The Brown Scare of '09

Greg Sargent's reaction to the murder at the Holocaust Museum yesterday -- "it's time to revisit criticism of 'right-wing extremists' report" -- wasn't atypical. You could hear the same insta-reaction around the Web, as confirmation bias did its work and two or three crimes by far-right figures were transformed into something larger. Here's Andrew Sullivan: "That DHS report doesn't look so iffy any more, does it?" Markos Moulitsas: "Attempt by Cons to justify their critique of prescient DHS report are an extra special dose of stupid." Benjamin Sarlin at The Daily Beast writes that "a much-maligned Department of Homeland Security memo on right-wing extremism is looking more accurate by the day." Doug J. at Balloon Juice says, "How many acts of right-wing terrorism have to occur before DHS is allowed to start keeping track of it?"

So the Department of Homeland Security, a bloated and dysfunctional agency that shouldn't exist in the first place, should spend its time tracking the possibility that a criminal kook with no co-conspirators will decide to shoot a doctor or a security guard? From preventing another 9/11 to preventing unorganized shootings: Talk about mission creep. Yes, these murders are terrorism, but they're the sort of terrorism that can be contained by the average small-town police force. If you try to blow them up into a grand pattern that threatens ordinary Americans, you're no different from the C-level conservative pundits who treat every politically motivated crime by a Muslim as evidence of a broad Islamic threat to ordinary Americans' well-being. (The reliably inane Debbie Schlussel even blames Islam for the Holocaust Museum shooting, despite the fact that the killer is a neo-Nazi, on the grounds that "it is because of Muslims--who are the biggest contributor to the worldwide rise in anti-Semitism to Holocaust-eve levels--that neo-Nazis feel comfortable--far more comfortable!--manifesting their views about Jews.")

Why did the DHS report come under such fire? It wasn't because far-right cranks are incapable of committing crimes. It's because the paper blew the threat of right-wing terror out of proportion, just as the Clinton administration did in the '90s; because it treated "extremism" itself as a potential threat, while offering a definition of extremist so broad it seemed it include anyone who opposed abortion or immigration or excessive federal power; and because it fretted about the danger of "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities." (Note that neither the killing in Kansas last month nor the shooting in Washington yesterday was committed by an Iraq or Afghanistan vet.) The effect isn't to make right-wing terror attacks less likely. It's to make it easier to smear nonviolent, noncriminal figures on the right, just as the most substantial effect of a red scare was to make it easier to smear nonviolent, noncriminal figures on the left. The fact that communist spies really existed didn't justify Joseph McCarthy's antics, and the fact that armed extremists really exist doesn't justify the Department of Homeland Security's report.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Note that neither the killing in Kansas last month nor the shooting in Washington yesterday was committed by an Iraq or Afghanistan vet



    Ha! But the museum shooter was a WWII vet. Don't you see? DHS has to start tracking vets now to catch them before they act out 60 years from now!

  • Kyle Jordan||

    "From preventing another 9/11 to preventing unorganized shootings: Talk about mission creep."

    Don't forget that they're also trying their damnedest to reclassify most folding pocket knives as switchblades, thus banning them.

    This'll get me on a list, (if I'm not already) but fuck DHS. Fuck them in the throat with a old shoe.

  • BakedPenguin||

    How would "tracking" have solved this, anyway?

    Future DHS spokesman: "We were tracking the gunman prior to his assualt. We tracked him all the way from his house to where he shot those people. Then we ran the hell away because we didn't want to get shot."

  • Lester Hunt||

    Jesse,

    I was about to blog about this myself, but you just said everything I was going to say -- and better! Maybe I'll just repeat it all. Can't be said to often, is the idea.

  • ||

    As a conspiracy nut, I suspect the DHS somehow goaded the guy into it to make their report look better.

  • Rimfax||

    They're just saying that the violent acts of the SLA and the Weather Underground justified Hoover's harassment of liberal groups.

  • creech||

    Next we'll be hearing about a need to wire-tap conversations between Tate and CFL supporters.

  • Syd||

    So the Department of Homeland Security, a bloated and dysfunctional agency that shouldn't exist in the first place, should spend its time tracking the probability that a criminal kook with no co-conspirators will decide to shoot a doctor or a security guard?

    This guy was intending to kill a lot more people than a doctor or security guard. Fortunately the Holocaust Museum seems to have good security.

  • ||

    These individual acts of political terror are not the real story - rather its the macro-component prodding of the right-wing new media by the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity who pummel lies into the soft heads of their listeners until the most unhinged of the lot break into a rage and start killing.

    How do you resolve this issue Constitutionally? You can't. Propaganda is an old and nefarious problem.

    These clowns need to understand that they are undermining civil discourse and liberty by their rhetoric.

  • ed||

    Last night on Olbermann's rant he said something to the effect of:
    "Rush Limbaugh probably had nothing to do with this, but one of these days his irresponsible words will kill somebody. Mark my words."

  • ed||

    Whoa, shrike is Keith Olbermann?

  • Xeones||

    Whoa, shrike is Keith Olbermann?

    Makes sense, don't it?

    Yo, fuck all persons and agencies mentioned in the first paragraph of the post, with the exception of the Holocaust Museum.

  • Warty||

    STOP QUOTING ANDREW SULLIVAN. You'll just encourage that hyperventilating queen.

  • !</a||

    Lester Hunt,

    My feelings exactly, but I don't have a blog.

    This is my favorite part:


    So the Department of Homeland Security, a bloated and dysfunctional agency that shouldn't exist in the first place, should spend its time tracking the possibility that a criminal kook with no co-conspirators will decide to shoot a doctor or a security guard? From preventing another 9/11 to preventing unorganized shootings: Talk about mission creep. Yes, these murders are terrorism, but they're the sort of terrorism that can be contained by the average small-town police force. If you try to blow them up into a grand pattern that threatens ordinary Americans, you're no different from the C-level conservative pundits who treat every politically motivated crime by a Muslim as evidence of a broad Islamic threat to ordinary Americans' well-being. (The reliably inane Debbie Schlussel even blames Islam for the Holocaust Museum shooting, despite the fact that the killer is a neo-Nazi, on the grounds that "it is because of Muslims--who are the biggest contributor to the worldwide rise in anti-Semitism to Holocaust-eve levels--that neo-Nazis feel comfortable--far more comfortable!--manifesting their views about Jews.")

  • Warty||

    He planned to do a mass murder

    With a .22? Good thing he'd never heard of those newfangled "centerfire" calibers.

  • !</a||

    Fair enough. He planned to do a mass murder and instead killed just one, thanks not to the DHS but to well-trained security guards.

    Heard one report that he had a shotgun and another that he had a .22

    If it was the latter I am inclined to believe the only person he was going to succeed in killing was himself and he failed.

  • Warty||

    Did Jesse just delete his post that I quoted, or is the server playing games?

  • Jesse Walker||

    This guy was intending to kill a lot more people than a doctor or security guard. Fortunately the Holocaust Museum seems to have good security.

    Fair enough. He "decided" to kill more than just one victim. Because the guards at the museum are good at their jobs, he was unable to get any farther.

  • Jesse Walker||

    Sorry, I tried to add something to the comment and accidentally deleted it instead. My replacement comment is up at 11:27.

  • Jesse Walker||

    ...though if you're right about his weapon, this might be a case where a criminal was done in as much by his own incompetence as by the competence of the people who subdued him.

  • Warty||

    I wish I had the power to edit my more embarrassing posts.

  • ||

    First we opposed socialized medicine. Then it moved to opposing bailouts. Next thing you know we're all getting shot in the face. See ya'll later, I'm becoming a progressive.

  • ||

    Markos Moulitsas: "Attempt by Cons to justify their critique of prescient DHS report are an extra special dose of stupid."

    Attempt by anybody to ascribe "prescience" to the DHS.....

    Well, let's just say it doesn't exactly make you look like a genius.

  • Jesse Walker||

    I wish I had the power to edit my more embarrassing posts.

    Trust me. If you try to do an edit and screw it up, as above, that's way more embarrassing than anything you might write.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Back when I was a night-cop beat reporter, there was a wave of gangbangers using cheap .25 caliber pistols. They'd shoot each other in the head and the slug would basically bounce off the skull.
    "The victim was shot three times in the forehead. He was treated at X hospital and released..."
    It was comedy gold.
    (At least that's the story I tell.)

  • ||

    it treated "extremism" itself as a potential threat, while offering a definition of extremist so broad it seemed it include anyone who opposed abortion or immigration or excessive federal power

    Remember, boys and girls:

    Dissent is not Treason


    It was true a year ago, and it's still true today.

  • ||

    """So the Department of Homeland Security, a bloated and dysfunctional agency that shouldn't exist in the first place, should spend its time tracking the possibility that a criminal kook with no co-conspirators will decide to shoot a doctor or a security guard? From preventing another 9/11 to preventing unorganized shootings: Talk about mission creep. Yes, these murders are terrorism, but they're the sort of terrorism that can be contained by the average small-town police force."""

    I don't think you can have it both ways. If DHS mission is to protect the citizens from terrorism, then you can't call it mission creep if you believe it was terrorism. Terrorism response and prevention is their job.

    I don't call this incident terrorism, it was murder, or if you believe his intentions were to kill many, then it's murder for who he killed and conspiracy to commit mass murder. If you believe in hate crimes then add it to that catagory.

    But if we adopt the idea the murdering a few people of a certain religion is terrorism, then expect federal responses and federal preventive measures (P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act) will be applied.

  • bloodstar||

    In an effort to score political points did you simply opt to ignore the report on left wing extremists and the terrorist potential from them?

    And in the Rub it in your face award, We have anti abortion groups ponying up to buy the now closed abortion clinic run by the Late Dr Tiller.

    It's time for some Fanatical Moderates. all Irony aside, I'm getting really sick of the posturing and the tacit acceptance of the extremists by the mainstream parties on all sides. Do something about your whackos... all of you

  • ||

    Their are no whackos, just folks that have chosen to believe in a differing set of moral values.

  • Jesse Walker||

    In an effort to score political points did you simply opt to ignore the report on left wing extremists and the terrorist potential from them?

    I blogged about that report two months ago. I didn't mention it here because it didn't seem to me that it would add anything to talk about it. I don't see what political points I thus scored or didn't score.

  • ||

    This continues the very dangerous trend of defining crime not by the act, but by the motive. Would we all sleep better at night if the murderer was a disgruntled employee? Would the guard be any less dead?

    If the goal is to prevent murders, maybe DHS should start tracking people who were recently fired from their jobs, or people with unfaithful spouses. Those people seem more likely to commit murder.

  • ||

    These individual acts of political terror are not the real story - rather its the macro-component prodding of the right-wing new media Islamist extremist networks by the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity

  • ed||

    Speaking of "hate" crimes, David Letterman got a pass on his Willow Palin/Alex Rodriguez rape fantasy gag because he's a comedian. But if that comedian from the right, Mr. Limbaugh, had said something similar about one of Mr. Obama's underage girls, he'd be crucified. We'd never hear the end of it. Double standard when it comes to "hate" speech? You betcha.

  • ||

    These individual acts of political terror are not the real story - rather its the macro-component prodding of the right-wing new media Islamist extremist networks by the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Quaeda, the Taliban, and Al Jazeera who pummel lies into the soft heads of their listeners until the most unhinged of the lot break into a rage and start killing.

    Agree/disagree, shrike?

    I would note, however, that it takes a very special kind of stupid to attribute the actions of an anti-semite/truther to news personalities who support Israel and mock and belittle truthers.

  • Gimlet||

    "Last night on Olbermann's rant"

    Olbermann should be in a forced-labor camp.

  • ed||

    Olbermann should be in a forced-labor camp

    He is. It's called MSNBC.

  • ||

    R C, good points. How about Mr. von Brunn being judged for his actions, not Hamas, nor Hannity?

  • ||

    Shrike, imo, ed makes a good point. Sure, Letterman is an empty suit; a washed up has been that never was. Limbaugh, otoh, no matter what else one might say about him, is, and has been, both far more entertaining and far more of a cultural heavyweight than Letterman.

  • ||

    Letterman, imo, was never funny. I know that some thought he was. Past tense intended.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Letterman is (present tense) funny.

  • ed||

    A segment of Olbermann's performance art last night featured a discussion of the Letterman joke. Olbermann's guest forgave Letterman's crudity due to his alleged "comedian" status. Olbermann, on the other hand, who has been referring to Limbaugh as "Comedian Rush Limbaugh" for months now, remained silent on that point. I wonder why?

  • ||

    I always had to roll my eyes, watching neocons freak out every time they encountered a sortabrown person speaking a language other than English: "...Aaaagh! He's a jihadi from a jihadi sleeper cell!"

    Now, apparently, the contagion has spread to the left. I suppose if some progressive sort overhears me saying I don't like Obama's health care plan, they'll call the FBI in the hopes of having me arrested.

  • ||

    TAO-

    Funny how? More so than the following?

    Johnny Carson
    Jay Leno
    Chris Rock
    Chris Farley
    Dana Carvey
    George Carlin
    Rodney Dangerfield
    Eddie Murphy
    Arsenio Hall
    Richard Pryor
    Jonathan Winters
    Joan Rivers
    Jackie Gleason
    Andrew Dice Clay
    Janine Garrafalo (sp?)
    Kid N' Play
    Lenny Clark
    Lenny Bruce
    Jerry Seinfeld

  • Warty||

    Kid N' Play

    You're old.

  • Zeb||

    Letterman is funny. His show sucks, but he is funny. He is funny because TAO and I think he is. Funniness is completely subjective, so that is all the proof you need.

  • Gimlet||

    "Jerry Seinfeld"

    Not funny. However his co-stars were funny as hell.

  • alan||

    Amazing the credit these hacks are giving the DHS report. The content of the report was so broadly generalized that any of them, Andrew Sullivan, Markos Moulitsas, Benjamin Sarlin, lacking any expertise in the field, could have wrote it using nothing more than their imaginations. There was nothing in it that was actionable or useful to professionals in the field.

  • Fascitis Necrotizante||

    Kid N' Play

    Entertainment heroes.

  • Fascitis Necrotizante||

    Also, kos needs to learn about subject-verb agreement.

  • alan||

    libertymike,

    no C K Lewis?

  • ||

    no C K Lewis?

    It's Louis C K

  • alan||

    Maybe, I meant C S Lewis. That guy was hilarious. Okay, I didn't. Pained by the cancellation of Lucky Louie, I'm just trying to forget everything about that beautiful man.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    LM - first of all, half the people on your list are dead, so by definition, Letterman is funnier than all of them ("is" being a present word)

    The other half are outdated. Given that I cannot just pop Aresenio Hall (for example) onto the television gives Letterman the edge.

    And Louis C K sucked. And Carlin was overrated.

  • Fluffy||

    Speaking of "hate" crimes, David Letterman got a pass on his Willow Palin/Alex Rodriguez rape fantasy gag because he's a comedian. But if that comedian from the right, Mr. Limbaugh, had said something similar about one of Mr. Obama's underage girls, he'd be crucified. We'd never hear the end of it. Double standard when it comes to "hate" speech? You betcha.

    You know what's really annoying?

    No one - and I mean no one is stupid enough to think that Letterman wasn't talking about Bristol Palin, since Bristol is the one who was already knocked up before. But since Bristol apparently wasn't at the ball game, Sarah saw a chance to be a disingenuous cunt and pretend that she thought Letterman intended an insult to her younger daughter that no one is stupid enough to think he intended. And since Sarah stuck her neck out to be a disingenuous cunt and lie about what she thought that joke was about, that means douchebags like ed have to "cover her back" and so they, too, pretend they're too stupid to follow a simple late night monologue joke.

    Fucking Christ on the cross that's annoying.

    Can everybody please stop pretending they're fucking retarded in order to try to win the day's faux outrage cycle? Please pretty please?

  • alan||

    You chose to call Carlin overrated over Lenny Bruce?

    Sure Carlin had a bomb HBO special here and there, but if funny was food, and Bruce was the farmer, we would all be starving.

  • alan||

    Not because that farmer bought the farm four plus decades back but because of the paucity of his grain stores in the first place.

  • alan||

    Can everybody please stop pretending they're fucking retarded in order to try to win the day's faux outrage cycle?

    I'm outraged I missed that story altogether. My fault, though, every time I see a headline with Palin in it, I shut my eyes tight and I say, 'please, God, no. Make her go away before 2012', and scroll down.

  • highnumber||

    Saying Lenny Bruce wasn't funny is like saying Buddy Holly didn't rock.

  • hmm||

    As long as they don't get rid of my extreme Dorittos or extreme deodorant we are going to be ok.

    I think it is generally held among those that can still think for themselves that the images on TV and in the news are generally all trying to push one thing or another. It's like watching the short bus unload at a McDonalds every time something happens. The drool starts to fly while the tards run around waving their arms. After 5 minutes they move on to the straws and napkin dispensers. 5 minutes after that it is something new.

    Fucking hairless monkeys.

  • Jack||

    You guys need a site redesign. Get one please.

  • Franklin Harris||

    Saying Lenny Bruce wasn't funny is like saying Buddy Holly didn't rock.



    That's a sacrifice I'll just have to make, then, 'cause Lenny Bruce didn't even live in the same area code as funny.

  • ||

    TAO-

    Yeah, as soon as I pressed Submit Comment I knew that you would jump on that point.

  • ||

    Has anyone verified that von Brunn is actually a WWII vet?

    I searched the draft & enlistment database at Ancestry.com and there is no record of his being in WWII that I can find.

    I found him (as a 10 year old on the 1930 census) and his parents and grandparents on census records in St. Louis, MO, but no record of military service for him.

    I used these same records to find Obama's grand-father's and great-uncle's enlistments last summer/fall with no problem. My own father's enlistment is on their database. Hard to imagine that von Brunn would not be included if he actually served.

    If he is not a vet, someone needs to get this out and counter the vet=rightwing extremist meme!

  • ||

    Well, how about Lewis Black?

  • ||

    Re: "It's because the paper blew the threat of right-wing terror out of proportion" - just like the left-wing companion report that no one ever talks about did as well, right? Please, they were reports, nothing more, and not very good ones, to local police forces concerning what to be on the lookout for - right and left. Pretty much exactly as you said, so that any local police force could deal with it. Doesn't make the threat any less real or the need to provide information to locals.

    But you can't criticize the "right" - the patriots, the real Americans . . . please . . . like someone above said, it's time for all you crazies to start controlling your own, that or have Bush's policies put in full force. Enjoy the laws of unintended consequences.

  • Jordan||

    ...that or have Bush's policies put in full force. Enjoy the laws of unintended consequences.



    Obama's working on that.

  • </||

    Fluffy | June 11, 2009, 1:58pm |

    disingenuous cunt

    Pot/Kettle

  • ||

    Can everybody please stop pretending they're fucking retarded in order to try to win the day's faux outrage cycle? Please pretty please?

    In the cases of Jim Treacher, John Nolte, Victor Davis Hanson and the various inbred assholes whose blogs have names ending in "Pundit" -- they're not pretending. They're not even smart enough to pretend.

  • Fluffy||

    Pot/Kettle

    Hey babe, I may act like a cunt some / most / all of the time, but I am never disingenuous. My outrage is 100% sincere and unadulterated. I am a seething cauldron of rage at injustice, pretty much 24/7. I don't have to pretend to be offended because I can always find something that really and truly does offend me, usually within 2 or 3 mouse clicks.

  • Robert Kelly||

    If you try to blow them up into a grand pattern that threatens ordinary Americans, you're no different from the C-level conservative pundits who treat every politically motivated crime by a Muslim as evidence of a broad Islamic threat to ordinary Americans' well-being.

    I'm sorry, but there is a pattern, not a grand pattern, but a pattern nonetheless of hatred and violence against Jews that result in shootings and bomb attacks on synagogues, and now, the Holocaust Museum.

    I read the DHS report and it was quite reasonable and specific. It simply stated that there are signs that "white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups" and individuals associated with, due to a combination of political and economic factors, are more likely now to engage in violent acts.

    Also, the idea that DHS is spending its time "tracking the possibility that a criminal kook with no co-conspirators will decide to shoot a doctor or a security guard" is a bit of a misunderstanding. According to the leaked 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment (url: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/2009_Virginia_Terrorism_Threat_Assessment,_Mar_2009), the reason why "lone wolf" attacks are so dangerous is because they can't be tracked or anticipated in any meaningful way. There's very little police can do about it until it happens.

    The DHS may be bloated and dysfunctional. Perhaps it's redundant and shouldn't exist at all. But that you say the effect of the report is "to make it easier to smear nonviolent, noncriminal figures on the right" isn't, I don't think, their fault but that of the right's political opponents who don't often make the distinction.

  • Jesse Walker||

    Also, the idea that DHS is spending its time "tracking the possibility that a criminal kook with no co-conspirators will decide to shoot a doctor or a security guard" is a bit of a misunderstanding.

    I wasn't making a statement about whether the department is currently tracking lone-wolf kooks. I was replying to DougJ's comment: "How many acts of right-wing terrorism have to occur before DHS is allowed to start keeping track of it?"

  • ||

    If the government doesn't do something, this scourge of octogenarian neo-nazis runs the risk of becoming a full-blown fourth reich.
    Everyone start duck-taping your homes. Next thing you know, one of them might hurl an oxygen tank full of nerve gas through your window.

  • Jim Treacher||

    Bob Robertson | June 11, 2009, 3:34pm



    Hi, Bob! Could you please expand upon this compelling thesis?

  • Robert Kelly||

    Jesse, my mistake.

  • Gimlet||

    "LM - first of all, half the people on your list are dead, so by definition, Letterman is funnier than all of them ("is" being a present word)"

    Not if one those decomposing bodies is making farting noises and such. Because if it was and you were there to hear it, you could factually say, "That dead guy IS funny!"

  • Ed||

    White supremacists are liberals. Von Brunn hated Jews, neocons and Christians. He was a truther and stated on the internet he was a socialist. Von Brunn was a liberal you jackasses. He was right out of the Daily Kos mold...

  • ||

    "because it fretted about the danger of "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities." (Note that neither the killing in Kansas last month nor the shooting in Washington yesterday was committed by an Iraq or Afghanistan vet.)"

    No, it didn't. You dishonest and/or ignorant man.

    It merely stated that just like they did in the 90s, right wing extremist groups would target returning troops for recruitment (like they have) and small percentages of those returning troops would join (like they have).

    Always a good idea in one of your "look how wrong these other commentators are" posts to not adopt the most dishonest meme out there.

    Especially if you're not able to quote what the report actually says about returning vets and dispute absolutely anything about it, rather than taking issue with the invented version of what it says.

  • ||

    LM - first of all, half the people on your list are dead, so by definition, Letterman is funnier than all of them ("is" being a present word)

    If you want to be anal about it, it's extremely unlikely that Letterman was being funny at the exact moment you posted this.

    Plus, I think George Carlin's rotting corpse would be pretty funny to look at.

  • ed||

    no one is stupid enough to think that Letterman wasn't talking about Bristol Palin

    After they showed a clip of Sarah and Willow Palin at the ballgame? Granted, the stupidity rests with Letterman's writers, who evidently can't tell the Palins apart. To a New Yorker, one Alaska hick looks like another, eh? And to be fair, both are girls. Yuk yuk. Pass the Kung Pao Chicken.

  • Jesse Walker||

    Especially if you're not able to quote what the report actually says about returning vets

    Uh...that was a quote from the report.

    It merely stated that just like they did in the 90s, right wing extremist groups would target returning troops for recruitment (like they have) and small percentages of those returning troops would join (like they have).

    Yes, it said that. It also said that the recruits' "skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists--including lone wolves or small terrorist cells--to carry out violence."

    I don't see how any of this contradicts what I wrote.

  • Fluffy||

    Granted, the stupidity rests with Letterman's writers, who evidently can't tell the Palins apart. To a New Yorker, one Alaska hick looks like another, eh?

    I wouldn't be able to. Hell, other than Sarah the entire Palin household could show up to paint my house and I'd have absolutely no idea who they were. I don't read People magazine, don't watch Larry King, and would rather have drilled bamboo into my dick than watched the Republican national convention, so how would I know what Bristol Palin looks like?

    I think if you spent a little less of your time reading celebrity news websites maybe you'd be less of a fucking pinhead.

  • ||

    Fluffy said: "No one - and I mean no one is stupid enough to think that Letterman wasn't talking about Bristol Palin, since Bristol is the one who was already knocked up before. "

    ed pointed out: "After they showed a clip of Sarah and Willow Palin at the ballgame? "

    Fluffy admits: "other than Sarah the entire Palin household could show up to paint my house and I'd have absolutely no idea who they were. I don't read People magazine, don't watch Larry King, and would rather have drilled bamboo into my dick than watched the Republican national convention, so how would I know what Bristol Palin looks like?"

    I know nothing of this whole imbroglio besides what I've read in this thread. However from that reading it seems to me that Letterman making a joke about the person who was pictured at the ball game makes it pretty clear he (and/or his writers) were referring to _that person_, not that person's sibling. I don't like any of the Palins but how Fluffy thinks "no one [could] think" etc. doesn't make any sense to me.

    Fluffy's rage, while possibly generally understandable, has perhaps produced fuzzy thinking, in this particular case.

  • ||

    fluffy Letterman is retarded on a nightly basis & the only good thing NBC ever did was hire Leno instead of that hayseed schlub. And take a look at photos of Letterboy's recently-married live-in and the ugly kid the two of them spawned out of wedlock and see why this creep from Testicle Tech in Muncie hates women!

    Even NOW hates the creepy Hoosier libtard.

  • ||

    Dude he wasn't a right winger, he was a hard core leftist... Seriously, have you not been paying attention.

  • ||

    There are unconfirmed reports that James W. von Brunn was registered as a Democrat in the state of Maryland

  • ||

    Kilo says:
    ""Especially if you're not able to quote what the report actually says about returning vets""

    Jesse Walker says:
    "Uh...that was a quote from the report."

    Uh.... try responding to that again pal, this time without chopping sentence in half to intentionally avoid the point.

    The complete quote was "if you're not able to quote the report and disagree with it".

    That would of course be a pre-requisite for claiming that it was unfair. So can you do that or not ?

    "Yes, it said that. It also said that the recruits' "skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists--including lone wolves or small terrorist cells--to carry out violence."

    Fantastic. Now can you in any way, shape or form disagree with this assessment ?
    Perhaps you can suggest that this hasn't already occurred, nor that it isn't a gold-plated guarantee that such troops would have such an effect ?
    No ?

    Then you would appear to have no objection at all.

  • ||

    True to form, the NY Times has two bullsh*t "I told you so" opinion pieces this morning. One from their most biased commenter, the increasingly unhinged Krugman, and the other from the dumbest/most solipsistic person to write for the paper, Judith Warner.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/opinion/12krugman.html

    http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/the-wages-of-hate/

    Has the American MSM ever been more committed to points scoring and partisan bias?

  • ||

    So you don't think Muslims have contributed to making a certain level of anti-Semitism acceptable again in many circles?

    Say, in England?

  • Dissent Is The Highest Form Of||

    Members of extremist groups may reveal their affiliations in a number of ways. First, the vehicles they drive often provide clues that can help officers prepare for potential danger before making a stop. Specifically, the extremists' vehicles may sport bumper stickers with antigovernment or pro-gun sentiments; display handmade license plates, plates from jurisdictions that do no exist, or no plates at all; or fit the profile of vehicles driven by known extremist group members in teh area. Additionally, officers may have seen the vehicle or its occupants at locations where extremist groups assemble or may know that the subjects harbor extremist beliefs.

    The occupants of the vehicle may show other signs of extremist group involvement. Drivers who hold antigovernment beliefs may refuse to carry driver's licenses, vehicle registration, proof of insurance, or other forms of identification. Instead, they may present handmade licenses, a cop of the Constitution, a Bible, or political literature. In addition, a records check may reveal minor outstanding warrants. Extremists often fail to satisfy violations of motor vehicle laws, such as registration or license requirements, because they do not feel bound by such laws, and any statements to this effect that drivers make should send a strong signal to officers. Finally, because of their knowledge and experience, officers may be able to recognize indicators of extremist behavior unique to their jurisdiction.

    Once officers decide a subject may hold extremist beliefs, they should develop a plan of action. In fact, preparation remains the key to dealing with extremists.


    "Vehicle Stops Involving Extremist Group Members"
    FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
    December 1999 (2.6 MB PDF)
    (emphasis added)

  • ||

    "The effect isn't to make right-wing terror attacks less likely. It's to make it easier to smear nonviolent, noncriminal figures on the right, just as the most substantial effect of a red scare was to make it easier to smear nonviolent, noncriminal figures on the left."

    See Virginia Postrel's "Fighting Words: Does reading this make you a terrorist?" from the July 1995 issue of Reason.

    Declaring those grievances illegitimate, and those citizens the philosophical allies of murderers, may make a weak president feel strong. But it won't make the grievances go away. And it won't make sleazy rhetoric any less sleazy.



  • Hope & Change||

    "The Militias Are Coming"

    Reason. August/September 1996.

  • ||

    So let me get this straight, a WWI Vet who's own writings show him to be a socialist loving, Jew-Christian-Bill O'Reilly-Bush-hater who thought 9/11 was an inside job shoots a guard in the National Holocaust Museum and that's "right-winged" terrorism.

    2009 is the new 1984

    http://www.arsenalofhypocrisy.com/blog/?p=537

    http://www.arsenalofhypocrisy.com/blog/?p=463

  • Michael Moore||

  • ||

    Typo Alert: WWI should be WWII

  • ||

    Contrast the way the media covered this story with how it covered the shooting of the two soldiers at the recruiting station in Arkansas. In Arkansas a Mulsim convert who had trained overseas shot two soldiers in cold blood. The media at first refused to cover it at all. Then when shamed into covering it, covered it from perspective that everyone understood that this guy was a nut, not representative of Muslims and only a lone actor.

    In this case it is wall to wall coverage. And the coverage is all about how, despite all the evidence to the contrary, this and the murder in Wichita are part of the huge right wing terror threat.

    I think covering these lone wacko type shootings as individual acts and not represented of a trend is the most truthful way to cover them. I therefore do not have a problem with the way the media covered the Arkaansas shootings. But I do have a problem with how they are covering this. And I have a huge problem with the contrast in coverage. They are covering this story big because they think they can smear Republicans with it. It is how a state run media acts. That is all the MSM is these days. And it is getting very creepy.

  • Jesse Walker||

    Uh.... try responding to that again pal, this time without chopping sentence in half to intentionally avoid the point.

    The complete quote was "if you're not able to quote the report and disagree with it".


    With all due respect, it's hard to "intentionally avoid" the point when your point is so difficult to discern. Now you're complaining that I didn't disagree with the report?

    My post basically made two statements about the DHS's comments on veterans. The first is that the remarks about vets were among the reasons the report "came under such fire." That seems indisputable to me. The second is that the recent crimes that allegedly vindicate the report do not vindicate its controversial comments about vets, as none of those crimes were committed by veterans. (Or, at least, by veterans of the relevant wars.) This also seems indisputable to me.

    If you disagree with either of those statements, please explain why. If you think you see another statement on the subject lurking in the post somewhere, please tell me what it is. Thanks.

  • iowahawk||

    Breaking! FBI profilers foil suspected hate crime copycat; elderly Jew-hating racist was Marine veteran, 9-11 Truther, led secretive separatist/supremecist society

  • Joe Max||

    In Arkansas a Mulsim convert who had trained overseas shot two soldiers in cold blood. The media at first refused to cover it at all. Then when shamed into covering it, covered it from perspective that everyone understood that this guy was a nut, not representative of Muslims and only a lone actor.

    OK, so show me examples of left-wing media heroes in the USA (on the cable news commentator level) who claimed the recruiters had it coming to them. Repeatedly. Any cable TV left-wing pundits calling military recruiters "murderers"?

    Even at the height of the Bush years, were any left-wing leaders warning that if pushed too far, the leftist patriots would have no choice but to violently take matters into their own hands?

    Eight years of Chimpy McFlightsuit wasn't enough to drive leftist extremists to murder and domestic terrorism. Six months of Obama is all it took the right wing.

    Equivalency? Sorry, but no.

  • ||

    Joe Max,

    You apparently cannot read. Read the post. I don't think any of these murders are the result of anything other than nuts. If you want to use them as an excuse to shut down lawful free speech you don't like, then you are just a fascist fuck.

  • ||

    It's because the paper blew the threat of right-wing terror out of proportion, just as the Clinton administration did in the '90s;



    Yeah! It's not like some nut blew up a federal building killing 168 innocent civilians!

  • ||

    This is a pointless argument without real evidence to the larger meaning of the event.
    What is clear is that an old man with a history of publishing racist websites murdered a guard at the museum. He should be tried, and if convicted, punished for that murder.

    The strongly-held opinions appearing in the comments on this article seem to me to project the political biases of their writers more than anything else.

  • Jesse Walker||

    Yeah! It's not like some nut blew up a federal building killing 168 innocent civilians!

    And when Debbie Schlussel blames everything from the museum shooting to her ingrown toenail (*) on Islam, she can say, "Yeah! It's not like some Muslims flew two airplanes into the World Trade Center!"

    (* This is a joke. As far as I know, Ms. Schlussel does not have an ingrown toenail.)

  • ||

    Jesse Walker, not quite as nutty as Debbie Schlussel.

    That will fit on a tombstone!

  • ||

    It should be noted that Kos is a veteran.

    The DHS ought to keep an eye on him. He seems to be a bit politically extreme.

  • ||

    Three police officers dead, and you say it can be contained by local police?
    Ambushing the police with assault rifles is ... a little more than most small town cops are equipped for.

  • Joe Max||

    If you want to use them as an excuse to shut down lawful free speech you don't like, then you are just a fascist fuck.

    I don't have the power to "shut down" anyone's speech. I'm pretty much a 1st Amendment absolutist - the answer to speech you don't like is more speech. Just like ther ACLU defending the rights of Nazis in Skokie to march, something I agreed with the ACLU about.

    However, what I'd like to see is for the O'Reillys and Becks and Hannitys own their speech. If they call someone like Dr. Tiller an evil murderer with blood on his hands, they should be celebrating when he gets shot down in cold blood. They should be trumpeting that he deserved what he got, and declare they would be happy to provide the next murderer of an abortion doctor with fresh ammunition to go do it again. When they say that the conservatives will someday be so fed up they will resort to violence, they should celebrate when one of them does it. None of this stupid "walking it back" and absolving themselves of any responsibility.

    Otherwise, they should, in a just universe, STFU.

    We all have one inalienable right: to say or do what we damn well please. But with it comes the one inalienable responsibility: to accept the consequences.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    It should be noted that Kos is a veteran.

    So were many others who are batshit crazy and should be ignored.

  • justaspectator||

    shrike said, "These individual acts of political terror are not the real story - rather its the macro-component prodding of the right-wing new media by the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity who pummel lies into the soft heads of their listeners until the most unhinged of the lot break into a rage and start killing."

    BFO! BLINDING FLASH OF THE OBVIOUS! For you folks out there who are more interested in protecting "your brand of twisted liberties," remember, there's a larger country of civilians who don't share your overt rage and disdain over the election of a black president, freedom of religion (yes, Muslims have the right to worship freely in this country too without fear of persecution), and a society who share more moderate believes than the far right-wing, ultraconservative, neocons who want nothing more than to throw this country into another revolution.

    Backup dudes, stop and reflect what impact you're having on this country before you go on spreading your hate and malicious lies about others!

  • Moneyrunner||

    How the "moderates," while trying to steer an independent course, still buy into Liberal themes.
    Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic writes that Judith Warner (a synonym for the Liberal hive) writes about

    …the recent upsurge in hate crimes, I was struck by what she left out. Two weeks ago, a Muslim extremist shot two soldiers, killing one, outside a recruiting station in Arkansas. Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad acted alone, just as James von Brunn apparently did. He was, like von Brunn, captive to a supremacist ideology that, in his mind, justified the murder of an innocent man. Like von Brunn, authorities said, he had mapped out Jewish targets for potential attack. And yet, no mention of the hate crime committed by a Muslim; …

    That's fine as far as he goes, but then, he buys totally into Warner's smear of the conservative end of the political spectrum.


    …only hate crimes committed by white, right-wing extremists were worthy of mention in Warner's column.



    It takes no time at all to determine that by whatever definition you wish to use, von Brunn was not "right wing." Not unless you want to label anything you don't like "right-wing" - which is what the Judith Warners of this world do.


    Let's look at von Brunn's belief system: he hates Christians, capitalism, Jews, and non-whites.

    If it's "right-wing" to hate Christians? Does that make Pat Robertson a left winger?

    Is it "right-wing" to advocate socialism? Does that make Karl Marx a right winger?

    Is it "right-wing" to hate Jews? Does that make Reverend Jeremiah Wright a right winger?

    Is it "right-wing" to be a white supremacist? Does that mean that the white supremacists who are members of the World Church of the Creator who hate Christianity, advocate euthanasia and abortion, practice vegetarianism and advocate socialism are right wingers?

    Well, to the last question, that is the view from not only the left - in the media and in academia - but among the population as a whole. And if you deny it you are labeled a nut. I maintain that anyone who accepts this position is either a nut or has not done his homework.

    But it's not only absurd, it's a blood libel. And it's the kind of libel that people who make it - who see themselves as good people … well intentioned….make casually because they have been carefully taught. These views are part of the very fabric of their world-view. To deny it now requires a total reframing of their belief system.

    It's the thing that makes the radical polarization of society possible.

  • wizard of oz books||

    With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement