Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
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.
|6.11.09 @ 10:41AM|#
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|6.11.09 @ 10:44AM|#
"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|6.11.09 @ 10:53AM|#
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|6.11.09 @ 10:55AM|#
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.
|6.11.09 @ 10:56AM|#
As a conspiracy nut, I suspect the DHS somehow goaded the guy into it to make their report look better.
Rimfax|6.11.09 @ 11:00AM|#
They're just saying that the violent acts of the SLA and the Weather Underground justified Hoover's harassment of liberal groups.
creech|6.11.09 @ 11:04AM|#
Next we'll be hearing about a need to wire-tap conversations between Tate and CFL supporters.
Syd|6.11.09 @ 11:06AM|#
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.
|6.11.09 @ 11:07AM|#
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|6.11.09 @ 11:07AM|#
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."
Xeones|6.11.09 @ 11:18AM|#
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|6.11.09 @ 11:21AM|#
STOP QUOTING ANDREW SULLIVAN. You'll just encourage that hyperventilating queen.
!</a|6.11.09 @ 11:23AM|#
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|6.11.09 @ 11:24AM|#
He planned to do a mass murder
With a .22? Good thing he'd never heard of those newfangled
"centerfire" calibers.
!</a|6.11.09 @ 11:25AM|#
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|6.11.09 @ 11:25AM|#
Did Jesse just delete his post that I quoted, or is the server playing games?
Jesse Walker|6.11.09 @ 11:27AM|#
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|6.11.09 @ 11:30AM|#
Sorry, I tried to add something to the comment and accidentally deleted it instead. My replacement comment is up at 11:27.
Jesse Walker|6.11.09 @ 11:31AM|#
...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.
|6.11.09 @ 11:37AM|#
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.
|6.11.09 @ 11:38AM|#
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|6.11.09 @ 11:39AM|#
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|6.11.09 @ 11:45AM|#
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.)
|6.11.09 @ 11:46AM|#
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.
|6.11.09 @ 11:50AM|#
"""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|6.11.09 @ 11:54AM|#
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
|6.11.09 @ 12:00PM|#
Their are no whackos, just folks that have chosen to believe in a differing set of moral values.
Jesse Walker|6.11.09 @ 12:02PM|#
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.
|6.11.09 @ 12:05PM|#
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.
|6.11.09 @ 12:20PM|#
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|6.11.09 @ 12:21PM|#
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.
|6.11.09 @ 12:22PM|#
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|6.11.09 @ 12:22PM|#
"Last night on Olbermann's rant"
Olbermann should be in a forced-labor camp.
|6.11.09 @ 12:33PM|#
R C, good points. How about Mr. von Brunn being judged for his actions, not Hamas, nor Hannity?
|6.11.09 @ 12:37PM|#
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.
|6.11.09 @ 12:39PM|#
Letterman, imo, was never funny. I know that some thought he was. Past tense intended.
ed|6.11.09 @ 12:45PM|#
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?
|6.11.09 @ 12:55PM|#
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.
|6.11.09 @ 12:59PM|#
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
Zeb|6.11.09 @ 1:18PM|#
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.
alan|6.11.09 @ 1:22PM|#
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.
alan|6.11.09 @ 1:44PM|#
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|6.11.09 @ 1:52PM|#
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|6.11.09 @ 1:58PM|#
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|6.11.09 @ 2:04PM|#
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|6.11.09 @ 2:06PM|#
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|6.11.09 @ 2:10PM|#
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|6.11.09 @ 2:20PM|#
Saying Lenny Bruce wasn't funny is like saying Buddy Holly didn't rock.
hmm|6.11.09 @ 2:23PM|#
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.
Franklin Harris|6.11.09 @ 2:28PM|#
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.
|6.11.09 @ 2:52PM|#
TAO-
Yeah, as soon as I pressed Submit Comment I knew that you would
jump on that point.
|6.11.09 @ 2:53PM|#
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!
|6.11.09 @ 2:55PM|#
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|6.11.09 @ 3:07PM|#
...that or have Bush's policies put in full force. Enjoy the laws of unintended consequences.
Obama's working on that.
|6.11.09 @ 3:34PM|#
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|6.11.09 @ 3:49PM|#
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|6.11.09 @ 3:54PM|#
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|6.11.09 @ 4:15PM|#
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?"
|6.11.09 @ 4:26PM|#
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|6.11.09 @ 4:28PM|#
Bob Robertson | June 11, 2009, 3:34pm
Hi, Bob! Could you please expand upon this compelling thesis?
Gimlet|6.11.09 @ 5:47PM|#
"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|6.11.09 @ 5:53PM|#
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...
|6.11.09 @ 6:45PM|#
"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.
|6.11.09 @ 7:08PM|#
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|6.11.09 @ 7:24PM|#
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|6.11.09 @ 7:53PM|#
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|6.11.09 @ 10:03PM|#
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.
|6.11.09 @ 10:51PM|#
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.
|6.12.09 @ 12:36AM|#
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.
|6.12.09 @ 2:31AM|#
Dude he wasn't a right winger, he was a hard core leftist... Seriously, have you not been paying attention.
|6.12.09 @ 2:56AM|#
There are unconfirmed reports that James W. von Brunn was registered as a Democrat in the state of Maryland
|6.12.09 @ 5:06AM|#
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.
|6.12.09 @ 5:52AM|#
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?
|6.12.09 @ 8:18AM|#
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|6.12.09 @ 8:26AM|#
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)
|6.12.09 @ 8:32AM|#
"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.
|6.12.09 @ 8:36AM|#
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
|6.12.09 @ 8:51AM|#
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|6.12.09 @ 9:06AM|#
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|6.12.09 @ 9:06AM|#
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|6.12.09 @ 9:59AM|#
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.
|6.12.09 @ 10:28AM|#
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.
|6.12.09 @ 11:34AM|#
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!
|6.12.09 @ 11:47AM|#
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|6.12.09 @ 12:11PM|#
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.)
|6.12.09 @ 12:37PM|#
Jesse Walker, not quite as nutty as Debbie Schlussel.
That will fit on a tombstone!
|6.12.09 @ 12:51PM|#
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.
|6.12.09 @ 2:04PM|#
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|6.12.09 @ 2:22PM|#
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|6.12.09 @ 8:49PM|#
It should be noted that Kos is a veteran.
So were many others who are batshit crazy and should be
ignored.
justaspectator|6.13.09 @ 11:42AM|#
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|6.13.09 @ 3:43PM|#
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.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245