E&P Covers My Blogger Column

Editor & Publisher magazine covers the reaction to this week’s column.

Here’s the money quote:

“I’m a fierce critic of the mainstream media, but the right-wing blogs are not an improvement,” [Rall] added. “It’s like replacing Saddam Hussein with anarchy, chaos, kidnapping, and rape. That’s not an improvement, either. Right-wing bloggers are trying to destroy the mainstream media, but they don’t have a plan for the occupation.”

The Right-Wing Challenge

Remains totally unanswered. Come on, righties–show us these supposed death threats against conservative pundits and politicians written by leftie bloggers. Remember the standard: we’re talking threats of death, dismemberment, etc.–the kind of stuff I wrote about in my column this week as well as on my blog.

Chris brings up an interesting point:

If, as Horowitz’ lawyer claims, “The nature and purpose of the use is news reporting and commentary in an Internet publication for nonprofit educational purposes” and http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/ is the nonprofit organization using your photo, why does their “Campus Support for Terrorism” link take you to an advertisment for one of Horowitz’ books?

An excellent questlon. And if there was a left wing network of blogs to match the rightists, they’d get to the bottom of it.

And Jennifer says:

I just read the interestingly spelled, satire-proof email you received from the Horowitz drones and wanted to send a message of support. Stand up for yourself and know that you’re not alone – USA Next, which I see you mention in your blog, infringed copyright when they stole a wedding picture for their anti-AARP ad, and the gentlemen in the picture are also pursuing legal remedies (see daily kos diary http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/23/235632/101). I just think it’s fun that, to advertise their campaign to destroy Social Security in the name of the sanctity of private property, the first thing they did was to steal private property. Classic. Take care & nolite te bastardes carborundorum!

To right-wingers, the law is merely an inconvenience to be skirted whenever possible. Thank God we still have a court system; it’s all we have left.

FOR Sean writes:

HALLELUJAH!!!! TESTIFY BROTHER!!!!

Just because I agree with my fellow progressives/liberals, it doesn’t mean I like them. Most of them are such incredible pussies, so afraid of any conflict, that they won’t stand up for themselves. I feel like Jack London did when he quit the socialist party. He agreed with their goals, but he thought most of them were such whiners, they couldn’t get anything done.
You know, I’ll bet a lot of conservatives would like you if they actually met you. They’re generally not that bright, but they respect people who are willing to stand up for themselves. Partly because of my hobbies (which include martial arts and shooting) I tend to socialize a lot more with people whose views are conservative. But they respect the fact that I’m willing to fight for my beliefs while most of my fellow progressives complain I’m too aggressive or confrontational.
Thank God Martin Luther King, Abbie Hoffman or the countless men and women who fought and died in the labor movement in this country didn’t listen to other progressives who complained they were too confrontational.

No shit. I admire conservatives for their relentlessness and passion. A big part of the reason liberals are getting their asses kicked in the public square is because we refuse to stand up for ourselves and, even worse, we get embarrassed by those who, like Michael Moore and Al Franken, are willing to stand up and be counted. Honestly, I would much rather be a right-winger; if it weren’t for their rancid politics, I’d have a lot in common with them.

And Robert writes:

I can’t wait to see you stick it to that creep in court. My only hope is that some of the other people on the list follow suit and shut this guy down. Maybe we can use this as the battle cry for our de-legitimation efforts against right wing blogs.

Only two and half hours left until my deadline. Something tells me I’m not going to get satisfaction from Horowitz, which means I’ll have some extra work to take care of next week. But that’s fine. And yes, let’s hope that other copyright infringement victims start to fight back against the rightie blogs.

My Blogger Column: Arrogant?

Mark writes:

I read your “BUT WHO WATCHES THE WATCHDOGS?” on Yahoo and thought it was
pretty arrogant. First, the lines “And what are Morrissey’s qualifications to police the media? When he’s not harassing old-school journos like Dan Rather and CNN’s Eason Jordan out of their jobs, Morrissey manages a call center near Minneapolis.” So what does a journalism degree have to do with being able to judge if someone else is doing his job?

Nothing. I don’t have one and I think journalism school is an evil influence on journalism. I was merely reminding people that this guy has no special qualifications to make his assertions; therefore his assertions must stand on their own merits. Which, like most of the stuff you read on the recently-lauded rightie blogs, they don’t.

How does having his job automatically make him stupid and incapable of figuring out when a reporter
is not telling the truth? The only purpose that reasoning can have is to protect people in your profession from having to be judged on your performance. I’ve managed a call center here in Atlanta so I know the job can make you irritable but not stupid.

And I’ve worked in one. I have zero interest in protecting my peers, but as I watched war correspondents ply their trade in Afghanistan I couldn’t help but admire them. Many were lazy, ill-informed and hopelessly biased, but they were there, risking their lives, trying in their sometimes hapless way to get the story. Meanwhile, a bunch of right-wing bloggers, sitting on their asses at home, were deconstructing what they were writing. The mainstream journos are an imperfect bunch at best, but the bloggers are much, much less admirable or useful. Right-wing bloggers want to tear down the old system without having anything new to replace it with; they’re like Bush’s neocons. They’ve planned for the war, but not the occupation.

Rather ignored the fact that the memos he used weren’t reliable; he ran out with this story and got caught. He was wrong, he deserved to be caught and doing something on that level should cost someone his job. That’s how the good get moved up over the bad and the quality of reporting improves. A lot bloggers and their readers are nuts but they can right, too, of course.

I could live with that if the bloggers were consistent. Bush, whom these people adore, was caught lying repeatedly–most notably about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Tens of thousands of people died as a result; our country is also going bankrupt as a result. If the bloggers say Rather should go–why not Bush? Anyone who only attacks one side of the ideological spectrum is instrinsically untrustworthy. (And anyone who reads my work knows that I hgit the Democrats hard whenever they deserve it, and when they’re in a position to make decisions that cause harm.)

Eason Jordan said something that he, and yourself, needs to prove if he thinks it’s so.

I don’t think so. He made an off-the-cuff remark at a panel; he wasn’t reporting anything. He didn’t need to prove anything. Besides: What he said WAS true.

When David Horowitz merely used your picture on his website you threatened him with legal action. Jordan accuses Americans of murder with no proof and you don’t think he should be called out for
that. At least not by some lowly call center manager.

Horowitz “merely” violated U.S. copyright law. Why can’t conservatives respect the law? Jordan told the truth in a private forum. I still can’t, for the life of me, see why he deserved anything but praise for what he said.

Ted Rall on BBC TV on Monday

A 30-minute documentary about me and my work will appear on the British Broadcasting Network on Monday night. Sorry, but you’ll only be able to view it in the UK. Interested Brits can check out the BBC listing. To wet your appetite:

Cartoonists on the Front Line
Ted Rall:
Michael Portillo meets a cartoonist with even more guts than the savage satirists of the UK press.
Ted Rall’s syndicated cartoons dare to take on the American right and its most sacred icons. To date he has received over 400 death threats. [With audio description]  
Mon 28 Feb, 20:30-21:00  30mins  Stereo  Widescreen 

Right-Wing Challenge, Redux

Allen writes:

Before you issue a challenge like that don’t you think you should at least post some examples of hate speech from the blogs you cited? The only threat that you quoted didn’t even have a name by it. Who made that moronic threat? I highly doubt it’s a mainstream blogger. I challenge you to find an example of a WELLKNOWN, blog such as Instapundit, or Powerline, or LittleGreenFootballs, Andrew Sullivan, etc…that has an idiotic threat like you cited in your column posted on their site.

Very well, though it’s incredible that Republicans aren’t aware that so many of their comrades are violent, hyper-aggressive shitheads. Here are some sample posts to one of the “well-known” right-wing blogs, Little Green Footballs:

“I hope Rall dies now.
“I am glad that Bolshevik dog Rall is being targeted for termination.”
“I found out belatedly that he made an appearence at the 2004 San Diego Comic-Con (for what reason I’m not sure) so I missed my opportunity to give him a complimentary tracheotemy or put out a cigarette in his eye or some other fair and accurate constructive criticism of his works.”
“I wish somebody would drop Rall – out of a helicopter.”
Some people can butt-f*ck anything, if they are desperate/ugly enough. Me, I’d butt-f*ck Rall. With a large caliber repeating weapon. Or a high-velocity flame-thrower. My choice… “

Perhaps someone else has time to check out the other aforementioned neofascist bushblogs, but I think my point has been made.

A Challenge for Right-Wing Bloggers

Several Bushist blogger types have written to assert that there are as many violent and threatening remarks and insults coming from liberals online as there are from conservatives against liberals. I’ve spent many sadly-lost hours online, and I say: no way.

So here’s my challenge: Please email your worst, most vicious examples of liberal/leftie blogger vitriol (with links, natch), and I’ll post ’em right here. If they exist, obviously.

If not, let’s take as a given what we already know: that Republicans’ first impulse is to punch people whose arguments they can’t defeat with logic and to bomb countries whose people know something we don’t.

Come on, righties: my server is standing by at: rightwingchallenge@rall.com. Challenge ends Monday.

Time for Liberals to Stand Up For Themselves

For far too long patriotic American liberals have been turning the other cheek while conservative assholes beat the crap out of them. The latest example: the same scum who brought us the Swift Boat ads about John Kerry are trying to defeat the powerful AARP by calling them proponents of gay marriage and opponents of support for our troops in combat. Now, I never thought I’d find myself agreeing with the AARP on anything. But they’re right to oppose Bush’s plan to dismantle Social Security; the more I hear the details, the more outrageous it sounds. Of course the AARP, being a lobbying organization for senior citizens, doesn’t have any opinion about gay marriage, either pro or con. But that doesn’t stop the connies, and the ads still run. Meanwhile, mainstream Democrats write polite letters to the editor.

Which brings me to David Horowitz.

Readers of the already know that this GOP-approved loon has targeted everyone from Barbra Streisand to Dan Rather as “left” and listed alongside the 9/11 hijackers and other Islamist extremists in a sordid attempt to infer a relationship between the two groups of people. You can find this online delicacy, which obviously took some work, at Discover the Network.

The very notion of this website, which reads a lot like those anti-abortion websites that listed abortion doctors whom the groups wanted to see assassinated, ought to be illegal. But the Supreme Court ruled about those sites a few years back, and found them covered by the First Amendment. The other thing that ought to be illegal is Horowitz’s stupidity. I mean, the dude lists the personalities on the first page in alphabetical order…by first name. And he lists Sean Penn, one of the world’s most photographed movie stars, with a blurry photo. Surely even a neocon torture supporter like Horowitz ought to be able to find a better picture than that.

The problem is, he’s unwilling to pay for his photos. So, in a patent violation of U.S. Copyright law, he swipes them from copyrighted sources…like other people’s website. Like mine–the photo under my listing was paid for at significant expense, and copyrighted. Horowitz neither requested, nor would have received, permission to reproduce my photo.

