Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
But I'm getting terribly frustrated. Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin et all are demonizing "liberals". They employ tactics that are the same tactics that I GUARANTEE you will see the resemblance of in you have the stomach to surf through the Stormfront forums. Does that mean they are the moral equivalents of white supremacists? No. But I think the similarity is in and of itself cause for concern.
When you keep noticing over and over and over and over again parallels, similar sounding arguments ... there's something going on. Its time to start worrying.
When bigots who hate black people demonize black people you see a black person, yet the racist sees "you blacks". When an antiSemite demonizes a Jewish people you see Jewish people, yet the anti-Semite sees "you Jews" When an anti-liberal demonizes "liberals", the anti-liberal sees "the libs" (if I had a nickel for every time Hannity has addressed some one, even his co-host, as "you liberals" ...). But here's the catch, when someone hates "liberals" no image of a person comes to mind. You don't notice, easily, that an artificial category has been drawn, and an "enemy" has been dumped into it.
When you hate "blacks" its pretty much only going to be black people that fall into that category. When you hate "jews" that category also has some restrictions, but its looser than skin color. Ex: The Nazis "discovered" Eric Remarque was of Jewish origins after they decided to ban and burn his masterpiece All Quiet on the Western Front; Henry Ford called his rivals the DuPonts "Jews" despite them being a Huguenot family.
Now when you hate "liberals" look what happens. Anyone can fall in. Its a category that people don't notice is a category. That's why I'm getting frustrated. When Michelle Malkin scans the blogosphere, and can find one single comment - I mean that ONE SINGLE COMMENT at the Washington Post - that is "unhinged" and act like that supports her thesis that "liberals" are unhinged ... that is hate-mongering, whether people recognize it as such or not.
I guess it is a fitting that before the lights are out or the smoke is cleared, Mr. Bush would say he cares about Katrina's Southerners. He says he cares about the soldiers in the VA facilities. He wants them to talk and the VA examined. A moments hush, then he speaks TODAY some more lies as he plans to say many more...Surge. Incredulous. Rehearsed. A back stage neocon crew will spin, spew, and say, 'get them copious draped left critics. Go on stage, George, "Clear 'um out! Clear out the 'liberals!'
The White-house has become a child's playhouse. An infuriated crowd of millions will form after Mr. L. speaks his bile. Other's in blog-land will exaggerate with utter-lies, yelling more, to the damn uttermost. Perhaps, for no cause or sane reason, YES, innocent men will be hauled by night to jails and renditioned elsewhere to confess. Confess? We got bombs.
I local heroic police may warn a local constructive critic, 'They will kill you son of a ______! Take cover.'
Where and why? Those pale face murderous ones can project all the vile and self-Loath they wish. It's a free democracy, right? They must be the ones to go! Neocons look like a corpse. Resolute to kill more and blame whoever is not a card-carry member.
And indeed, in the midst of more and more daily pandemonium---of senseless hatred, infuriated, soldiers will lull come home to vegetate in the north and south.
The government actors and the actresses will allude that more sacrifice is necessary to bring democracy (literal translation: that children, old men, mistress, and aged good-crones will bleed) to the Middle East. The best and sweetest of the Land, drip down and fall to die alone. Blood oozes (Chris Floyd's word) from the severed veins. We people can die with out saying a word.
Blood bubbles upon the lips when the C-in-C opens his mouth on his stage...just lies.
There are no bombs in the air. It was another of the bluffs. I see blue skys, hues of clouds too, fluffy. It's time to find some grub and chores. 'Liberals' can't live off food too much 'blog' food served on a silver lined platter.
Sorry I haven't blogged lately (which only means I don't have to clean it up). We here in the Heartland have been preoccupied with details like survival.
Howard Kurtz a software program? On evidence, one could say the same about the much overpraised (and certainly overwritten) Glenn Greenwald, and the entire Salon Blog Report.
I'm sorry you had to give up name Daou; rather than sounding like stomach distress, it's the noise you make when slipping on ice. Just ask me....
Kurtz is a tool. No doubt. And lazy.
As a matter of strategy, then, attack him when the underlying issue is one that makes the other side look bad.
Otherwise, it looks to all the world like you are trying to shift the debate and defend the indefensible.
And, even while you are scoring points on Kurtz, you are allowing the other side to score points on you. The decision goes to them on the points. After all, the right is just as vocal as the left about media bias. Those complaints largely cancel each other out. All that is left, then, is the incident that sparked the debate. And it's a loser for us.
If Kurtz is anything, he'd dependable. He's an easy target. We'll get plenty of opportunities.
At the end of the day, Kurtz said the comments were vile and that you can't tar an entire ideology based on them. Even if he showed his bias by citing Malkin, it's hard to argue with the substance.
As I said, low-hanging fruit.
Well, no...but I hardly think you can legitimately hold O'Reilly responsible for what they believe.
Look, I don't give a shit about holding people responsible for what they believe. What I care about is what consequences might arise from them believing it.
Look at Congress. Look at how many of them members score 80-100% ratings from the Christian Coalition. The Christian Coalition, let me tell you, isn't exactly in the business of promoting democracy.
And they know this. They know they have to cloak their intentions, make them sound more moderate than they are. Google Ralph Reed - see if you can find the quote where he talks "metaphorically" about sneaking up on political opponents stealithly, and them BANG! you're in a body bag.
O'Reilly's rhetoric is helping Ralph Reed sneak up on "us". Bill Donohue, you know, the guy who talks about the "secular jews" in Hollywood, is part of that Dominionist movement. When O'Reilly's guest tried to respond to O'Reilly - who had been saying Amanda Marcotte and Mellisa McEwan were "anti Christian bigots" - Donohue was an anti-Semite O'Reilly started yelling at, denied Donohue was anti-Semitic, and threatened to kick her off the program if she said anything else about it.
Like I said, I don't give a shit about holding him responsible for what he believes. Its about what his beliefs are doing.
Once, after a demonstration in Berkeley 40 years ago, I was thumbing a ride home down Telegraph Avenue. I had hair nearly to my waist, was wearing a beaded Lakota medaillion around my neck, etc. A short-haired guy in his early thirties picked me up. It was only after I got into the car that I noticed the riot gear in the back seat. He asked me, What was all that about anyway; what is it that you guys want? It wasn't a hostile question, it was genuine curiosity, probably the reason he stopped for me.
Should I have wanted to off him?
No, of course not. And I don't want to "off" anyone, and do not appreciate the implication.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
