of their crime.

Moral relativism is not acceptable. The source of these comments does not matter, nor the target. This is hate speech, not free speech. If it were not hate speech, what else accounts for all the violence against women in this country and around the world? Clearly, there still exists some sort of sick need to put women in their place, either with words or by violent means. My fear is that men who control the air waves or use ink by the barrel influence society in negative ways when it comes to how we view women. They decide what a woman is worth and influence how they should be treated by speaking of them so disrespectfully.

If the Rush Limbaughs and Bill Mahers and Keith Olbermanns of the world cannot find a more intelligent way to take issue with a female subject than resorting to acting like bullying twelve year olds, then maybe they are not up to the job.

We are so busy in this country protecting every group under the sun from offense. Yet women are still graded and degraded on the basis of appearance, age, sexuality, vocal quality – anything that will allow them to be cleaved into body parts and then disempowered. It is up to women on both sides of the aisle to stop themselves from being used and manipulated in this debate and express a zero tolerance policy. It is up to men on both sides of the aisle to stop grading on a curve when it comes to their own transgressions or those of their brothers.

While it was only fitting that Rush Limbaugh apologize for his behavior, he should not be singled out or used politically as a distraction from the larger debate. If politicians are only coming to the defense of women when they need our votes, it is up to us to say ‘you can do better.’

President Obama called Ms. Fluke to express his support. But if he really wants to support her – then he must return Bill Maher’s million dollar donation to his re-election campaign, since Maher, like Limbaugh is a horrid culprit in this debate and a regular purveyor of sexist attacks upon women of both parties.

Mr. and Mrs. Obama have two beautiful daughters. I know they would never want Sasha and Malia to be on the receiving end of the sexist commentary made by the likes of a Limbaugh or a Maher. Given that a newscaster by the name of David Shuster referred to the Clintons as pimps and their daughter Chelsea a whore by inference, nothing is outside the realm of possibility any longer. Propriety is a thing of the past. No insult to any woman is off limits it seems.

The President has the most powerful bully pulpit in the world. Rejecting Mr. Maher’s money would go a long way toward proving that this zero tolerance policy starts at the top, and is not just about politics.

****************
Anita Finlay is the author of the soon to be released book, Dirty Words On Clean Skin: Sexism and Sabotage, a Hillary supporter’s rude awakening.

Just from the title of this Sheila Marikar ABC report, you get a hint of a bias. The article doesn’t help to dispel that sensation, rather it escalates it:

There’s the stereotype of the Sarah Palin supporter, and then there’s Sonnie Johnson.

The 30-year-old African-American mother and wife is featured in “The Undefeated” as one of the many people Palin captivated when John McCain thrust her onto the national stage as his vice presidential running mate in 2008. In Pella, Iowa today for the premiere of the film, Johnson said she latched on to Palin when the former Alaska governor took the stage at the Republican National Convention.

“We were watching it on TV and my daughter was like, ‘A girl can be president?,’” Johnson recalled. “And I said, ‘Yes, baby, girls can do anything.’ That was the moment — I saw that look in my daughter’s eye, that anything in possible. The next week, I went to my very first political event, and that was to see Sarah Palin. John McCain and Sarah Palin.”

Johnson has become increasingly involved in the tea party since then, speaking at tea party events around her native Virginia. She’ll give the keynote address at an event held by the Charlottesville, VA. tea party on the Fourth of July with her young daughter by her side. [snip]

Obviously, the elephant in the room is that Hillary Clinton had run to be president, but she was not the party’s pick (and I use those words deliberately). So that Johnson’s daughter saw Palin as a potential president if McCain won is a difference. Palin was on the ticket, Clinton (unfortunately) was not.

That being said, there are so many glaring issues wrong with the entire way Marikar framed this piece that I barely know where to start. First, there is the whole “stereotype” assumption made by this “reporter.” One of the comments summed it up pretty succinctly:

VG; “stereotype” Who put the stereotype on Palin?? All you Obama loving scumbags in the corrupt MSM. You people make me sick.

I think many of us can appreciate this person’s sentiment about the circular practice of the MSM – castigate and attack, then stand back and “report” people regurgitating back the attacks launched, then explain that as the reality of the situation.

There were a few more comments I must share with you, beginning with the issue of women:

John; Unfortunately, women can’t be president. Just watching the vitriol that has been thrown at Sarah Palin makes that clear. The attacks on her family have been disgraceful. The attempts to dig through 24,000 pages of her email to try to find any dirt also makes it clear that America is not ready for a female leader. Best to tell our daughters to become teachers or mothers so they don’t become the next woman to be Palinized….

Jim (in response to Katherine); “There was a woman running in the Dem Primary, and she was pilloried by the misogynistic media… Palin got it X2, and she is still standing, and appears to be stronger than ever. Just sayin’.”

@Katherine: Couldn’t have said it better. I am an ex-Democrat and have had it with the way the democratic party takes the women constituency for granted. I am sick of how they treated Hillary. This was a woman that was many times more accomplished than Obama and after Obama’s presidency we can safely say she would have been many times more effective as a president. Now they are doing the same thing to Palin. I am just sick of the venom that has been thrown at her – just sick of it. [snip]

Amen, amen, and amen – I could not agree more. Many of you know that this has been my refrain about the Democratic Party, Obama, and the blatant, virulent misogyny they have been spewing our way.

But there is another piece to all of this:

[snip] “She’ll be on stage with me,” Johnson said. “I want to get her involved, little by little. I like to say that for the black community, nothing will change until we learn to love our children more than we love the Democratic party.”

After Stephen K. Bannon cast her in his 2010 documentary about conservative women leaders, “Fire From the Heartland,” he asked Johnson to speak about Palin’s influence on her for “The Undefeated.” Other tea party personalities have failed to capture Johnson’s attention as Palin has.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy moley – calling out the black community for its allegiance to the Democrats is a mighty interesting turn. No doubt, that will raise some eyebrows, along with charges of being an “Uncle Tom.” I don’t know about you, but it does seem that whenever a black person does not subscribe to a particular point of view they are, by necessity, an “Uncle Tom.” I thought this comment by Colint summer it up:

Black woman as “unlikely” supporter…. funny…. imagine that, a black who isn’t brainwashed into loving the useless Democrats. Wow… what a revelation.

Could she have figured out the lie… figured out that the Democrats are race baiters?

Good question. Of course, Ms. Johnson would not have to look far. Heck, she need look no farther than my representative, Jim Clyburn, to see numerous instances of race baiting.

I don’t know about you, but I found this to be a pretty interesting glimpse into both how the MSM tries to package information, and how more people are not buying what they are selling. Maybe there really is hope yet.

UPDATE: Speaking of the media, The Hollywood Reporter has a glimpse into the new movie, “The Undefeated”. Hold onto your hats, this is not for the faint of heart:

[snip] The movie begins with Sen. John McCain introducing his running mate, then quickly cuts to the Hollywood sign, and the music turns ominous. A TV news anchor says, “Hollywood has a new favorite pastime: taking aim at Sarah Palin.”

Then the celebrity montage begins: Damon likens Palin to a “really bad Disney movie” and says she’s “really scary”; Letterman attacks her, and the discourse descends in to the filthy from there. Maher insults her on his TV show, Madonna screams obscenities about her while on stage, and comedians use graphic, severely bleeped language to describe Palin and the intensity with which they “hate her.”

When the montage is through, the screen goes dark and a Bible verse comes into focus: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, indeed we will. And the fruits being sown by these people against a woman they have never met, using the vilest of language to describe her, and even attacking her special needs child, says it all.

I know, I know, that can cover a wide variety of issues, and these days there seems to be no shortage of ones that would merit such a response.

But in this case, I am referring to Jack Stuef at Wonkette writing a particularly egregious piece directed at – wait for it – Trig Palin. Yes, Trig Palin, the Downs Syndrome baby of Sarah and Todd. It begs the question, what in the world could anyone have to say about any toddler that would be egregious, but especially a Special Needs child? Well, the headline of Tommy Christopher’s article at MediaIte gives you a hint:”Wonkette Editor Comments on Reprehensible Birthday Greeting to Trig Palin.”

First to a portion of Jack Stuef’s piece (and hey, I’m not linking to it, because he doesn’t deserve the traffic):

[snip] Today is the day we come together to celebrate the snowbilly grifter’s magical journey from Texas to Alaska to deliver to the America the great gentleman scholar Trig Palin. Is Palin his true mother? Or was Bristol? (And why is it that nobody questions who the father is? Because, either way, Todd definitely did it.)[snip]

What the hell is wrong with him? Seriously – what would make a grown (presumably) man attack a child this way just to get back at his parents for what, BEING? That “snowbilly grifter,” as he called her, is the freakin’ former governor of Alaska, and former VP presidential candidate – just what the hell has HE done that is anywhere NEAR that level of accomplishment? Apparently, nothing. And I say “apparently” because when you target a toddler for no reason other than his Special Needs status and who his parents are, well, you’re not exactly the cream of the crop. IMHO, that is.

Christopher’s response was pretty much along the lines of my own:

[snip] Hey, that’s really funny, calling Trig a gentleman scholar because he has Down Syndrome. And the speculation that Todd Palin may have raped his daughter? Pure comedy gold. You know what will be even funnier? The first time Jack Stuef runs into Todd Palin. That one practically writes its own punchline. [snip]

Uh, yeah. Now, Todd clearly has way more class than Stuef, and I am not an advocate of violence, but, wow…

And get this initial reaction from Ken Layne, Editor of Wonkette, in response to Christopher asking if this offensive post would be removed:

[snip] On whose account are you requesting that Jack Stuef remove a post mocking Sarah Palin’s well-documented use of her special needs child as a political prop? Is this coming from Mediaite? Which editor? [snip]

“Political prop”? How’s that again? She had him around her when she had ALL of her children around her. He’s her child, and was an INFANT at the time. If she did NOT have him with her, there would be charges against her for being a horrible parent, hiding her Special needs child, blah, blah, blah – you know there would be. She just cannot win for losing.

And really – they are pushing this meme that Bristol is really the mother?? What is wrong with these people?!

There are more exchanges between Tommy Christopher and Ken Layne, and you can click here to read the rest. Suffice it to say, it didn’t get any better (and really, it went downhill). There is still no sense of shame, or acknowledgment that this toddler should not be a target for “satire” or “humor,” since that is what they think Stuef’s post was.

Honestly, is there no line these folks won’t cross? Sure doesn’t seem like it, but I gotta say, going after a toddler, a Special Needs one at that, just to get at his parents, is plain wrong. Never mind the depiction of Palin – that was offensive, too. But this is way beyond the pale. There should be no place for this, either by the writer, or an editor who would defend it.

Again, I have to ask: what the hell is wrong with these people??

Update: Fortunately, many advertisers have pulled their ads from Wonkette. Seems some people DO still have a sense of decency and decorum, since Wonkette clearly does not.

Faithful NQ reader, Helenk, provided a link to an excellent piece at HotAir, “3 Reasons Why Wonkette Self-destructed By Publishing A Hit Piece On Trig Palin,” which included the video below:

Well said, Mr. Crowder. Thank you.

Does Pakistan suffer today because of his death? Yes. Does it change anything on the ground? No. 

He was slain because he called the notorious blasphemy law as black law. He stood up for a Christian woman who was accused of blasphemy and was sentenced to death by a local court. Taseer wanted his government to repeal the blasphemy law that was incorporated in the 1980s by the military dictator General Ziaul Haq. It was a legitimate demand. In his own words, “these are man made laws and men can correct this”. 

These black laws will now be repealed or not? This does not change anything on the ground either. 

Nothing will change on the ground because nothing changed a decade ago when a Christian cricket player on the national team was allegedly forced to convert. Nothing changed when pop singers one after another started denouncing their own careers and joined the elite mullah ranks. Not a thing changed when two boys were lynched publicly just last year. These were the obvious symptoms of a society turning intolerant, self-righteous, and violent. A society without the respect for law and order. 

It changed nothing back then, it will not change anything now. Hence, the events that followed Salmaan Taseer’s gruesome murder are disturbing. These events have nothing to do with a religion, or its preaching, but everything to do with the mindset that has been developed over the years. Evidently, this mindset is irrespective of class. The jubilant response on Facebook and YouTube was not by the uneducated and madrassa clan. A Pakistani blogger summed it up well: “If you go through the profiles of Qadri supporters on Facebook, you’d think Justin Bieber was the cause of extremism in Pakistan.” 

The killer’s overwhelming welcome at the courts by men who know how and why a law is made demonstrates that the liberals – a minority in Pakistan – have been reduced to an endangered species.  

And that is what has changed. And that is what matters today on the ground in Pakistan. 

Do a little math. The killer is a 26 year old man and hails from a semi-urban area. He joined the Elite force in 2003 which means he was 18 then. General Musharraf toppled a democratic government in 1999, and the killer must have been 14. And this is the age group that’s using the Internet, Facebook, YouTube and blogs more aggressively. This is the age group that went through a whole “moderate enlightenment” phase fully sponsored by Pervez Musharraf and shamelessly supported by George Bush for almost over a decade. And this is the group that has the street power in Pakistan. This is the group that is the future of Pakistan. Its mind has been infiltrated by private television, launched during Musharraf’s era. Instead of promoting freedom of speech, it promoted violence, illiteracy and conspiracy theories. It produced the “I-know-more-than-you-know-coz-I-like-that-anchor-and-you-dont-watch-that-show” minds, whereas before young men from the same age group used to extract influence from their family heads. 

The dual game of the military government ten years ago, fully supported and encouraged by the US government, produced a whole generation that detests its own constitution and Western freedom of speech values. This generation is the raw material available to and exploited by religious groups, ready to kill and get killed. My philanthropist friend Manzur Ejaz believes that the right wing in Pakistan is organized and has ideological strength. It has been supported by the State machinery through an education system and infested state institutions, while its opposition lacks committed people, organization and a cause. 

This sorry state of Pakistan is pretty much an example of Martin Niemoller’s ‘First They Came.’ 

They came first for the Communists,

and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.



Then they came for me

and by that time no one was left to speak up.

This existing situation has nothing to do with the drone attacks carried out today or the policy changed in favor of Pakistan. The ruling party was once considered a liberal group, but now its own members and sitting ministers publicly announced that they will shoot a blasphemer themselves. They align themselves with so-called “moderate” Muslim politicians like Imran Khan who have practiced Western values but sympathise with the Taliban. 

This indicates that now the dominant political philosophies are right, center to right and very right groups. It has men that have a soft heart for fundamentalists. The absence of a left–because the representative parties or groups were systematically dismantled by military dictators–will bring more extremism. 

Persons with liberal thoughts need protection, which requires some strategy as well as strength. It has to organize itself and build an anti-mullah manpower. It’s a war now, and decisions taken today will reflect the systems adopted in the future. And that will change everything on the ground.

–
Crosspost: ThePakistanUpdate.com

An old friend of mine sent me an article recently from NPR, “Teacher Suspended After Stopping Anti-Gay Talk.” My friend was a high school teacher for many years (and now teaches on the community college level), so naturally, this would pique her interest. Mine, too.

But the headline is a bit misleading, I think. It makes it sound like a kid was bullying by using homophobic language. That was not the case:

[snip] On Oct. 20, McDowell told a student in his classroom to remove a belt buckle with the Confederate Flag, the symbol of the southern confederacy that seceded from the United States over slavery, kicking off the Civil War in the 1860s.

She complied, but it prompted a question from a boy about how the flag differs from the rainbow flag, a symbol of pride for the gay community.

“I explained the difference between the flags, and he said, ‘I don’t accept gays,”’ said McDowell, 42, who was wearing a shirt with an anti-gay bullying message.

McDowell said he told the student he couldn’t say that in class.

“And he said, ‘Why? I don’t accept gays. It’s against my religion.’ I reiterated that it’s not appropriate to say something like that in class,” McDowell said Monday.

McDowell said he sent the boy out of the room for a one-day class suspension. Another boy asked if he also could leave because he also didn’t accept gays.

“The classroom discussion was heading in a direction I didn’t want it to head,” McDowell said.

McDowell soon received a reprimand letter from the district that said his actions violated the students’ free speech rights as well as school policy. It also said he “purposefully initiated a controversial issue” by the wearing the T-shirt featuring the anti-gay bullying message.

“I thought it was a really great, teachable moment,” McDowell said of his decision to remove the student from class. [snip]

I have a few problems with the way the teacher handled this situation. It did not seem to me that the young man was gay-bullying, but giving his religious belief, which he is allowed to have, much as I (and apparently, the teacher) disagree with him. As long as he was not bashing anyone, that is. A number of mainstream religions teach that homosexuality is a sin, and a number still do not ordain LGBT people. That this student holds such a religious belief is his right, as long as he does not take it out on anyone. Again, much as I disagree with that religious belief, the student has the right to his beliefs.

I think the more “teachable moment” would have been to keep him in the classroom. Maybe discuss how, even if our religious beliefs differ, we can, and should, treat people with respect, and stand up for “the least of these,” to couch it in language the young man may have understood. It was a perfect opportunity to discuss the bullying that has been occurring in our school across the country, and how it isn’t just against gay kids, but “nerds,” small kids, etc. That was the teachable moment in my mind.

I think the t-shirt the teacher wore was provocative, even if it was in support of ending the recent bullying cases making the headlines. Given that he was clearly stating a position, he should have expected that some people might have taken umbrage with it. And, he should have been willing to engage, and really TEACH, rather than dismiss.

And I think this was a discussion more suited to a Social Studies class than an Economics class. While I appreciate – very much – the teacher’s intent, he infringed upon the young man’s rights by, well, being intolerant of the student’s beliefs. In his attempt to stop bullying, he, in essence, bullied this kid. Since the teacher had the power, he was able to toss out someone with whom he disagreed rather than have a real discussion.

That is to say, this teacher seemed to violate the student’s right to free speech, which is also the conclusion of ACLU attorney:

[snip] Jay Kaplan, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan’s LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) Legal Project, credits McDowell for trying to create a “welcoming environment for all students.” But Kaplan said the “teachable moment” would have come if the students stayed in the classroom.

“We believe, based on those statements — as offensive and upsetting as they were — they were protected speech,” Kaplan said. “The only way we’re going to create a better environment in schools is to start talking about this.”

Kaplan said Howell schools have expressed interest in accepting the ACLU’s offer to provide in-person training to students, faculty and staff. He said such training could provide a better understanding of what can be said and done. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

That sounds like a positive step for the Howell schools, and a better way to go about creating an atmosphere conducive to these kinds of discussions. I am glad to learn they are open to this

I’m glad Md. McDowell is aware of this issue, and doing what he can to end gay-bashing/bullying in his school, but there are ways that are more effective than others to accomplish that goal. The kind of intolerance he demonstrated by kicking the student out sends the wrong message, and will simply breed resentment, not enlightenment.

At least that’s what I think. What do you think?

But there is one other “change” that has reared its ugly head since the Obama campaign began, and that is the war on women. You know, the “Bros Before Hoes” (a slogan and t-shirt), “Sarah Palin Is a C…” t-shirts, the Hillary Clinton “nutcrackers,” the “Life’s A Bitch, Don’t Vote For One” (in regard to Hillary Clinton) t-shirt, and on and on. We saw them all too often during 2008, with men (and some women) wearing them with glee.

Add to those displays the “comedienne” Sandra Bernhard threatening Sarah Palin with being gang-raped by black men (racist much, Sandra??) should she dare come to New York. Or Randi Rhodes, at a fundraiser for the Great Uniter, Obama, calling Hillary Clinton a whore. Oh, wait – I mean, “a big fucking whore.” N.O.W., Naral, Planned Parenthood, all supporting the man in the race (and as recently mentioned, the California chapter of N.O.W. endorsing the man in the governor’s race over the pro-choice woman, and supporting one of his aides calling her a whore).

And we cannot forget the blatant misogyny of many in the media since 2008. Three names sum it up: Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and David Shuster. Need I say more? Not only did many in the media routinely make sexist, even misogynistic statements, but they routinely failed to cover the news, like the young men yelling at Hillary Clinton, “Iron My Shirt!” You and I both know damn well had anyone yelled out at Barack Obama, “Shine My Shoes!” we would be hearing about blatant racism in the campaign to this day.

All of which is to say, the misogyny is not limited to displays by men, unfortunately. Too many women are all too ready to throw their lot in with them. I suppose their “logic” is that they should join in lest they be treated the same way by these same men. Perhaps they think if they side against women, too, they will be spared the horrific treatment that is becoming all too acceptable. It is just a bit disturbing when it comes from groups whose sole purpose is to support women.

Taken together, it makes the story below not so surprising, sadly. Not that it isn’t emetic, mind you, but it is not surprising. Not after all we have seen since 2008, the t-shirts, the slogans, the flipping off by Candidate Obama of Hillary Clinton, the “sweetie” remarks toward a reporter, also by Candidate Obama, as well as the hint of PMS when he claimed Clinton might “get down periodically,” or Obama’s claiming that his challenge to the status quo “brings the claws out,” along with the general rage against powerful women, both Democratic and Republican for having the audacity to run against men. The nerve of these women, those who dared to run for president, or governor, or senator, or representative – how freaking dare they?

Those attitudes, both subtle and overt, have an effect. They are, as Obama likes to say, “Teachable moments.” But what these messages are teaching our young people is sickening. And that brings us to this from the Chronicle of Higher Learning, “Yale Fraternity Apologizes For Pledge Chants About Rape” (h/t to Pat Racimora):

The Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity at Yale University apologized on Thursday for offensive chants against women that were shouted by new recruits on Wednesday evening. The young men, blindfolded, were marched through a part of the campus where female freshmen live while shouting, “No means yes, yes means anal!,” among other inflammatory chants. The pledging ritual sparked an outcry from Yale feminists and the Yale Women’s Center and a commentary in Salon.

Yep. Yale. The Salon article states:

[snip] Now, DKE President Jordan Forney has been forced to apologize for this blatant sexual intimidation by calling it “a serious lapse in judgment by the fraternity and in very poor taste.” But this sort of hateful crap isn’t a “lapse in judgment.” It doesn’t innocently happen that you’re guiding male pledges by young women’s dorms in the dark of night chanting about anal rape. It isn’t a forehead-slapping slip-up, it’s a sign that you need major reprogramming as a human being. [snip]

I’ll say. But not just at Yale. Young men, and women for that matter, need reprogramming in general that treating women like this, whether they are young or old, is simply unacceptable. It is not okay to threaten young women with rape, just as it is not okay to threaten a political figure with gang rape or to attack a candidate based on gender and not on their political stance. The entire country could use some “re-programming,” including Obama. Now THAT is some change I can support, and the sooner, the better.

Women in this country deserve at least that much, don’t we?

But I’m not talking about any of that. Nope, I have some interesting little news tidbits for you.

First up, Rep. Maxine Water’s attorneys are irritated that she is still being investigated. Yes, they want the Ethics Committee to “Leave Maxine ALOONNNEEE!” They assert that since the formal probe is over, the Ethics Committee should knock it off. But as The Hill article indicates, they aren’t the boss of the Ethics Committee:

[snip] Unlike criminal proceedings, however, the ethics committee itself, not a judge, determines whether Waters’s legal arguments are accepted or dismissed. For that reason, it’s unlikely the panel will halt its activities after receiving the letter from Brand and Herman. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

So, there’s that. Perhaps it didn’t occur to them that Rep. Waters might have committed additional ethics violations. Just a thought.

Second up, and you’re going to love this, is Ed Schultz, of MSNBO and Air America fame, had himself a little “Mel Gibson” moment, as this NY Post article, “MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Goes Bonkers.” Just wait until you read why:

MSNBC talk show screamer Ed Schultz had a meltdown in the network’s 30 Rock newsroom, shouting at staff, “I’m going to torch this [bleep]ing place.”

The hot-tempered anchor of “The Ed Show” lost it during a phone call in the packed studio and slammed down the phone before exploding.

As astonished MSNBC staff members fell silent, Schultz glared around the room and yelled, “[Bleep]ers!”

A witness told us, “Ed was furious the network was running election-night promos and he wasn’t in them. He’d been arguing on the phone with marketing, then he slammed down the phone and exploded. It was like Mel Gibson had entered the newsroom.” [snip]

But wait – there’s more:

[snip] Our source added, “Schultz was told: ‘If you do that again, you are fired.’ He broke down crying.”

Sources say the hothead was pushed over the edge by MSNBC’s catering to bullying fellow anchor Keith Olbermann and its focus on golden girl Rachel Maddow. [snip]
(Click HERE to read the rest.)

Poor Ed – not feeling the love. Just breaks your heart for him that the MSNBO Execs love Keith and Rachel more, doesn’t it? Oh yeah, my heart bleeds for him.

Finally, did you know that the other name by which the Tea Party should be known is the KKK? Oh, yes, indeedy. Check out this OBC, I mean, ABC, report:

Did you catch that quote at the end? Apparently, Rev. Fauntroy didn’t since he justified his remarks with this explanation:

[snip]Fauntroy attempted to explain the comparison to white supremacists by saying that organizers behind the “Restoring Honor” rally are the same people who cut audio cables from a sound system the night before the historic March on Washington and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial. (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Well, that certainly makes it all better: Tea Party = White Supremacists. I mean, c’mon, who could possibly take offense at that connection? Never mind that it is completely false, but hey – you know, that’s all he meant by it. No big deal or anything.

Good grief. All because the Tea Party dared to hold a rally around the same time they are being compared to KKK members? I have to say it – Rev, Fauntroy completely missed the message Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was trying to impart. His son said it all – his father “would not want to limit voices.” So, why is Rev. Fauntroy attempting to do so with this incendiary speech? That’s what I would like to know.

I am sure there are more stories out there that we may have missed. Let’s have them!

I’d like to address the objections.

Protest is the American way. The health care bill, a massive piece of legislation, had many elements which some could find objectionable. Mandates are worrying, as is the fear that premiums could go up. There are genuine concerns that the “reform” could turn out to be a souped-up version of COBRA, making insurance obligatory but unaffordable, ultimately benefitting only the insurance companies. Reasonable people can disagree reasonably. That’s one of the great aspects of living in a democracy.

What is not reasonable, however, is circulating pictures of the President disguised as a witch doctor, or spitting on and hurling racial and other epithets at Congressmen (or anyone else), or sending images of nooses, or issuing death threats. This form of “protest” has nothing to do with TARP or health care or anything else. Anyone who defends such behavior should hang their head in shame. Indeed, such acts should be vehemently discouraged and the perpetrators shunned from civilized society.

The Tea Party’s message of smaller government and fiscal responsibility is being drowned out by the movement’s most extreme elements. In this the movement is comparable to A.N.S.W.E.R, a group begun to oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which then degraded into an umbrella group for every embittered leftist with an ax to grind, from PETA to the Free Mumia crowd to the pro-Palestinian folks. Ultimately the anti-war message was diluted and A.N.S.W.E.R turned into a joke.

Another group that found itself in the trashbin of history was the loosely formed anti-World Bank/WTO/IMF crowd, whose members had no problem protesting the worthy cause of international debt reduction by rampaging in the streets and committing acts of vandalism while filming all the exciting anti-globalist fervor with video cameras and cell phones imported from Asia. Any sympathy they may have generated went up in smoke as the public watched the violence and mayhem.

During campaign 2008, left-wing blogs turned into cesspools of misinformation and ad hominem attacks on the Clintons, going so far as to resurrect the “Vince Foster Was Murdered” canard. The outrageous sexism of the blogosphere and the media was harshly and justifiably criticized on this blog. To ignore the extreme elements of the Tea Party is to do an injustice to those decent people who want to have their voices heard, but do not want to be associated with the ugliness of the extremes.

The answer, of course, is fear.

And fear, when stoked by demagogues and poured over a volatile flammable mass only needs one match to create a frightful conflagration.

Witness the American “Tea Party” movement, a ragtag group whose initial goal of protesting the bank bailouts has devolved into a mass movement featuring silly costumes, misspelled signs glorifying racism and paranoia, and sometimes weaponry.

Those who wish to turn away from the Tea Parties and their embarrassing antics will find little solace in the Republican party. A recent Harris poll reveals that two-thirds of Republicans think Barack Obama is a socialist, 57 percent a Muslim—and 24 percent say “he may be the Antichrist.” Not surprisingly, respondents without a college education are vastly more likely to believe such claims, while Americans with college degrees or better are less easily duped.

To quote the 19th-century educator Horace Mann, “Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies of the soul that are unoccupied by the verities of knowledge.”

Of course, the media don’t help.

It’s easy to blame FOX News and talk radio for this sorry and dangerous state of affairs. Their right-wing propaganda draws a large and loyal audience. But CNN, MSNBC and other mainstream networks are also to blame. By treating the more mentally unstable and incoherent members of the lunatic right with deference and respect in order to present “balanced” coverage, they have bestowed a kind of legitimacy on paranoid hate-mongerers, racists and the flat-out ignorant. Having a person on to argue that Barack Obama is not a native-born citizen of the United States serves no newsworthy purpose. It is an act of sheer provocation and showmanship.

Consumers of Pakistani media are probably familiar with this phenomenon – demagogues blathering nonsense from their media perches; the spreading of rumor and conspiracy as fact; an apparent lack of editorial control on the irresponsible material being broadcast or printed; blaming outside forces (Jews, the CIA, the Mossad, RAW) for internal problems, thereby alleviating the public of any responsibility for an ensuing catastrophe; suspicion of The Other…the list goes on and on.

So to those who think the Kerry-Lugar Bill is a Trojan Horse masquerading sinister imperialists scheming to erode your sovereignty, meet your comrades in arms: The Tea Party attendees who think passing universal health care will lead to death panels, fascism and Nazi death camps.

–
Crosspost: ThePakistanUpdate.com

The Heat Is On. We May Get Burned. Political rage is a national problem, not a partisan one.

So where are we? In a dangerous place, actually.

Politics is a rough arena, and understandably so, for our politicians tell us more and more how to order our lives. Naturally there will be resistance, and strong opposition. We have a long history of hurly-burly debate, and we all know examples the past 200 years of terrible things said and done. Capitol tour guides enjoy showing the stain on the marble steps supposedly left by the blood of Sen. Charles Sumner, beaten half to death on the floor of the senate in 1856 by Rep. Preston Brooks, who wielded a thick gold-tipped cane. So we’ve had our moments.

But it’s a mistake not to see something new, something raw and bitter and dangerous, in the particular moment we’re in.

Steny Hoyer, the House majority leader, this week announced that 10 congressional Democrats have recently been menaced and threatened with violence, and that they found it necessary to meet with the FBI and Capitol Police. A congressman apparently said a casket had been left near his home; a congresswoman reportedly said she was worried for the safety of her children.

This is all completely believable.

Democratic officials are right to call attention to what they believe is a growing threat. It is a truly terrible thing. But it would be deeply unhelpful for the Democrats to use this story as a mere political opportunity, as a way to undermine opposition to ObamaCare by painting opponents as dangerous and unhinged. That would only inflame the country, and in any case is not true. The truth is this sickness works both ways.

Indeed. It is unacceptable that a member of Congress has to fear for the safety of her children. That just should not happen. But the casket was not left on the lawn of a Congressman:

The coffin, in fact, was used as a prop at a prayer vigil on Mar. 21 to symbolize the “loss of freedom and the loss of lives due to government medical rationing,” said the activists.

Back to Noonan:

There probably isn’t a Republican leader who has not the past few years been menaced, and in exactly the same ways as the Democrats. Thursday I asked a staffer for a congressman who is a significant and respected opponent of the health-care bill if he had ever been threatened. Yes indeed. “Over the years and as recently as yesterday,” both the congressman and his staff “have received countless threats—both threats of violence and of death. These come in the form of letters, faxes, emails, phone calls, and voice-mail messages. We’ve had the front window smashed in at one of our district offices. Rather than call TV crews or the Washington Post, we report threats to the proper authorities, and move on. We’d take issue with the recent narrative that conservatives are disproportionately hostile, prone to violence or whatever message the left is pushing these days. They have anecdotes, we have anecdotes.”

Even columnists and pundits have anecdotes. Just about everyone in public life on whatever level gets threats now.

Here’s the tenor and tone of the moment:

Under the news story on Mr. Hoyer’s statement on the Yahoo! news site on Thursday, there was a lengthy comment thread, with more than 800 people offering their thoughts. “An American Hitler might be in the making who would purge the leftists,” said one, who of course didn’t use his or her name. “Republicans are criminals and terrorists,” said another. “Republicans . . . are thugs, scoundrels and rascals.” And: “What did they expect when they . . . went against the American people and are FORCING this bill on us.” “It’s what happens before the revolution . . . people are frustrated over not being heard . . . let the battle begin.”

Here, edited for a family newspaper, are some of the recorded telephone messages left on the answering machine of Rep. Bart Stupak. These are messages left by individuals who appear to be pro-life activists—that is, people who have put themselves on the line to support generous and compassionate treatment of the unborn.

“I hope you bleed out your ___, get cancer and die.” “You will rue the day. . . . I hope you’re haunted the rest of your living day. . . . We think you’re a devil. . . . The country loathes you.” “You are one big piece of human ____. There are people across the country who wish you ill, and all of those thoughts projected on you will materialize into something that’s not very good for you. Go to hell, you piece of ____.”

These are people whose professed mission it is to save children. Whatever else these particular individuals are, they are people whose nerves have been rubbed raw.

There is no excuse for that kind of behavior, to be sure. It does not further dialogue, it does not engender good will, and it sure doesn’t help to prove one’s point. But Noonan is right – people’s nerves are frayed, and too close to the surface:

Responsible leaders on all levels of American life ought to stop, breathe in, and see the level of anger and agitation that’s rippling through the country. Both sides should try to cool it, or something bad is going to happen. In fact I am struck now by how, when I worry aloud about this and say to a conservative or a liberal, a Republican or a Democrat, that I fear something bad is going to happen, no one disagrees. No one says, “Don’t worry, it’s nothing.” They say—again, left, right and center: “I’m afraid of that too.”

What I keep thinking of is a beehive. A modern, high tech, highly politicized democracy is a busy beehive, and sometimes the bees are angry, and sometimes someone comes by and sticks a big sharp stick in the hive. The biggest thing Washington should do right now is stop it, stop poking the stick.

The beehive was already angry about a million things a year ago, and most of those things, obviously, were not the fault of the administration. People are angry at their economic vulnerability. They are angry at the deterioration of our culture, angry at our nation’s deteriorating position in the world, at our debts and deficits, our spending and taxing, our threatened security in a world of weapons of mass destruction. Their anger is stoked by cynical politicians and radio ranters and people who come home at night, have a few drinks, and spew out their rage on the comment thread. It’s a world full of people always cocking the gun and ready to say, if things turn bad, “But I didn’t tell anyone to shoot!”

And yes, this mood, this anger, has only been made worse by this yearlong, enervating, exhausting, enraging fight over health care. The administration is full of people who are so bright, and led by one who is very bright, and yet they have a signal failure: They do not know what time it is. They cannot see how high the temperature is. They cannot for the life of them understand that they raise it.

Okay, I could so say something right now about how BRIGHT Obama and his Administration people are alleged to be, but for this once, I’ll bite my tongue:

What we need now in our leaders is the knowledge that there is so much that is tearing us apart as a nation and that the great project now is to keep us together, to hold us together as much as possible, because future trends will be to come apart, and for many reasons. To come apart because we’re no longer held close and firmly by the old glue of appreciation for a common heritage, history and culture; to come apart because we’re a country that increasingly feels there are people in the cart and people pulling the cart, and the latter are increasingly overwhelmed and fearful; coming apart because we’re now in at least our second generation of young, lost, unguided children with no fully functioning parent in their lives, kids being raised by a microwave and a TV set. All of these things weigh and grate.

They are all, of course, too big and complicated to be adequately dealt with in a year or even a decade. But one immediate thing can be done right now, and that is: lower the temperature. Any way you can, and everybody. Just lower it.

I cannot disagree with Ms. Noonan. I, for one, would love to see some civility in political (and other) discourse, a cessation of demonizing the other side to make ourselves feel superior. Even worse, to taunt and belittle the other side, as we have seen so much of these past few years.

But articles like this one, “In The Faces Of Tea Party Shouters, Images of Hate And History,” by Colbert I. King. I won’t include it all here, but this should give you an idea:

The angry faces at Tea Party rallies are eerily familiar. They resemble faces of protesters lining the street at the University of Alabama in 1956 as Autherine Lucy, the school’s first black student, bravely tried to walk to class.

Those same jeering faces could be seen gathered around the Arkansas National Guard troopers who blocked nine black children from entering Little Rock’s Central High School in 1957.

“They moved closer and closer,” recalled Elizabeth Eckford, one of the Little Rock Nine. “Somebody started yelling, ‘Lynch her! Lynch her!’ I tried to see a friendly face somewhere in the crowd — someone who maybe could help. I looked into the face of an old woman and it seemed a kind face, but when I looked at her again, she spat on me.”

Those were the faces I saw at a David Duke rally in Metairie, La., in 1991: sullen with resentment, wallowing in victimhood, then exploding with yells of excitement as the ex-Klansman and Republican gubernatorial candidate spewed vitriolic white-power rhetoric.

People like that old woman in Little Rock, the Alabama mob that hounded Autherine Lucy, the embracers of Duke’s demagoguery in Louisiana, never go away.

It gets worse from there:

Hence, an explanation for the familiarity of faces: today’s Tea Party adherents are George Wallace legacies.

They, like Wallace’s followers, smolder with anger. They fear they are being driven from their rightful place in America.

Holy cow. Talk about stoking the fires of hatred and division. I do not consider myself a Tea Party member or anything, but I find this article to be exceedingly offensive. Never mind that the majority of Tea Party members are women, but to equate them with such a painful time in our history, without founding, is obscene. I don’t think Mr. King is going to be one of the ones turning down the heat, if this article is any indication.

Neither will this man. The problem with him, though, is he isn’t just a columnist for a newspaper. He’s the President of the United States:

Well, when you have that kind of rhetoric coming from Obama, it is hard to expect any of his followers to tone it down, either.

Of course I am not saying it is only those on the left who need to ratchet it back, but I do find it interesting that Tea Party members are depicted as racist, homophobic lunatics because they feel government has gotten too large (and it has under Obama, as well as spending way too much money on TARP, programs, and even the increase of federal employees making six-figure incomes during this economic downturn). They have good reasons for their discontent. Calling them names and depicting them as horrible people for their use of Constitutional rights is extremely harmful.

And while the Tea Party members are being belittled by the other side, people raging against the war, or marching for Gay Rights, or against the World Bank, etc., are depicted as perfectly sane, as Jonah Goldberg pointed out recently. I guess it’s all a matter of spin, and right now, the message being put out is that ANYONE who opposes Obama for any reason whatsoever is a racist, homophobic, nutjob. While that may entertain Obama’s followers, it demonizes half of the country, and does a grave disservice by attempting to silence their speech.

That, as Peggy Noonan pointed out, doesn’t help. It doesn’t foster understanding, respect for differing opinions, or civility in discourse or action, as the egging of a Tea Party bus this weekend exemplifies. It needs to stop. The media needs to stop depicting people who think differently from them as a bunch of hillbilly yahoos, and OBAMA needs to stop depicting people who don’t support his policies, be they Republicans, Independents, or true Democrats, in such an “Us v. THEM” way, fanning the flames of intolerance and division. I agree with Noonan – this needs to stop, and it needs to stop before the anger spills over in ways we don’t want to see, by both sides and the middle. And it can happen none too soon…

Here is one example:

Some people may indeed WANT to do this, and that is fine. But now people who want to opt out know they have that option.

Of course, the down side is the impact it will have on our deficit. But that does not seem to be a real problem for these folks, it seems. We have also learned today (thanks, HARP, for mentioning this) that the CBO was WRONG on their numbers. You know, the numbers the Democrats got to pass the health care bill. Yeah, turns out they were WRONG. As it turns out, our debt will rise to 90% of our GDP, and we will add $10 TRILLION to our deficit in just 10 years. Yep, that would be $1 trillion a year. So, do we get a Do-over, then?? I didn’t think so.

One of the big issues about which we have been hearing is the number of doctors available. We already have a shortage of doctors in this country, but wait until you hear the number we will be short once tis plan is in full swing. Oh, and there is a good suggestion in here, too – make sure you have a doctor NOW:

That number would be 30,000 doctors short. Holy Crappydoo.

Then there are all of the effects this bill is going to have on a number of corporations. Hot Air has a good post entitled, “AP: Say, Guess What We Just Found In Obamacare!” Oh, boy. It goes into detail about some companies whose names have cropped up recently, like Caterpillar, and John Deere. Required Reader supplied a story in the Weekly Standard, “John Deere, Caterpillar, Verizon Announce Rise In Health-Care Costs After Obama Passage.”

What else? Oh, yes – the charges of racist and homophobic language that were flying fast and furiously before the vote (uncorroborated, I might add), and the threats on both sides to legislators for their votes, have been part of the fallout from this bill, too. To say the media could have done a better job dealing with these issues is an understatement, I am sure. At the very least, any semblance of investigation and impartiality seem to have flown out the window. What else is new, right? More on this in the days to come.

So, what’s leaping out at you about this new law? We’d love to hear it!

First up is Rep. Issa claiming there is a “credible allegation” that the White House committed a felony. The allegation stems from Democrat Rep. Joe Sestak:

I wonder if anything will come of it. If so, THIS should be quite the case to watch.

Next up is a story discovered by faithful reader, jbjd. Oh, this one will raise your hair, I think. Here’s a bit from the article, Self-Interested Veal Pen Outfits Step Up to Kill the Public Option:

Having suckered you into giving up your email address, fundraised heavily and built up their mailing lists by disingenuously flogging the public option, the veal pen turns around and shoots it in the back to save Michael Bennet’s ass. Yesterday SEIU and Progress Colorado showed up when David Sirota and 40-50 public option supporters delivered 34,000 petition signatures to Bennet’s office to protest AGAINST the public option.

David Herszenhorn of the New York Times states what’s happening very clearly, and debunks the “public option will get a vote later” lie:

[T]he Democrats said they had agreed among themselves to resist the temptation to make any amendments and would work to approve the bill without any changes that would require it to be sent back to the House for another vote. The public option, they said, could wait for another day, another vote, another fight — even though the parliamentary process playing out on the Senate floor gave them a rare chance to enact it with a simple majority, a chance unlikely to come around again soon.

But the bill is going to go back to the House for another vote as of this morning, so that excuse has melted. It now takes its place along side “60 voters,” “50 votes,” “the President supports the public option” and “I’ve only had two beers, officer” in the feeble excuse Hall of Fame. It was all bullshit anyway — as if bills aren’t routinely sent back and forth between houses all the time. It’s almost as good as Michael Bennet’s “it will kill the bill” — as if the health care bill wasn’t already signed into law by the President. Exactly how many people he thought would “die” by the delay of a “tax fix” is unknown. (See “Frosh Sen. Michael Bennet Won’t Offer Public Option Amendment, Still Seems Not To Understand How Legislative Process Works“)

Oh, you’re going to want to read the rest of it (click on the title above).

No Longer Banned In Beantown provided THIS link for our edification. It takes you to the lists of “Clients Lobbying For H.R. 3590.” That’s the healthcare bill. I’d grab a few aspirin before checking out this list. And if you want to check out each company ON that list, you better have a lot of time on your hands. Oh, yeah – it’s long.

Doc99, in light of the claims of intimidation, threats, and violence directed at both Democrats and Republicans following the Healthcare vote (that Obama – just bringing people together) provided this story, “Scott Brown Calls For End To Intimidation“. Here’s a bit of that piece:

In the Capitol moments ago, I happened to buttonhole Senator Scott Brown, darling of the national Tea Party movement, and he strongly condemned the threats and intimidation that health reform foes are directing at Dems who supported it.

“Any type of intimidation is completely unacceptable,” Brown told me. “That’s what makes America so good is that we can go to the ballot box. And that’s what I’d encourage people to do to vent their anger in a positive way, instead of doing things that are bad form.”

Brown sidestepped, however, when asked whether some of the rhetoric about reform coming from prominent GOP officials had helped create a climate fostering the intimidation, as Dems have been insisting. He also demurred when I asked whether Republican officials had done enough to quell the violence.

And Required Reading suggested this article is just that, required reading, “Repeal the Democrats; Republicans may not repeal the health-care bill, but they should repeal the Democrats.” Here’s a taste of this article:

All day Sunday and into the night, Republican House Members tilted at the Democratic Party’s mammoth health-care windmill. Amid the Stupaks and Neugebauers, Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan finally told the chamber the truth. This debate wasn’t just about doctors and insurance, he said. “This is ultimately about what kind of country we are going to be in the 21st century.”

Signing the bill into law Tuesday Mr. Obama also stepped away from his windmill to say something real: “Today we are affirming . . . a truth every generation is called to rediscover for itself, that we are not a nation that scales back its aspirations.”

Indisputably correct. The U.S. has produced generations of upward strivers and competitors. Since 1950 til now, 82 of 150 Nobel laureates in medicine have been from the U.S. With enactment of this law, the U.S. will throttle down. Rather than spend our energies this century competing straight up with rising Asia for economic primacy, we’ll work to pay for the fat but happy social-welfare state of the last century.

Or maybe not.

Required reading, indeed.

jbjd also provided the following link which has a very interesting discussion about Israel. Obviously, this is a timely discussion given the treatment of Benjamin Netanyahu (otherwise known as a “bum’s rush”) by Obama this week:

Finally, NLBIB also provided this awesome video for your musical entertainment:

It’s an Open Thread, friends.

Case in point: Washington Post “media critic” Howard Kurtz’s article today about FOX News Channel’s “reporters’” growing discomfort with the shenanigans of FNC darling Glenn Beck, he of the mighty chalkboard of insanity, his ludicrous fits of crying, his manic desire to be a political player, the fearmongering, paranoia and Stalin-Mao-Hitler-Marxist-Communist-Racist-Obama-hating cavalcade of madness. The meme that Beck is merely an entertainer and that FOX personalities are worried that the new star on the block could damage its relationship with the White House and the channel’s reputation are laughable at best. After all, Beck organized the infamous “9/12″ rallies, a non-news event enthusiastically covered by FOX, complete with inflated crowd estimates. Beck, in displays of false modesty, claims to be a mere rodeo clown. Nonsense. He’s a liar, an ignoramus and a dangerous Father Coughlinesque demagogue who has done enormous damage to political discourse and the profession of journalism. (Beck would probably decry Coughlin’s loyalties but the technique remains the same).

Beck apologized recently for wasting his audience’s time following a hilariously absurd and demented interview with disgraced tickling enthusiast and former Congressman Eric Massa. But not to worry, he’s back to whatever passes for normal now.

FOX’s “news” operation didn’t show restraint or a desire for fact-checking while helping pump damaging, and false stories about the Clintons into the media churn, with the Vince Foster conspiracy theory still holding a strong showing behind the JFK assassination.

And it’s not as if Beck makes money for the network. He’s a loss leader (here’s a partial list of companies that have pulled their ads, despite Beck’s strong ratings). There are rumblings that Rupert Murdoch’s children are fed up with the drama surrounding FOX News’s foolishness, but you can bet that as long as daddy Rupert is in charge and Roger Ailes continues to draw breath nothing will change.

The Kurtz article follows an absurd piece in the Washington Post by former New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines. With wide-eyed wonder, he ponders the vexing question of why reputable media organizations don’t call FOX out as a propaganda mill. This from a man who if he had a sense of shame would have the decency to keep quiet about media ethics, considering that reporter Bush/Cheney stenographer Judy Miller’s wildly incorrect WMD/Chalabi articles started being published in the NYT on his watch. The New York Times, which sets the agenda for all other publications in the United States, was thereby complicit in pushing falsehoods that led to an unjust and unnecessary war, costing thousands of American lives and ruining the U.S.’s reputation around the world. Good work, Howell.

But to answer your question, Howell: Cowardice. The American media are sheep. You’re welcome.

American reporters love to express their wonder at the Pakistani media’s love of conspiracy theories and wrinkle their brows over what a terrible impact the dissemination of false and sensationalistic information could have on the U.S.-Pak relationship. Look in the mirror, people.

– Cross Post from: The Pakistan Update

The spontaneous march in response, the solidarity evident, brought tears to my eyes.

While we are on the subject of the GLBT community, as of this writing, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, 332 service members have been dismissed under DADT under Obama and this Congress.

As for Obama and Same Sex Marriage, anyone holding their breath that Obama will do anything FOR it should breathe now. I’ve been saying this for a while, and James Kirchick writing for the Washington Post had this to say in his editorial, “Obama Said ‘I Don’t. He May Just Mean It” (h/t to American Girl in Italy):

~snip ~ When it comes to same-sex marriage, the movement can’t count on support from the current president either. When White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about Clinton’s comments, he told reporters that his boss “does not support” same-sex marriage. “He supports civil unions,” Gibbs assured. And despite President Obama’s statement that he opposes the ban on gays serving openly in the military, Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings (Fla.) last week said that the White House pressured him to withdraw an amendment that would have prohibited funds from being spent on investigating “don’t ask, don’t tell” violations.

Even if Obama does in fact believe in marriage equality, he hasn’t done — and is unlikely to do — much to forward the cause. And apart from some toothless sniping from a handful of gay activists and donors, he seems to be getting away with it. In this way, the presumed (yet secret) good intentions of Democrats can wind up doing more harm than good: They tell the gay community that Democrats are at least better than the GOP, thus providing an excuse that can be employed endlessly while they stall.

This trust in covert backing from liberal elected officials is an article of faith among most supporters of same-sex marriage. In a recent interview with Newsweek, gay playwright Tony Kushner spoke of Obama’s secret belief in the righteousness of same-sex marriage as if it were painfully obvious. “Pbbbht! Of course he’s in favor of gay marriage!” Kushner exclaimed. His views were echoed by Steve Hildebrand, a gay political consultant who served as Obama’s deputy national campaign director. “I do believe that in his heart he will fight his tail off until we’ve achieved full equality in the gay community,” he told journalist Rex Wockner. I’ve lost track of the number of liberal friends and acquaintances, gay and straight alike, who assure me that Obama “really” supports same-sex marriage and, furthermore, that this point is obvious.

How can they be so sure? People want to like political leaders, and when someone as charismatic as Clinton or Obama comes along, it’s easy to ignore the facts that get in the way of an idealized image. That liberal politicians are indifferent — if not outright opposed — to same-sex marriage stands at utter odds with liberals’ notion of an enlightened community of like-minded progressives. “Does anybody actually believe that Barack Obama and Michelle Obama think that we shouldn’t have — that this man who is a constitutional-law scholar — is it a complicated issue?” Kushner sputtered, as if anyone who disagreed were an imbecile.

Ah yes, why actually believe Obama’s own WORDS on this issue, is the question I would have for Kushner. Obama, and Biden, have been VERY clear that their position on same sex marriage is EXACTLY THE SAME as Sarah Palin’s. Exactly the same. Identical. No difference. But please, keep lying to yourselves so you can continue to glorify The One. And go have some more Kool Aide while you’re at it. Kirchick continues:

Because people such as Kushner view political liberalism as a positive personality trait and not just a worldview, they assume that someone who opposed the Iraq war and sees himself as a “citizen of the world” would also believe in the right of gays to marry. People cannot conceive that such a cosmopolitan and eloquent man as Obama would disagree with them on an issue that they consider a no-brainer.

This is convenient for liberals because it allows them to deflect blame from politicians they like onto those they don’t, namely conservatives, the sincerity of whose opposition to same-sex marriage they never challenge. If only Republicans desisted in their homophobia, this narrative goes, justifiably timid liberals would come out of their closets of prevarication, so to speak, and support gay marriage unambiguously.

Framing gay rights as a strictly partisan issue also allows liberals to obscure the awkward fact that while they are more likely than conservatives to support same-sex marriage, a key Democratic constituency, African Americans, overwhelmingly opposes it.

Obama’s history on the issue does have a complicating twist. On a 1996 Illinois Senate race questionnaire, Obama (or more likely a staffer) wrote, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” Liberals take from this revelation the assumption that Obama’s apparent flip was insincere.

But there is nothing in his record since he became a national political figure that should give them any reason to think he will revert to his supposedly pro-gay-marriage position. And if Obama actually does believe in same-sex marriage, that makes his public opposition to it worse than it would be if he were genuinely opposed. How is it in any way reassuring to liberals to suppose that a politician agrees with them while selling them down the river? Even if Obama’s apparent flip isn’t genuine, he nonetheless acts as if it were, rendering his supposedly silent support worthless in tangible political terms. Whatever he “really” thinks, Obama’s stance on gay marriage is virtually indistinguishable from that of John McCain.

For some time, liberal politicians have taken a largely wink-and-nod approach to gay issues. They’ve done so with the excuse that the culture must catch up before any progress can be made (an excuse that conveniently doesn’t apply to other liberal interest groups, such as unions and trial lawyers, that do very well when Democrats are in power). Obama paid tribute to this timeworn tactic recently when he told gay activists at the White House: “I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, but by the promises my administration keeps. By the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration.”

Talking about “feelings” is a cuddly liberal pastime, and Obama’s promise conjures up the phrase that Clinton famously entered into our political lexicon when he told an angry AIDS activist, “I feel your pain.” Maybe now, when it comes to same-sex marriage, he finally does. But it would be nice to have a sitting president whose feelings translate into action. (jkirchick@tnr.com James Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic and a contributing writer to the Advocate.)

Good for Mr. Kirchick to actually point this out. I seriously doubt that the people who refuse to believe it will see the light, but at least he tried, right? And I appreciate the effort on his part.

Speaking of the Washington Post, we had this this, from July 31st. It is a shift from homophobia to sexism. You will most likely recognize the two “players” in this video:

I said all along that Obama, the DNC, and the MSM declared open season on women. There was little or no comeuppance for ANYONE who made disparaging, sexist, or misogynistic comments about Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin. I knew it was going to continue, and possibly get worse. Here we are. With these two sexist pigs suggesting Clinton, who can run RINGS around these two intellectually, politically, and HUMANELY, drinks “Mad Bitch beer.” What a couple of _______ – you fill in the blank.

Oh, and one last thing. Vanity Fair has an article about Sarah Palin entitled, “It Came From Wasilla.” Yes, the author is a man. They are calling the former Governor, a woman, “It”?? Like when Glenn Beck said of Hillary Clinton, “It cries”??? Sheesh, the author isn’t even original. And naturally, the article is another hatchet job of this woman who dared to work her way up, buck her own party, and do right by her state. Naturally. Not for nothing, but I would have more rights in Alaska because of Sarah Palin than in most states in the Union. Just sayin’.

Back to Millbank and Cilliza: WHY DO THEY STILL HAVE THEIR JOBS???? I guess the same reason people like David Shuster does – he can call Hillary Clinton a pimp, and her daughter a whore, and keep his job with just a little slap on the wrist. So I guess what Millbank and Cillizza did was mild by comparison? Their comeuppance cannot come too soon, and it SHOULD come for this blatantly sexist attack on Secretary of State Clinton. Now. They should be fired.

Are extremists infiltrating our own military to the point of inadvertently training terrorists who will attack us in the future? It turns out that at least 40 persons who list their occupation as “military” are profiled on the Internet forum New Saxon, a Facebook-like site operated by the neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement.

Is this a real problem? Or is it just another conspiracy theory, the kind that boils all-too-freely in a country now ruled by fear?

The Southern Poverty Law Center is not known for being on the batshit fringe. Quite the contrary. Helping to implement the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as well as making courtroom challenges that resulted in equal benefits for women in the military, ending involuntary sterilization of women on welfare, reform of prison conditions, are among the organzation’s many victories. The first civil suit against a major Klu Klux Klan was brought by the SPLC, and it has been riding the Klan’s ass ever since.

But hate crimes go on, and the SPLC continues its mission to protect America from its own destructive elements. Its concern about white supremacists infiltrating the military is not new. While reaffirming that the overwhelming majority of men and women in uniform reject extremism and are dedicated to our country’s ideals, based on new evidence the SPLC is engaging in a new push to investigate. A letter to those of us on the SPLC email list reads, in part:

We’ve been warning the Pentagon about the danger of extremists in the military for more than two decades. In 2008, the FBI issued a report indicating that the problem may have worsened. Unfortunately, the Pentagon has not taken forceful action.

Indeed, the Pentagon appears to consider homosexuals more of a threat to the good order of the military than neo-Nazis who reject our Constitution’s most cherished principles. While the military has discharged more than 12,500 service members because of their alleged homosexuality since 1994, it has refused to adopt a true “zero tolerance” policy when it comes to extremists in the military.

A more detailed letter was sent to the chairs of the House and Senate committees on Homeland Security and Armed Services, copied to Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Under Secretary of Defense David S.C. Chu. See it here.

Yet, what damage could realistically be done by a few dozen hate-filled members of the armed services? The potential could be two-fold: (1) these individuals are learning warfare skills, and (2) they are in a position to recruit new haters. And lest we not forget Sergeant Timothy McVeigh, a name that still sends chills up our collective spine. (If you have not yet visited the memorial on the bombing site in Oklahoma City I dare you to hold it together when you see those 19 “little chairs” representing the murdered children). It takes only a few, as we also recall from the Twin Tower terrorists who learned to fly on our soil.

So, are you worried about this?