Buck Naked Politics

The "Racism" Sniping Needs to Go Away NOW

by Teh Nutroots | More on the "racist" back and forth sniping between Clinton and Obama.  Where will it all end?  It seems pretty evident that the candidates and the whole country need a refresher course in what a racist comment really looks like.

On the King remarks, a controversy blew up after Clinton told Fox News: “Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done.”  (The Politico)

Would Dr. King himself have disagreed with this?  Is it necessary for Clinton and other Democrats to pretend that the realization of Dr. King's movement wasn't assisted by Kennedy, Johnson, and the members of Congress who voted for the essential legislation?    How is his influence in any way diminished by Clinton's description of the process? 

Tasered Student Apologizes for Conduct at Kerry Event

Everyone knows the story:  during a John Kerry presentation at the University of Florida, student Andrew Meyer was forcibly removed by University police following what we---not wishing to comment on the conduct of either the police or Meyer---will call "a ruckus."  In the course of removing him, and as a result of his resistance to the removal, the police used a taser, getting themselves and Meyer all over the news in consequence.

According to this article , the University police subsequently recommended that he be charged with resisting arrest with violence, a felony, and disturbing the peace and interfering with school administrative functions, a misdemeanor.(My Way News) Though prosecutors wouldn't comment, his attorney says he won't be facing any criminal charges.(My Way News)  Meyer---who has apologized in letters to the University, University police, and  the  University president has apologized.  ""I made the decision to supersede the rules, and for that I apologize," Meyer wrote. "I should have acted calmer and obeyed the directives of the officers. If I had, none of the subsequent issues would ever have arisen….""(My Way News)

Democrats: As Gullible as the Opposition?

Posted by Damozel |  Having just posted my comment on the lamentable partisan struggles over S-CHIP, I found this article by Mike Soraghan from The Hill concerning the Democrats' battle for voters' hearts and minds:  "Internal Dem memo faults party message." 

According to Dave Helfert---a former Appropriations spokesman who now works for Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)---the problem isn't (as I had speculated) that actual voters and the constituents who sent these people to Congress are fed up with their playing partisan politics on our time; it's that they aren't properly framing their messages.  "'Why are we defending [the State Children’s Health Insurance Program] instead of advocating a ‘Healthy Kids’ plan?'", he wrote in an email that went out to all Democratic press secretaries and communications directors.(The Hill).

Ah so, that's the problem:  the party's leadership doesn't think its constituents are as guilelessly credulous and easy to manipulate as the Republican leadership (seemingly correctly) thinks its constituents are.  Or, as Menken put it and Republican rhetoric-masseur Frank Luntz can confirm, "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." (The Hill)   That was my first thought.  My second was:  Could Helfert be right? 

Michelle Malkin: Alive and Undaunted in Malkinland.

Posted by Damozel | By now, leftward-tilting Fox lovers like me have learned---with what regret!---that cutely wild-eyed right-wing cheerleader Michelle Malkin has quit The O'Reilly Factor.  Geraldo Rivera was a bit brisk with her, it appears, chiefly over her stance on immigration, which Rivera finds repugnant.  An apology or 'apology' he subsequently made to her on 'The Factor' was, in her words, 'a complete farce.'  (Think Progress) But there is a bright side:  "You can catch me on other Fox News shows and read my daily blog posts and weekly columns at MichelleMalkin.com." (Think Progress)   

Well, there's a relief.  I read her blog from time to time.  Sometimes I need a little break from reality as I know it and a little insight into the fear and panicky fury underlying all the vitriol that's coming (even at moderates like me who would prefer a bipartisan world where we all join hands) from the Far Right.  I like seeing the ingredients of Malkin's diatribes while they're still boiling away in the cauldron, as it were. So I like knowing that MichelleMalkin.com is there for me.

