The War On Conservative Women

STORY ONE: Michelle Malkin: The war on conservative women


STORY TWO: B. Daniel Blatt: Where was liberal outrage when female Republicans were slurred?


I have no problem with outrage or passion. I rarely condemn hate speech, as is obvious from my last two blog entries.  Instead I've been merely pointing out that one side's "hate speech" is often the other side's "careful analysis of the facts" or "instructive discourse."


What has me upset is the selective call for civil discourse from the left when they are by far the worst purveyors of horrific, outrageous and slanderous hate speech.  In my experience the right is often measured, logical and fair in their criticism, refraining from hyperbole.


Let me be clear. Rush Limbaugh was guilty of extreme over-the-top slander and hyperbole, but he is the exception.  But I've not condemned Limbaugh and I've not condemned Ed Schultz and I've not condemned Bill Maher.  They all have points they were attempting to make.


By the way, Maher took to Twitter yesterday to defend Rush Limbaugh. Kudos to Bill Maher for that.  You can follow Maher on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/billmaher


But, if you dare to read them, the two above referenced articles will make your skin crawl. The decumented hate speech by well known, major Liberal, Progressive and Democratic personalities is stunning.  And it's simply never condemned. 


I'm outraged by President Obama's press conference yesterday where he used his daughters as justification to attack Rush Limbaugh then, later in the same press conference, had the gall to say he “didn’t want to get into the business of arbitrating” language and civility.  This, of course, prevented the reporter from asking the obvious follow-up question, "Will you condemn similar hate speech on the left?"


I'm a Democrat and a pretty far left liberal.  The chances of my voting for President Obama in 2012 are damned near close to zero.  

The One Thing Absolutely No One Wants: "More Civilized Public Discourse"

The Rush Limbaugh Controversy rages on and on and on. If you've lived under a rock for the last few weeks, Limbaugh called Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke a slut, among other things.  See my previous blog post if you'd like more information.


Right now the Progressives and Liberals seem to have the upper hand.  The brilliantly orchestrated advertiser boycott is working and at least 13 advertisers and two radio stations have jumped off the Limbaugh ship.  Limbaugh has been forced to apologize.  And while the conservative loyalists are attempting to bail water, the progressives have hit Limbaugh with a broadside torpedo.


Again and again and again and again we heard President Obama, Limbaugh's departing advertisers, Democratic Party operatives and pundits,television hosts and even comics all exclaim, "All that we want is a more civilized public discourse!"


This is, of course, pure unadulterated BULLSHIT!  No a single one of them wants "more civilized discourse." They just want to cower their opponents and, if possible, silence them.  They would be pleased if their opponents were civil, as long as their allies were as vile, hateful and uncivil as ever.


My PROOF?  I dare you to find a single person, advertiser, corporate entity, pundit, commentator or comic that is condemning the hate speech coming from his or her side of the aisle.  Find me one that condemns both sides equally.  Don't worry, you're not going to find one, because their isn't one!


Today, in another of this episode's most bizarre moments, President Obama inserted his two daughters into his attack on Rush Limbaugh.  Below are the quotes from The Hill Briefing Room story this afternoon:

President Obama said he called Sandra Fluke, the college student at the center of the latest Rush Limbaugh controversy, after thinking about how his own daughters would have handled the criticism.

“I thought about Malia and Sasha,” Obama said Tuesday at a news conference. “And one of the things I want them … to be able to do is speak their minds in a civil and thoughtful way, and I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names when they’re being good citizens.

I want to tread lightly here and carefully respect both Malia and Sasha.  But the President's comments raise a serious question.  Is it possible that while he wouldn't want Limbaugh to his beautiful daughters "sluts," it would be perfectly OK if Bill Maher called them "T***s" or "C***s?"  I only make this assumption because President Obama has yet to even mention these misogynistic slurs from his million dollar campaign donor.  Limbaugh's slurs were mild compared to Maher's.

But certainly President Obama isn't alone is his one sided outrage.  David Friend, CEO of Carbonite(r) actually set the stage for President Obama when he, too, invoked his two daughters as a reason he cancelled advertising of the Rush Limbaugh Show.  Here is his statement (from an interesting essay on this issue on Red State):


"No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady. Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show. We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse."


Gosh! And look. Friend used the patented "more civilized public discourse" excuse, too!  Wow! He's covered all the bases!


Except for the base called "truth." Friend missed that one.  For many years Friend has made heavy political donations for President Obama's election and re-election campaigns.  Curiously he was and remains a heavy advertiser of the Ed Schultz Show.  Schultz, if you remember, was suspended by MSNBC and forced to apologize for calling Laura Ingram a "slut," the exact term Limbaugh used to refer to Fluke.  Friend, exactly like everyone else, is only offended when his political opponents use vile speech.  He's super cool OK when his allies use the identical speech.


This works on both sides of the aisle.  No one in politics has been the subject of more hate speech than Michelle Bachmann.  Amazingly Bachmann appeared on MSNBC this morning and was grilled relentlessly as to why she won't condemn Limbaugh's hate speech.  Bachmann correctly pointed out that no one had ever been the victim of more hate speech than she has, BUT, she still refused to condemn Limbaugh.   The MSNBC announcer certainly never apologized for the hate spewed from her network associates, either.  STALEMATE.


Here's where I stand. Either it's wrong 100% of the time or it's not.  I don't like today's hate speech, but I've never said speech should be censored.  I'm from the school that says you can and should argue the points, but I don't think you should ever silence the critics.


In other words, I don't need the pig to get out of the mud, but I feel no need to climb in there with him.

The Cesspool of Hate and Hypocrisy

STORY ONE: Larry Doyle - The Jesus Eating Cult of Rick Santorum
STORY TWO: Michelle Malkin - Devastating: Andrew Breitbart R.I.P.
STORY THREE: White House enters controversy over Limbaugh comments on Georgetown student

The top link above STORY ONE takes you to an op-ed essay in The Huffington Post by Larry Doyle, a work he now claims is satire.  I had intended to write today's blog entry entirely about the strange logic and blatant hypocrisy of Doyle's hate filled screed.  


But then Andrew Breitbart died and any small point I might have wanted to make about hate speech on the Internet exploded in my face.  In fact Breitbart's death created a nuclear explosion of hatred in the blogosphere and the Twitterverse.  My small essay was reduced to radioactive dust.


Just when I couldn't imagine the discourse becoming any more toxic, enter Rush Limbaugh with his laser guided venom filled missiles lighting the ionosphere.  Mere Bloggers and Twitters are no match for El Rushbo, whose "talent is on loan from God."  I know that's true because Rush said so.  


Just how powerful was Rush's poisonous attack?  So toxic the President of the United States himself felt compelled to weigh in and condemn El Rushbo.  Thank you President Obama for making the point I wanted to make.


Why am I thanking President Obama? Not for defending Georgetown student Sandra Fluke, who, in fact, never needed any defense.  But instead for providing the highest example of our hypocrisy toward hate speech.  


Obama proved the point I wanted to make: HATE SPEECH IS ONLY HATE SPEECH WHEN IT COMES FROM THE OTHER SIDE.  President Obama condemns Rush Limbaugh who called Sandra Fluke a "slut."

ANDREW BREITBART & BILL MAHER LOOKED
REMARKABLY ALIKE. COULD THEY HAVE BEEN TWINS?

However, there is one man on earth who is consistently more vile, more vulgar and much more of a misogynist than even Rush Limbaugh and that's Bill Maher.  Maher's famous televised attacks last year attacking Sarah Palin went far beyond the mild term of "slut,"  preferring to use the words "dumb Twat" and "Cunt" instead.  Maher doubled down, refusing to apologize for his remarks and upped the anti to make even more vile comments.  


Did President Obama condemn Maher?  Did Obama call Sarah Palin and give her his sympathies for the rough nature of political debate in this country?  Nope.  Instead Obama happily accepted a $1,000,000.00 (one million dollars) donation from Maher.


THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT MOST FOLKS CAN ONLY SEE HATE SPEECH WHEN IT'S SPRINGS FROM THE OPPOSITION.  THEY NEVER SEEM TO RECOGNIZE IT ON THEIR SIDE OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM, EVEN IF IT SPRINGS FROM THEIR OWN PEN, KEYBOARD OR MOUTH.


In STORY ONE above, Doyle writes one of the most disgusting essays every written about any religion in order to teach conservatives a lesson that they should respect Islam.  It's a lot like a father who beats the living crap out of his son in order to teach him not to be a bully.  As we say on Twitter, #EpicFail.


And in STORY TWO Malkin illustrates how folks condemn Breitbart's "hate speech" by using even more vile and disgusting hate speech themselves.  If they really hated Andrew Breitbart's hate speech, why did the imitate it so precisely?


And finally from STORY THREE: President Obama, if you really hate the lowering of civil discourse, why can you only ever seem to condemn it in your opponents, yet accept huge donations from serial haters on your side of the political spectrum?


__________________________________________________________

ADDENDUM 3/4/2012:    As my friend Lee pointed out (see his comments to this post), Rush Limbaugh has apologized to his listeners and to Sandra Fluke.  It must be noted that Rush has been under intense pressure from a left wing campaign to boycott all his advertisers.  As of this morning seven advertisers have cancelled their sponsorship of Limbaugh's program.  


I have edited my original blog entry to correctly reflect these recent developments.  I also plan a follow-up post on this issue, especially in reference to Carbonite, one of Limbaugh's ex-advertisers.

Is the Left's Demonization of Glenn Beck Good for America?

Time Magazine has an excellent analysis of the Glenn Beck phenomena as this week's cover story. Lead writer David Von Drehle and the Time reporters are remarkably "fair and balanced" in their coverage of Glenn Beck and his appeal to a large and largely disaffected portion of America.

The article is hardly a "puff piece" as some on the left have claimed. The magazine cover photo alone portrays Beck as a clown or even a mad man, not a business or political leader or a intellectual icon.

Still, Joseph A. Palermo, writing over at The Huffington Post is outraged. He calls David Von Drehle's article "a clinic for journalism students who wish to learn about faux balance, false equivalencies, straw men, and omissions of important facts."

While I'm not going to get in between Palermo and Von Drehle, I feel the real story here is the lefts virtually insane obsession over Beck and his fellow conservative talk show and television personalities. This preoccupation that verges on fixation is unhealthy for the critics, the left wing progressives and maybe for all America.

This obsession is so wrong and so misplaced on so many different levels. First, by concentrating their fire on personalities like Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity and (curiously) Bill O'Reilly, they miss huge opportunities every day to focus on issues and ideas and the real personalities that shape today's policies. Some blogs and even television shows devote nearly 100% of their space (or airtime) to demonizing these personalities.

By writing and blogging and talking all day every day about Beck and Limbaugh, progressives actually give them immense power. Beck's popularity and importance and audience size are all fueled by the constant and generally misplaced (and often completely false) attacks by Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and the bevy of Hollywood Glitterati writing over on Huffington.

Indeed the efforts by progressives to get advertisers to stop advertising on the Beck Telecast on Fox have only increased Beck's popularity and viewership. While similar boycotts have, in the past, actually cost personalities their jobs, it has increased Becks popularity and strengthened his position at Fox.

As a side note, President Barack Obama's boneheaded move to exclude Chris Wallace and Fox New Sunday from his Sunday barrage of appearances to promote his Health Care Restructuring is the absolute worst public relations decision ever made. He has done more real damage to his agenda by this lame and schoolyard childish insult than he can possibly gain by his appearance on the other five programs. President Obama seriously needs new advisers!

Back to the topic. By concentrating their fire on Beck, opportunities are missed to actually promote the progressive agenda. While Beck spends his time and ammunition on issues, programs, ideas and philosophies, the (not very) credible personalities on the left spend their time whining about Beck and O'Reilly.

Even the Democrat Party has fallen into this tragic trap.


As Beck observes at the end of this clip, doesn't the DNC realize he's not running for office?

Such attacks only increase Beck's power and popularity. Worse yet, the ad above displays the DNC's complete ignorance of Beck and his stand on the issues. Beck was and is extremely critical of President Bush and especially Bush's use of CZARS. The ad itself ends up promoting Beck and his position!

Worst of all, when progressives demonize a personality, they blind themselves to both his appeal and his position on important issues. If you put on colored glasses, you blind yourself to what's actually happening. Once you've put a Glenn Beck in a corner, you feel safe in ignoring everything he says. This ignorance is always at your own peril!

Rather than simply ridicule Beck, progressives ought to try to understand why his ideas resonate with millions of people. They aren't all nut cases or whack jobs. They have genuine concerns, good ideas, real problems and valid and important points of view. Turning Beck into the enemy won't ever change any one's mind. Posing good, valid and well thought out counter positions on the issues might.

Battles You Cannot Win

I've been reading quite a lot of different blogs over the last week. I've started with the blogs I normally frequent, then followed the links to other blogs many folks provide on their sidebars. I've also read the comments made on blog posts and followed the poster to his or her "home" blog.

To say our nation is divided is an understatement. I've read charges, accusations, attacks, slurs and hate speech. It's really quite ugly in almost all of the politically oriented blogs.

Lots of people are shouting. Nobody is listening.

Generally people do not venture outside of their own political spectrum. So they are free to feed upon one another. Readers seek out blogs with which they already agree. Then each comment plays one-upsmanship on the previous remark. "My hate speech is more hateful that your hate speech."

Often it's a race to see who can mention Hitler first. Charges of racism as sure to follow. Socialist! Communist! Fascist!

Don't get me wrong. These aren't any arguments. There is no opposing point of view.

No conservatives dare visit the progressive dens of hate. Why would they? Why should they? No one is going to listen. And no real issues are being discussed. It's not like there is a discussion of the merits of the public option of health care. Nope, the only discussion is how stupid.... or mean..... or cruel.... or evil.... or racist the opposition really is.

Many right wing blogs traffic is the same vacuous diatribes.

These bloggers are preaching to the choir. They are tilting at windmills, fighting battles they cannot possibly win. They are poisoning themselves in their homemade cesspools of hate.

There is one last unifying factor. Not one of them realize what they are doing. They will read what I've written and never realize I'm talking about them. That's why it's called blind hatred.

A Reality Check Courtesy of Michelle Malkin

O.K., can we all come back to earth now? I mean the escalation of abject stupidity is now stratospheric. If we fly any higher we will all singe our wings on the sun and crash in flames to the earth.

No one is soaring higher than Frank Rich, who has never had any ties to the mother earth. He really believes he is a certified genius and the world's most learned student of history and politics. This, of course, has never been true and his flights of fantasy are numerous and far flung.

Often we mere mortals realize he is simply shooting off gas and we ride along for amusement, laughing at him and not with him. But I do tire of his constant effort to explain matters simple beyond his meager comprehension through his use of tired analogies and historically incorrect references. I'll cite an example in a moment, but let me broaden the discussion to other liberal, progressive and left wing narrators of current events.

The (totally false) story today across the blogosphere and main stream media wasteland is that the McCain and Palin devotes are raging out of control and may well explode into full blown revolution. Murder and mayhem are in the offing, if we can believe what we read. Conservatives are, we are told, certifiably insane.

This is all because of a couple of questions poised at John McCain's virtually constant Town Hall Meetings and catcalls during Sarah Palin's mega-rallies. Trust me when I tell you the media had to film and them ignore countless hours of thoughtful questions and great speeches to locate and explode these occasional outbursts.

Then they still had to carefully edit the sloganeering to eliminate the intelligent and calming responses from Senator McCain himself (or "that one" as I prefer to call him).

Enter the Frank Rich's of the world (and his cohorts are legion). Let me actually begin with Paul Krugman writing today in the New York Times (I will get to Rich later, I promise). Krugman is simply terrified as he writes:

“Something very ugly is taking shape on the political scene: as McCain’s chances fade, the crowds at his rallies are, by all accounts, increasingly gripped by insane rage…What happens when Obama is elected? It will be even worse than it was in the Clinton years. For sure there will be crazy accusations, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see some violence.”

Not to be outdone (and to prove beyond a doubt he is an astute student of history and mankind) Franks Rich implies Sarah Palin and John McCain are engaging in behavior that will assure Barack Obama is assassinated. Rich's logic and his inferences are astonishing:

"Some voters told reporters that they didn’t want Obama to run, let alone win, should his very presence unleash the demons who have stalked America from Lincoln to King. After consultation with Congress, Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, gave Obama a Secret Service detail earlier than any presidential candidate in our history — in May 2007, some eight months before the first Democratic primaries." ".......what has pumped up the Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies, is the violent escalation in rhetoric, especially (though not exclusively) by Palin. Obama “launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.” He is “palling around with terrorists” (note the plural noun). Obama is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” Wielding a wildly out-of-context Obama quote, Palin slurs him as an enemy of American troops." "By the time McCain asks the crowd “Who is the real Barack Obama?” it’s no surprise that someone cries out “Terrorist!” The rhetorical conflation of Obama with terrorism is complete. It is stoked further by the repeated invocation of Obama’s middle name by surrogates introducing McCain and Palin at these rallies. This sleight of hand at once synchronizes with the poisonous Obama-is-a-Muslim e-mail blasts and shifts the brand of terrorism from Ayers’s Vietnam-era variety to the radical Islamic threats of today."

You've just got to love Rich's tossing in the phrase "Wiemar-like rage" to be certain that is brilliantly educated, elite readers understand the Palin and McCain are actually inciting their followers to assassinate someone or everyone of a different race, color or religion.

For those of you who haven't studied pre-World War II history lately, the phrase is used (very often by Rich and many progressive bloggers) to compare the actions of Republicans to the actions of Hitler in inciting mob violence in order to build the Third Reich. Often, in fear that readers might miss the not-so-subtle point , Rich and others simply call their opponents Reich-Wing Republicans. Isn't that clever?

Thank goodness there is someone writing this Sunday who has an ounce of intelligence and a simple sense of balance and perspective. There is someone who can actually look at both sides of the coin. There is someone to provide a "reality check."

Who knew the voice of reason and rational thought would be none other than Michelle Malkin? I hope what I have written above has peaked your interest, because I refuse to spoil one sentence of Malkin's brilliant blog entry by repeating it here. Please just link immediately over to Crush the Obamedia narrative: Look who’s “gripped by insane rage”
After reading Malkin the only word you'll be able to use to describe Frank Rich and his friends is "hypocrite."

As Usual, Mike Gravel is Willing to Tell the Unpleasant Truth

As usual, former Democrat Presidential Candidate Mike Gravel is willing to tell the truth, even when it doesn't match our preconceived ideas.

Notice the extreme prejudice of the interviewers.

When was it that Gang Rape became acceptable?

What is happening here?

When did it become OK to advocate, celebrate, or even encourage, the gang rape of a woman? How is it that this joke became OK?

It seems that when Sandra Bernhard celebrates the gang rape of Sarah Palin, it's just all in good fun. I understand that Sandra Bernhard is a comedian. So we just laugh and we just snicker. Ha. Ha. Gang Rape. She's just a comedian. What is everyone so upset about?

Don Imus is just a comedian. But Imus became the center of a nationwide controversy when he referred to a women's basketball team as "nappy headed hos." He was forced to apologize profusely, over and often, for his remark. He lost his job(s). He was a pariah.

Michael Richards was much more than just a comedian. The three time Emmy Award winning actor (for his role as Cosmo Kramer in Seinfeld), used the "N" word in response to hecklers in an nightclub act in 2006. He also apologized profusely, but his career was over, It ended in one night. He "retired" and hasn't worked since, devoting his life to charity work, behind the scenes and out of the limelight.

So when was it OK to joke about gang rape (along with literally dozens of other vile references)? When did we decide we would not only look the other way, but actually applaud if the victim was politically conservative woman ?

What if Imus simply repeated Bernhard's joke, word for word, but directed it at Michelle Obama? Would it be funny then? Would it be OK?

I believe I've transcribed Bernhard accurately, I've only changed the name of the victim.

"Michelle Obama would be gang raped by blacks in Manhattan if she followed through on her threat to visit New York."

Is that funny? Are you laughing?

Of course the target wasn't Michelle Obama, it was Sarah Palin, and that makes it all OK. I've actually read several progressive bloggers defend the rant and actually blame Palin. It's all her fault. Just like all women who have been raped. If they just hadn't dressed so provocatively, they would never have been raped.

Yep. Sandra Bernhard is blameless. She couldn't help herself. Still, I'm surprised. Black men raping a white woman? Isn't that a racist stereotype? Where is Al Sharpton?

What if Mike Richards makes a comeback and does a new nightclub routine advocating gang rape for Islamic women? How would we react. If we stand, laugh and applaud, how would the world view America?

When was it that Gang Rape became acceptable?

FT.com: Democrats on Capitol Hill fear Obama fallout

Do Democrats on Capitol Hill fear Obama fallout? That's the headline in today's Financial Times.

Andrew Ward, the Washington, D.C. correspondent writes that Democrats believe the lock they had on victory is rapidly fading away. Here's what Ward says:

"Democratic jitters about the US presidential race have spread to Capitol Hill, where some members of Congress are worried that Barack Obama’s faltering campaign could hurt their chances of re-election. " "Party leaders have been hoping to strengthen Democratic control of the House and Senate in November, but John McCain’s jump in the polls has stoked fears of a Republican resurgence." "A Democratic fundraiser for Congressional candidates said some planned to distance themselves from Mr Obama and not attack Mr McCain." “If people are voting for McCain it could help Republicans all the way down the ticket, even in a year when the Democrats should be sweeping all before us,” said the fundraiser, a former Hillary Clinton supporter. " “There is a growing sense of doom among Democrats I have spoken to . . . People are going crazy, telling the campaign ‘you’ve got to do something’.” "Concern was greatest among first-term representatives who won seats in traditionally Republican districts in the landslide of 2006. “Several of them face a real fight to hold on to those seats,” the fundraiser said. " "Tony Podesta, a senior Democratic lobbyist, said members of Congress were “a little nervous” after Mr McCain shook up the race with his choice of Sarah Palin...... "

If this is true, and today's latest POLL NUMBERS are not encouraging for the Obama campaign, it's strictly the fault of the Democrats themselves, and especially their left wing supporters like The Daily Kos and Media Matters. Their vile, disgusting, sexist, anti-woman, anti-middle class, and absolutely relentless attacks are backfiring and backfiring badly.

I will try one more time to tell my Liberal and Democrat friends. So far they are not listening.

But here I go: You cannot abandon every thread of fairness, decency and principle in launching these increasingly bizarre attacks. I know you are panicked. You are reacting very, very badly. Americans are strongly rejecting your diatribes. You are angering the public.

First you managed to wake the sleeping giant. Now you're making him (and her) very, very angry.

Blind Prejudice

I've been writing a great deal lately about the blind prejudice that all too often turns into absolute hatred in our political and economic discourse. Much of what is written in blogs and repeated on talk radio (from the left and right) is nothing short of hate speech.

And while racial prejudice and sexual discrimination (and the objectification of women in our society, hat tip to the ikonoclast) continue to fester and infect our society, the "Derangement Syndromes" surrounding political philosophies and our supposed opponents and members of opposing political movements has reached a boiling point.

It hit really close to my home (both physically close and close in terms of religion and values) Sunday with the shooting and murder of two members of the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church during morning services. The shooting occurred during a children's performance. Thank God no children were killed.

The shooter, Jim D. Adkisson, left a letter in his car with the reason for his rampage. Adkisson "stated hatred of the liberal movement."

Thankfully Adkisson himself was not killed in the rampage and didn't have the chance to commit suicide. One report stated he had 76 shotgun shells and planned to use them all. He was wrestled to the ground by church members. He is now being held by the Knoxville police.

Among the many sins of the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church were it's sponsorship of the American Civil Liberties Union and its support of women's rights and gay rights. They had recently put out a sign welcoming gays to the congregation.

These people were shot for the very beliefs I hold and practice every day.

As a society we must learn to respect each others views, religions and politics or we will find ourselves mired in internal fighting like the ongoing conflicts in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, or past sectarian battle in Ireland.

Love is the spirit of this church and service is its law. This is our great covenant: to live together in peace, to seek the truth in love, and to help one another. Written by James Vila Blake and used in many Unitarian churches (including the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church) as a Statement of Faith.

If only everyone could live by this simple and non-sectarian creed. Please send your prayers and thoughts to the friends and members of the Knoxville community touched by this tragedy. This tragedy touches everyone.

Here is a link to the website of The Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church

Prejudice

I am becoming increasingly concerned about blind prejudice in our society. You know the kind of prejudice I mean. When one group makes a blanket condemnation or criticism of another group, usually wrapped up in rather hateful or even hate filled jargon, that is pure prejudice.

As a society we generally condemn racial prejudice and occasionally condemn religious prejudice. Liberals, like myself, are quite quick to condemn prejudice based on sexual orientation. Why do so many in any society insist upon the stereotyping of people who are perceived as different?

Often such prejudice is just plain laughable. Or it's just plain stupid. It's generally always based on ideas or assumptions that is simply wrong. Blacks are not lazy. Hispanics are not thieves. Muslims are not terrorists. Gays can be good parents.

I'd like to think we all recognize prejudice.

But, here in the blogosphere I'm becoming increasingly concerned about BLIND and totally misguided prejudice base solely on political and/or economic beliefs. The name calling and the blanket condemnations are seriously out of control. Just read the comments sections of almost any political blog, left or right. Hate is being spewed in almost laughable proportions. Except it's just not funny.

I've got news for you. Conservatives DO NOT HATE the environment. LIBERALS DO NOT HATE America. Conservatives DO NOT HATE minorities. Liberals DO NOT HATE the military.

If you think I'm wrong you are just not getting out enough. You are not reading the blogs of those who differ from you politically and making a genuine effort to communicate (not lecture or call names).

I have a list of 26 blogs I try to read at least once weekly. Three are decidedly non political. Eight concentrate on International events or regional issues (Darfur, Iraq, Iran, Burma, etc). The remaining fifteen are political.

Of those 15, eight (8) are liberal and range form the very large (Daily Kos and Huffington) to the small and thoughtful (The Vigil and Liberal Values).

One is a rather middle of the road blog. That leaves six (6) that are conservative, again from the large (Pajamas Media and Little Green Footballs) to the very small (the unbelievably prolific Freedom Eden, I swear the woman writes 24 hours a day).

The comments attached to these blogs are nearly identical. I mean scarily word for word identical. Every damned day. Just remove the key words "liberals," "conservatives," "democrats, or "republicans" and the comments can simply be picked up and moved from the blogs on the left over to the blogs on the right. All spew blind and blanket prejudice. All are laced with vitriolic hatred. Many actually wish death upon their political opposites.

Michelle Malkin, who I always read and frequently quote in this blog, has pointed out the incredibly hypocrisy of and obvious prejudice of liberal economist Robert Reich. Her article today, The left-wing bullies in Robert Reich’s backyard, is really worth a read.

But even after Malkin gets it so spot-on right, a few of her own readers quickly revert to the same exact name calling and hate speech and class prejudice she has just condemned

This Apologizing Crap is (Almost) Out of Control

Don Imus, you are one "nappy headed ho." There I said it! I mean Christ, you have got to do something about your hair! It's out of control!

And your latest whoring, this time for RFD-TV mogul Patrick Gottsch is disgusting. Man, the guy can't even manage to sell a single commercial to sponsor your show! If I have to sit through one more slobbering love tribute from you to Mr. Gottsch , I'm gonna be sick. Get a frakking room!

Opps! That was over the line,wasn't it? I guess I better apologize before the Imus fanatics boycott my blog. And death threats can't be far behind. Sorry, Don. I apologize. You really still are the great radio personality you once were. And you do wear a hat, so it's all good. Okay?

In all semi-seriousness, this not offending people thing is simply out of control! Everyone has to be so careful, they almost can't talk, let alone editorialize. And satire.... forget about it.

It's a world wide trend and, tragically, many countries are actually putting it into law. Canada is totally out of control, with many bloggers facing impossible lawsuits for offending someone.

Italy, Spain and virtually all countries with large Islamic populations have strong laws against offending religion, but usually that only means Islam.

Here in the good old U.S. of A. we have one special interest group after another demanding apologies, firing and worse.

So when radio personality Randi Rhodes makes a wild, expletive filled rant about Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro, she is forced to apologize or lose her job. To her credit Rhodes quit rather than apologize (and has since found a new radio home for her far left wing talk fest).

Don Imus, of course lost his job and was exiled from radio for six months or more, before finally bringing back a highly sanitized version of his program, this time with two black co-hosts to keep him out of trouble.

Bill Maher's rant about the Catholic Church and the Pope was terribly funny, but far enough over the line that HBO was forced under pressure from Catholics to demand Maher apologize. And he did, sort of.

Of course you will absolutely never hear Maher take on Islam the way he attacks Christianity. Maher nibbles around the edges, but I don't think he wants to risk a fatwa.

And that is a shame. We've got to fight as hard for our right of "FREE SPEECH" as other special interest groups fight to protect their so-calling image or good name.

When the demand that we "never offend" one group or religion, you can easily end up with the kind of out of control mob violence now going on in India at Ranchi University where riots have closed the University because a history professor offended Islam by wording a final exam essay question in a way that was unflattering to the Prophet Mohammad. Links here, here and here.

So easily offended is the Islamic population that the major newspapers in India won't even reprint the question in question. It was something about the tracing the life of Mohammad from "trader to raider." It was an Islamic history class.

By the way, if you'd like to read an extremely funny rant, I point you the newest Internet blogging sensation, Rachel Lucas and her terrific If I were Temporary Supreme Dictator of America. Then read her massive apology the very next day (yes, it's a real apology after outrage from her readers) Bold new blogging horizons: I deconstruct my very own post.

This is the kind of shit that happens when you get really popular. A problem that, alas, I will never have.

I promise that those two posts will brighten your entire day.

The Politics of Association

In the last 24 hours I heard Reverend Jeremiah Wright preach so much I feel like I need to tithe to his church, The Trinity United Church of Christ.

If, by some miracle (pun fully intended), you've missed the multiple replays of the last five years of Wright's sermons, Jeremiah Wright is the pastor of Barrack Obama's church and a man Obama credits for being his inspiration. Reverend Wright married Barrack and his lovely wife Michelle and baptised his children. I'm not going to bother to link to the many dozens of You Tube clips now available; you can easily find them if you actually have missed them.

So as I watched MSNBC, CNN and FOX turn into the Trinity Broadcasting Networks I meditated on the real responsibilities Obama might share for Wright's teaching and preaching.

Last week we watched the media and especially the blogosphere hound John McCain until he finally denounced ultra conservative Pastor John Hagee. And McCain never even attended Hagee's church. But earlier McCain had "welcomed" Hagee's endorsement.

As a Unitarian Universalist I've set through dozens (maybe hundreds) of sermons with which I disagree. Occasionally I've been deeply offended by the preacher. I wouldn't want to be judged by the words of the various ministers of my church. On the other hand, Unitarians have a unique concept, "freedom of the pulpit." Any speaker can speak from any religious (or atheistic or political) perspective.

So here is my view. We are not electing Jeremiah Wright President. I am deeply concerned about some of Wright's statements from the pulpit, but not from a Presidential politics perspective. I'll judge Barrack Obama from by his own words and his own actions, not by those of Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

The battle between Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton and John McCain is so tight and so intense it's bringing about a battle of details and nuances, relationships and associations instead of ideas and policies. That is tragic.

I was pleased to watch John McCain absolutely refuse to condemn Obama for the words of his pastor last night, in spite of intense pressure from reporters. Sadly, that won't stop MSNBC, CNN and FOX from endless replays and speculations. And it won't stop the Sean Hannity's and Rush Limbaugh's from exploiting Obama's relationship with his minister.

Rant: Intolerance, Prejudice, Hatred and Stupidity

I live in a small southern rural town in Mississippi. Our town has about 10 restaurants (not counting fast food), but about 40 Baptist Churches. We are the buckle of the Bible Belt.

So no one will be surprised when I tell you about the backlash against the movie The Golden Compass. In our town there is a reactionary prejudice against the movie falling just inches short of an organized boycott.

It will come as no surprise for you to hear that reactionary conservative Christians tell me they won't allow their children to see the movie, let alone read the books. Of course they haven't ever read the books themselves, or seen the movie. They just know that theaters shouldn't "show that trash."

I'm betting that not one of my regular liberal leaning or progressive readers is the slightest bit surprised at the ignorant, intolerant, closed minded, prejudiced, and stupid attitude of the right wing fundamentalist conservatives.

Meanwhile back in the civilized, multi-cultural, blue state metropolitan world, progressives and so-called liberals are inflamed with a level of outrage, hatred, intolerance, prejudice and closed minded stupidity over the hiring of neo-conservative Bill Kristol as a weekly op-ed columnist writer for The New York Times.

Boycotts of the Times are actually in the works. Letters to the editor are flying. Threats abound.

Kathleen Reardon, blogging over at Huffington has published a letter she recommends all Times readers use as a template for similar letters to the editor of the Times:

"....if you hire William Kristol, it will be the final cut. You will have betrayed everything I have ever admired in the Times. I am serious about this.

I will terminate my email and any premium subscription. I will no longer purchase the Times or the Herald Tribune at newsstands. My interest in the success of your publication will cease, and I will get all my news from elsewhere. Any regrets I may have will be assuaged by my knowledge that your hiring of that arrogant, blockheaded, smirking, war-mongering scumbag proves you have finally lost your way."

I am sickened and disgusted that people I want to respect are behaving exactly like right wing zealots. They refuse to allow "the liberal newspaper of record" as one blogger put it, to be sullied by a real and genuine exchange of ideas.

Kathleen, what I've always admired about the Times is their willingness to present diverse opinions, even highly unpopular ones. The Times could be counted on to discuss in their op-ed section homosexuality, racism, genocide and the environment when those ideas were unpopular or radical.

Why would anyone think the well water of liberalism would be poisoned by ideas? Don't they realize that the well water, indeed our very soul, is replenished by the spring water of fresh ideas, divergent opinions and civilized debate and discussion.

These so called progressive anti-Kristol zealots are identical in every prejudiced, closed mined, intolerant, hate filled, fearful way to the fundamentalists who fear the ideas of an atheist writer who wrote a fantasy book now turned into a movie.

The Golden Compass will not ruin small town southern life, and Bill Kristol will not ruin the New York Times.

-------------------------------------

On a related note, New York Times editorial page editor Andy Rosenthal both confirmed and defended the decision:

Times' editorial page editor Andy Rosenthal defended the move. Rosenthal told Politico.com shortly after the official announcement Saturday that he fails to understand “this weird fear of opposing views....We have views on
our op-ed page that are as hawkish or more so than Bill....

“The idea that The New York Times is giving voice to a guy who is a serious, respected conservative intellectual — and somehow that’s a bad thing,”

Rosenthal added. “How intolerant is that?”

Indeed.