It so happens that I take intellectual property rights seriously. Without them, after all, I wouldn’t make a living. So I’ve fired off the following “cease and desist” letter to David Horowitz, owner of Discover the Network:

To: david@cspc.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 7:44 PM
Subject: URGENT: Cease and Desist Notice
Dear Mr. Horowitz:
 It has come to my attention that you have, without obtaining written or other permission, posted a publicity photograph of myself, apparently copied from my website, to your site Discover the Network (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org). This photograph is copyrighted material. Your act violates U.S. Copyright Law, which provides for damages up to $150,000 plus attorney’s fees.
I therefore request that you take the following actions on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Friday, February 25, 2005:
1. Remove said photograph from your website.
2. Agree to remit the sum of $5,000.00 as payment for your unauthorized use of said photograph, with such payment via money order to be received within three (3) business days at my address in New York, New York.
3. Sign a notarized stipulation agreeing not to post my copyrighted material in the future.
 Thank you for your prompt attention to this urgent matter.
 Sincerely,
Ted Rall

From Bush and Alberto Gonzeles down to the Abu Ghraib prison guards, the Republican right thumbs its collective noses at the law. Fortunately, Section 504 of U.S. Copyright Law provides for legal remedies against those who steal copyrighted material without permission. The hundreds of other liberals listed at DTN may be content to allow their copyrighted photos to appear on Horowitz’s blacklist, but not me. I’m not putting up with this shit.

Horowitz’s attorney replied as follows (at 2 AM West Coast/5 AM East Coast time…now that’s dedication!):

From: Manuel Klausner
Date: February 24, 2005 2:06:57 AM PST
To: Tedrall@aol.com
Subject: Re: URGENT: Cease and Desist Notice
Dear Mr. Rall,
I represent David Horowitz, and am writing to respond to your email below. I am informed that the “publicity photograph” was not copied from your website, contrary to your surmise. It appears to be in the public domain. If you dispute this, please promptly furnish me with a copy of your copyright registration.
Even if the photo is copyrighted, its use in FrontPageMagazine.com appears to qualify as a fair use. The nature and purpose of the use is news reporting and commentary in an Internet publication for nonprofit educational purposes. The very nature of a “publicity photo” suggests that it is ordinarily intended to be used without obtaining permission in advance. Moreover, it does not appear that the effect of the use would be to decrease the value of the photo, which appears to have been widely circulated in many sources. Accordingly, we believe a court would find this use of the photo to be “fair” under Section 107 of the Copyright Law.
Based on the foregoing reasons, your three requests are hereby rejected. We would be willing to consider any further information you care to provide, including a copy of any copyright registration.
Manuel S. Klausner

I don’t know if or where Manuel Klausner went to law school, but I like to rely on the ever-useful Glamour Models website for legal advice. And Glamour Models (well, actually, an attorney who wrote a piece they posted for fashion photographers) has some interesting advice for Horowitz and other intellectual property thieves.

My photo is certainly NOT in the public domain, and I have vigorously defended its copyright in the past. And Glamour Models has this to say about the silly “Fair Use” argument:

“Fair use” is a legal “defense” to copyright. It was created to allow use of copyright material for socially valuable purposes such as commentary, parody, news reporting, education and the like, without permission of the copyright holder. A typical instance would be a brief quotation from a book as part of a book review. Uses allowed by “Fair Use” are normally a small part of a work and include an author credit and attribution. Fair uses are generally for non-profit purposes. Fair use is rarely allowed where the use competes directly with the work or harms its commercial value. Most fair use situations involve text. It is difficult to imagine any situation involving the Internet where someone copying a photo could claim the fair use defense. In typical infringement activities, such as unauthorized posting to Usenet, stocking websites from Usenet trolling, scanning from Playboy magazine, or simply copying from other websites-the fair use doctrine does not apply.

Hmm. Doesn’t look good for David. Oh, and am I going to provide a copy of my copyright registration to this jerk? Hell, no, because whether or not I have one I still own that copyright as I own the copyright to the contents of my entire website. But he’s welcome to find out, in court, whether or not I have one. One thing he should know, however, is that I don’t bluff.

Horowitz’s Right Wingnuts

Ever since Horowitz wrote about this loverly little exchange on his anti-American hate site FrontPageMagazine.com, I’ve had the joy of hearing from his readers. Here’s a sample of the people who voted for George W. Bush and support the war in Iraq:

From mother@telefonica.net:

So you defend terrorists but you want the protection of the law? PIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGG!
FASCIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Evidently this wanker equates standing against torture and preemptive wars based on lies with defending terrorists. What about Bush, who increased the terrorists’ funding (foreign aid to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) after 9/11? Isn’t that defending terrorists?

From p.leddy@comcast.net:

Whatsa matter , you afraid someone’s gonna take a run at you, you liberal fuck? Oh and tell pseudo-indian ward to fuck HIMSELF also. This is war, asshole. If you did refer to Tillman as an idiot, I’ll piss on your momma’s grave if she’s dead. If she ain’t, I’ll wait till that happens. Kiss my ass. Ain’t the first amendment grand?!

From cramerb@dyc.edu:

Mr. Rall: I find it interesting that you are offended by such an innocuous photo. I don’t suppose it ever occurred to you to think about the millions of people you offend with your repugnant bile. Bruce Cramer, Buffalo, NY

I am not offended by my photo, although it would be nicer if my image looked more like Keanu Reeves’. I am offended, as it were, by the flagrant violation of my copyright. My “repugnant bile”, on the other hand, is protected by the First Amendment. Why is the law such a difficult concept for the right to understand?

From tonyb@hvc.rr.com:

Typical liberal response to seeing your picture posted on Discover The Network. I just loved how David’s lawyer put it to your ass. Be a man and suck it up and take some of what you dish out. Don’t be a ‘girlie man”!! If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything. Tony Bonagura

I have a rule righties might find interesting. When someone I like accidentally does something to harm me, I suck it up. When someone who hates me sets out to attack me by breaking the law, I fight back. But obviously Tony supports Bush, who decided after 9/11 that he was too much of a girlie man to go after the terrorists because he was afraid of them. So instead he attacked too uninvolved, unrelated, but defenseless countries. Typical right-wingers.

From jrdott@pacbell.net:

I didn’t know the truth about you until I read your profile on David Horowitz’ excellent new website! I have email contacts all over California and I’ve sent Mr. Horowitz’ profile on to my address book—I believe it’s critical that people like you are exposed for who you are. I was surprised to see your email to Mr. Horowitz regarding the use of your photograph! As a cartoonist and a person with [supposedly] a sense of humor, I thought at first that your email was a spoof…..perhaps…..a cartoon in words, so to speak? I mean, were you serious??? HA! David Wilson

If and when a joke has been made, I’ll let you know.

And from the next Sartre, jmarks@comcast.net:

Great pic. Always wanted to see what an asshole looks like. The idiot who studifies people with an cartoon that doesn’t even makes sense. This seems to reflect on your left political leanings as well. So your the asshole that believes the Bush Adminstration is wrong for freeing people from tyranny. Tell that to the people and the victims families who have experienced death, rape and murder at the hands of Islamic jihadists and Saddam Hussein and his idiot sons. It is people like you that don’t give a flying fuck about anyone else other than your selfish needs. It is people like that go around thinking that your shit doesn’t stink, whereas the opposite is true. Salute to the ASSHOLE!

“Studifies”? Is that some gay sex thing?

Fortunately, there are people who “get it” out there…unfortunately, they’re almost all Democrats:

From Norman:

I congratulate you on your decision to fight back against the character assination from FPM, Horowitz and his new web toy. I would also suggest that your fellow reporters figure out how Horowitz got
a dot ORG web site. They are for charitable and church organizations not for Political hacks. By the way Horowitz’s lawyers answer in response to your e mail holds no water. This idea that a photo is public domain is crap. If it is am image of you you control where and when that image is used that is black letter law

That’s sure the way the law reads.

Geneva Conventions Follow-Up

An excellent email from Russell:

The argument over uniforms, et al, applies only to the rights of prisoners of war under the 3rd Geneva Convention. I’d agree with Andy that the 3rd does not apply to the insurgents. However, the 4th Geneva Convention, which everyone seems to forget about, would guarantee basic human rights protections to any insurgent who was an Iraqi citizen (it would not apply to foreign fighters). Even if they commit acts against the “Occupying Power”, they are entitled to the due process of law and to the protection of their basic dignity.
I quote a small part of the 4th convention below. Later sections are much more detailed.
–Russell
PART I GENERAL PROVISIONS
…
Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

Blogs
Richard says:

Your Luddite pal got it right.
I hope you will keep going on the topic that a preponderance of blogs “work for the bad guys.” I’d put it a wee bit more bluntly – as in blogger expenses and salary are paid by the bad guys. Sure, it costs almost nothing to broadcast one, and yes they are multiplying like fungi, but it’s quite a trick to get them linked to popular web sites and even more importantly into the mainstream media – unless you have money and influence. No exposure, no importance.
Dig deeply enough and I’m sure you’ll find that many, perhaps most, of the politically oriented blogs function like the fictionalized movie critics created by big studios to sell rotten movies. Plant a favorable account, then get it quoted in the mainstream media you either rent, dupe or control outright. Pay the lowly blogger for their time (covertly of course), but mostly pump them up by getting him/her linked and cited. Karl Rove certainly figured this gambit out years ago.
Trust no blog unless you know who pays who pays the bills.

And he says it very, very well.

Geneva Conventions

Andy writes:

Even though I’m a softcore Libertarian who thinks Clinton is the greatest president since James K Polk, I’ve found myself 99% behind you the last few years. Behind enough to buy subversive cartoonists for my Dad even though I’m still debt ridden student.

I don’t know if I agree with Andy about Clinton (or Polk!) but I do miss his economy. Everyone does.

A couple points of disagreement:
1) latest blog entry: The Geneva convention does not apply to the, for lack of a better word, the “terrorists” in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Geneva convention is VERY clear, you MUST WEAR A UNIFORM if you are a soldier. If you do otherwise you are willfully endangering civilians and surrender the rights of a soldier. The Geneva Convention doesn’t say anything about terrorists but it does describe “spies” and I think the current insurgents fit the description to a T. Spies have no rights so technically the Bush admin is within the bounds of international law.

Actually, things aren’t nearly as clear cut. I just finished reading “The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib,” a collection of the Taguba Report and the original memoranda generated by Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo and other administration torture aficianados, which address Geneva and the uniform issue. What Geneva actually says is that soldiers are defined as those who wear clear insignia. That doesn’t necessarily mean uniforms. In fact, Taliban militiamen in Afghanistan were distinguished by their black long-tail turbans–which were originally tribal in affiliation but were adapted by the entire Taliban while the non-Taliban tribals took on other garb. U.S. forces tacitly accepted this distinguishing feature by firing at anyone wearing one, even from aerial Predator drones and it was well known in the theater of war.
In Iraq, many of the insurgents are former Iraqi government officers and soldiers and still wear uniforms in combat. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, moreover, resistance fighters are covered under the qualification that both are indigenous resistance forces covered under Geneva, uniformed or not.
Al Qaeda militia, however, probably do not qualify under Geneva with the exception of those who also fought under the former Afghan Taliban regime.
Still, Boss Bush is still a vicious greedy bastard with no regard for human lives other than his own. Him and his ilk subverted our Democratic-Republic and deserve far worse than the terrorists.

2) Attack Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? ARE YOU CRAZY!!! We can barely
hold onto power in Iraq with its mere 30 million people and soldier friendly terrain. How the hell are we supposed to take on Pakistan with like 100 million people living in miserable mountains.

Actually, I think it’s more like 140 million. But most of them live in flatlands, not mountains.

The combined
wealth and power of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia with require Bush to put America on war footing and mobilize the entire country. Me, a 24 year old man, would have to go fight. I’m not dying to those ungreatful SOBs. If they draft me and my fellow upper middle class friends you
better believe the ICBM’s will carpet bomb those two countries off the
face of the earth cause there’s no way in hell my parents or grandparents will stand for me being in the line of fire.That’s pretty much all I disagree with you about right now. okay, the Tillman comic was offensive and over the top but it was also damn funny.
R.I.P. Hunter S.

Yeah, invading Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would probably have been terrible ideas. But, unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, they would have been terrible ideas that would have helped to avenge 9/11.

For the Last Time…

…I am not a Democratic Party strategist. I have no stake whatsoever in whether Hillary or whoever runs on the platform of what’s left of the American left in 2008. So why do people keep writing stuff like this from RShake?:

I have seen you on various News programs. I am currently a registered Democrat. I have been a Reform Party member, Republican, & Libertarian. I am in fact one of those elusive swing voters. I am amused at how you think to persuade people to support issues that you espouse to when you villify them as stupid? Not a very effective strategy. Mostly I am disappointed in the Moonbat, Tin foil Hat mentality that permeates the Democratic Party in lieu of the last election.
I almost wonder if this email is wasting my time & energy as I am certain it will not resonate with the intended receiver. Sadly when vitriol and insults are used instead of dialogue there is little hope for any real effective communication. There was a time not too long ago that Liberals listened to Conservatives with courtesy. Even when they did agree with the content of the message. Liberals were primarily in control of the Congress at that time. Perhaps that is one reason they were in control. When I tried to listen to Air America all I hear is whining and insults. It does not win people to your way of thinking.

I remember when liberals used to listen to conservatives with courtesy. And all the while, in race after race, the hard right–which hijacked the GOP back in 1976–was running vile attack ads with little or no response from their opponents. And it worked. Republicans resorted to base tactics year after year. Then it spread to the media, and got especially nasty after 9/11. Treasonous crone Ann Coulter started smearing true patriots (i.e., progressive Americans) as anti-American. (Perhaps it was projection, since she thinks Joe McCarthy was a swell guy.)
Anyway: liberals got tired of getting beaten up and insulted, and decided (thank God!) to start giving back a little to hate-filled Republicans. Whining and insults? Better get ready for more of the same. We didn’t start this fight, but by God we’ll finish it.

Andrew Sullivan, Self-Hating Liar

Allen writes:

As usual I enjoyed your column even though it was a little “out there.”
Andrew Sullivan is a “gay GOP blogger?” Did you read his endorsement for
John Kerry? Is it really important to point out that he is gay? Or was that
just a cheap shot?

Yes, Sullivan endorsed Kerry–because Bush came out for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. (This is why he gets the big TIME magazine bucks–because he couldn’t see that coming.) Which is why I pointed out that he is gay. Not only does Sullivan talk about being gay all the time, it’s a core part of his political identity, so much so that after spending years sucking up to Bush while he set up concentration camps that he only turned slightly against him over gay marriage. Besides, “gay Republican” is like “Jewish Nazi”–it’s a bizarre indicator that someone is off their rocker, politically and possibly otherwise.

You sound like a schoolboy whining about name calling and such on right wing blogs. Give me a break, have you ever read Democratic Underground? Does
Kos not have the same kinds of posts on his open threads? If you can dish
out columns about Reagan burning in hell and Pat Tillman being a sap before
his dead ass was even cold then why bitch about a few right wing loons
making gay ass threats? (Metaphor overload).

Perhaps DU and Kos have similarly violent comments in similar portions, but if so I’ve never been able to find them. There’s a big difference between strident invective and threats of violence; the left specializes in the former while the right prefers its politics Gestapo style. And there’s a HUGE difference between saying that Reagan is burning in hell (if there is such a place)and threatening to murder someone.
Here’s an exercise: substitute “George Bush” for “Ted Rall” in those lines. Now ask yourself: would the Secret Service take an interest in those revised quotes?

If Eason Jordon was so right about the journalists why did he not show some
examples? If you’re running CNN you gotta have the facts when you run your
mouth like that.