And I'm so sorry that Rivera was rude to her.  As I said, he was a bit terse.  Specifically---this is according to Crooks and Liars----he said, doubtless among other things:  “Michelle Malkin is the most vile, hateful commentator I’ve ever met in my life."  (Crooks and Liars)      Harsh!  And there's more:

Rush Limbaugh Auctions Off Crucial Historical Document (for Charity)

Posted by Damozel | Ha ha ha ha!  Rush Limbaugh is offering a crucial historical document for sale on ebay!  He is challenging each of 41 Senate Democrats to match the winning bid.  Can you guess what the document is?   Can you?  Well, can you?  Here's a hint: as South Dakota Moderate says, it's right up there with the Constitution.   The winning bid on this one-of-a-kind not-to-be-missed document is $45,100 and there are three days left.  Step up, my Dems!   Besides, it's for charity!  And freedom!  And the First Amendment!   And Jesus!

The Church of Ann Coulter, Perfected Christian

Posted by Damozel | Donny Deutsch and other Jewish people shouldn't assume that Ann Coulter's views on Christianity are held by most Christians or even Ann Coulter herself.  I cherish the madness of Ann Coulter and all she has done to promote the cause of liberalism, and I don't want to be uncharitable, but I still boggle every time she claims to be espousing the religion of Jesus.  I am pretty familiar with the Gospels, and I'm pretty sure that Christ wouldn't have endorsed certain statements attributed to Coulter (which I gleaned from this October 2001 column at the Washington Monthly.

Love Letters from the Dittoheads

Posted by Damozel | Bob Schwartz, our favorite South Dakota Moderate, has some loving words about Rush Limbaugh and his followers. "The war dodging chickenhawk Rush Limbaugh really brings out the best in his listeners," he remarks in a posting called "Letters From The Edge," before producing proof in the form of an excerpt from a letter received by Brandon Friedman of VoteVets.org.

In case you independents and Republican moderates out there get confused from time to time---what with all the "Betray-us" and "the phony soldiers" and the other issues of mass distraction---about which side you're on, please go to this post and to VoteVets.org to refresh your recollection about the characteristic mindset of the phony soldiers of Limbaugh's armchair army of "Dittoheads." 

Ann Coulter. She's so outrageous.

Posted by Damozel | Do you get the feeling that Ann Coulter's days of media relevance are drawing to a close?  I do, and it makes me (an acknowledged Democrat) a little sad. I adore her, ridiculous as she is, because it is increasingly clear that she, like the mean girl in sixth grade, will say or do anything---anything---to make liberals pay attention to her, from insulting the 911 widows, to mocking the grief of parents who have lost a child, to saying that women are too stupid to be allowed vote. To clarify, I love her because she is so ridiculous and because I know that my liberal love is like kryptonite to Coulter.  She must know her shelf life is running out, and that our tolerance for/indifference to anything she says or does is increasing, because latterly her remarks certainly risk upsetting not only her "hated" liberals but also those conservatives (if any; see John Cole at Balloon Juice and the recent consternated note in The Wall Street Journal on the GOP's loss of its business "base") who are (1) still Republicans; and (2) sane.

To a sane person, recent polls might suggest that the immoderate, liberal-baiting sort of media Republican may be a contributing factor in the ongoing alienation and desertion of much of the former "base."  But does Coulter realize this?  Does she even care about the party's base at this point?  As everyone knows, Coulter's raison d'etre is to attract attention to herself and---especially---to get people to buy her books, most particularly her new one (look it up on Amazon if you want it; she doesn't need my help in marketing it).  To make money and get job satisfaction from doing so, she must rattle your cage/be invited onto Fox/see her big face---and it is a big, though very, very glamorous--face plastered all over the internet.  Won't some caring soul stage an intervention behind the scenes when the cameras are switched off (assuming Ann even exists when the cameras are switched off)?  She's turning the wheel too hard.  Soon she won't be able to make anyone take her seriously enough to care what she says. 

America's Reception of Iran's President: a Brit's View

 Posted by Cockney Robin |   Damozel, caught up in the press of other obligations, emailed me today to ask me if I'd post a comment on the ongoing story of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to the U.S., kindly sending me a lengthy list of related links.  She wanted a "British perspective" on the U.S. reaction. 

This Brit's reaction is pretty much the same as usual:  bemused.  How do you lot find the energy to get so worked up on a daily basis about this, that, and the other random self-serving  symbolic gesture, I regularly ask myself, especially with the current unfolding of the very ominous events in Burma?  As noted by one of the commentators on the BBC news, Burma is one of the most unattractive regimes on the planet. They've reportedly already resorted to tear gas and billyclubs against the peaceable monk-led demonstrations. Will they next resort to bullets?  Horrifyingly, the answer seems to be, "Quite likely..."

...but of course, that's "elsewhere in the world."  Enough about them; let's talk about you!  Back to America and the Iranian President!  In Britain, The Independent asks a question that---for the discerning reader--- answers itself, The Big Question:  is America right to demonise President Ahmadinejad of Iran? 

Dept of Guys Called Jon: "Are We Tasering People Enough?" (plus bonus Jon Stewart clip)

posted by Damozel | Our favorite sensible conservative, Jon Swift, has published his take on the tasering incident at the University of Florida: Are We Tasering People Enough? As always, the great Mr. Swift is not troubled by the doubts that assail the rest of us.

I am 100% in favor of tasering obnoxious people, whether they are conservative, liberal or radically moderate. In fact, I don't think we are tasering people enough and that this country would be better off if we had more tasering not less.

Censorship or Overzealous Spam Filtering? A Response to PBS Mind.

posted by Damozel | Speaking of filters, in a posting below, our talented and learned contributor PBS Mind raises the question whether certain email providers are censoring emailed newsletters from certain progressive political organizations.  Truthout readers here say that their attempts to de-spam their missing newsletters to get them into their inbox are mysteriously failing to work no matter what they do.  With all due respect to PBS Mind, I just can't buy it.  For one thing, my email providers have "censored" other newsletters of mine with no political content whatsoever. 

I worry a lot about censorship and access to information, so I've been mulling this over since reading PBS Mind's post last night and I still can't decide which way I lean.  I guess I find it hard---no, impossible--- to believe that these providers would have anything to gain, or even think they have anything to gain, by selectively filtering progressive newsletters----and I'd also need to know the stats on conservative ones and on newsletters generally.  (Either way the providers to which PBS Mind refers clearly need to do something about their filtering processes and that right speedily.)  I don't think there is any really compelling evidence that they were censoring the info for political reasons.  If I'm wrong then put it down to my naivete.

Tasers, Truth and Lessons Learned

Unrestrained ego can be an unfortunate character trait. Such was the case for Andrew Meyer, the journalism student tasered by University of Florida police (UPD) at Monday's speech by Senator John Kerry.

This was not a case of his freedom of speech being denied. This was a case of a young man pissed off because he had the misfortune of being at the end of the line waiting to ask a question when time ran out.

This was not a case of UPD acting inappropriately. This was a case of a hot headed college student who refused to follow the rules of civility despite the reasonable and repeated requests for him to do so.

The sad thing is that everyone is talking about how this 21 year old student got tasered, not about all the important, insightful and profound issues Senator Kerry discussed with the audience.

I don't want to take sides but I am concerned that the truth be told. The way the media is portraying this incident is off the mark. I want to provide a critical perspective of the truth and can do so since I was there and was sitting three feet away from where the entire incident erupted.

A Challenge: Putting a Value on Being Informed.

Many of you know I just canceled my Hotmail account. I want to tell you why. Early in September, Hotmail stopped forwarding my subscription e-mails from Truthout.org. Note the use of the word “subscription” there — I CHOOSE to receive e-mails from Truthout and, despite the fact that I’m well past the age of majority and legally able to make my own choices, AND that this country allegedly enjoys freedom of speech, HOTMAIL unilaterally decided to call my subscription “spam” and stop forwarding it.

DC Protest Spawns Undue Hatred

Posted by The Crux | Reportedly, 189 people were arrested in war protests and counter-protests in Washington DC yesterday. I was unnerved by the vicious hostility (and bad manners) that some demonstrators exhibited toward fellow Americans. The Washington Post reported:

[Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark said] "'You can't believe a word the administration says....'

"But supporters of the Bush administration, well represented in the Gathering of Eagles and Free Republic counter-demonstrations, could not have disagreed more.

"I've seen how leftist politicians hate the military. It's disgusting. We're fighting a war not in Iraq but with them," said Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson, a retired Air Force pilot....

"'Commies out of D.C.!" came the chants from one corner of 10th Street NW. Across the street, two middle-aged men shouted obscenities into the face of a young man in full camouflage and a bandanna that concealed all but his eyes. The young man remained silent amid the screaming, holding a sign over his head that read 'Support the troops, end the war.'"

Most Americans don't have security clearance; thus, most American's opinions on the war are based on other people's opinions. Is disagreement over whose opinions to trust a valid reason for hating fellow Americans? 

And does such hatred do anything to further the war effort or bring our troops home safely?

[UPDATED] Chris Dodd vs.Bill O'Reilly!; or Kos & Anti-Kos

posted by Damozel | Fight!  Fight!  Fight!

In a shouting match that aired this evening on The O'Reilly Factor, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd slammed Bill O'Reilly for his sustained smear campaign against the participants and presidential candidates who plan to attend the 2007 YearlyKos conference, which began today in Chicago.

At one point, O'Reilly accused Dodd of being a "propagandist", declaring, "If I were Joseph Lieberman, I would never talk to you again." Dodd responded: "You object to the fact that 1,500 people are going to gather in Chicago, representing hundreds of thousands of people who utilize this community gathering, this Internet site...a way to express their views every day." Sen Dodd Confronts Bill O'Reilly About Smearing YearlyKos Convention (The Huffington Post)

Senator (and presidential candidate) Chris Dodd talks over Bill O'Reilly while O'Reilly---bug-eyed with fury---tries to talk over him.  Let's see: O'Reilly (host) called Dodd (guest) a "propagandist," said he used to respect him but doesn't anymore anymore, yelled-- definitely forgetting to use his inside voice-- that Dodd should apologize to Joe Lieberman, and accused him of "legitiimizing hate."  Now that's civility, Fox-style!

UPDATE (Aug.4):  Hot Air has the whole segment, including the picture BO was so worked up over, plus some clips from Dennis Miller's subsequent remarks [click here] It puts BO's anger on behalf of Lieberman into context (while rendering them no less absurd, according to me)
 

Let's Try to Make Political Discourse More Civil, Shall We?

We at BN-Politics are concerned about civility in political discourse (i.e., debate without venomous emotion or name-calling). I'm on this track, because I just came across a piece advocating civil discourse at Bloggers for Civil Discourse, titled "I Hate Arguing with Liberals."  Here are a few paragraphs:

"I don't mind a good debate. I think they help to sharpen the mind and help the open minded to learn and grow. Some liberals are willing to debate that way, and I have learned to respect them.

"Most liberals though do not debate that way. One of my fellow bloggers on another site comes to mind. Once he seemed rational and willing to debate, but he already had some definitely annoying quirks.

"For one thing he constantly belittles the people whose policies he disagrees with. Can you tell me how it bolsters your argument to call President Bush "the shrub"? Sure, it's a bit of a witticism, but I find it in poor taste. Admittedly, there are quite a few on the right that do the same thing. Just as much as I despise it in liberals, I despise in it conservatives.

"Surely you've noticed this about many bloggers, particularly on the left. Why is it that we continue to read comparisons of President Bush to Adolph Hitler? Or to a chimpanzee? Why is it that we continue to hear how dumb and unintelligent President Bush is? Or how inarticulate?

"Do these attacks on the person really strengthen the left's arguments?"

Amen! I too cringe when anyone resorts to schoolyard-ish name-calling. I refer to such people as shrieking bloggers (a notion I borrowed from WaPo's Joel Achenbach).

I think one of the root problems is that....

A Rape by Any Other Name...

Posted by PBS Mind | I'm sure you heard about the RAPE case in Nebraska two weeks ago -- the one where the judge said the plaintiff couldn't use the word RAPE or SEXUAL ASSAULT or a host of other words to clearly describe what happened to her, leaving her with little choice but to use vocabulary that makes it sound like it happened to her with her consent.  The case was declared a mistrial before it even began because this judge's  misogynistic ruling made headlines nationwide. (See WaPo article.) (See another particularly articulate blog (yarnharlot) on the topic.)

The judge's name is Jeffre Cheuvront. I have not heard of him declaring the words "steal" and "theft" off-limits in theft cases, nor the words "kill" or "murder" in homicide cases, so I'm having a hard time thinking his motives are as "conscientious" as one observer describes them, particularly inasmuch as that observer happens to be the defendant's attorney -- hardly an unbiased source. I admit it, it's only a gut reaction and an emotionally charged one at that, but I can't get past the idea that this guy just hates women.

At any rate, judges are supposed to protect the rights of everyone and ensure a balanced and unbiased airing of the facts -- the very definition of a "fair trial."  Seems to me that this guy has let his pendulum swing way too far in one direction (for example, I did not see where he barred the defendant from claiming she wanted it, or from using words like "consented"!).

UPDATED: Disorderly in the Name of the Lord: Senate Visitors Disrupt Hindu Guest Chaplain's NonDenominational Prayer.

Posted by Cockney Robin | Though I'm but a godless heathen, I found the following a bit bloody rude, not to say ludicrous:

Would Jesus approve?  Damozel, an aknowledged God-botherer,  quoted the following in a posting  here.

From Matthew ch. 6:5: "Be careful not to make a show of your religion before men; if you do, no reward awaits you in Heaven...When you pray, do not be like hypocrites who make a production of saying their prayers standing up in the synagogue and out on street corners for everyone to see.... In your prayers, don't babble like heathen who believe that the longer and the louder they pray, the more likely they are to be heard. Don't be like them; don't imitate them. God already knows what your needs are."

What price religion if it makes adults behave like insensitive prats, embarrassing well-intentioned  "guest chaplains" who see God from a different angle?   More to the purpose: why have a "guest chaplain" in the first place?  It seems reasonably clear from their records that some of the chief Founders intended for government to be a religion-free zone.  If that were the case, embarrassments like this wouldn't happen.    For an argument from a different angle that wouldn't occur to a nonbeliever, see The Senate Is Not A Temple (which is where I found the video).

UPDATED TO CORRECT A TRIFLING ERROR because, as boss lady Damozel and commenters Dyre42 and Callimachus have seen, though I can write (after a fashion), I am apparently quite unable to read!

To Burn or Not to Burn

Posted by PBS Mind | Someone just sent me one of those little video clips designed to outline for me all the reasons why flag-burning is wrong. Well, it may be -- I haven't thought about it that much because I believe that sanctifying symbols just makes it easier not to take too close a look at what they really stand for, and the next thing you know, what has happened to our flag happens. So I tend not to pay much mind to symbols, except to regard them with deep suspicion.

Our flag theoretically symbolizes what this country IS. Unfortunately, it's being used to get people to sign off on what this country DOES -- preferably without thinking about it and absolutely without questioning it. (Oh, I'm sorry, was I referring obliquely to Iraq again?)

Citizen Hitch! The British are Coming...and, Apparently, Staying. Happy 4th of July, Everyone!

posted by Damozel | At Pajamas Media here, you can watch "[n]ewly naturalized U.S. citizen Christoper Hitchens...and Richard Miniter toast the anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, and its primary author, Thomas Jefferson."

Then check him out on YouTube: "The Hour: Interview with Christopher Hitchens (Part 1) by George Stroumboulopoulos" for which I am indebted to Greywolf at Hitchens Watch.  He discusses Dawkins, Schiavo, people getting fed up with the threat of the theocrats, and the impact of his blue eyes on sales of his book.

BONUS FOOTAGE AT YOU TUBE OF HITCH ON "HANNITY AND COLMES", DISCUSSING THE DEATH OF JERRY FALWELL: