Newsweek Cannot Help But Follow Media Tradition of Panic Over Right Wing Extremists


Newsweek misses the '90s. Or maybe just 2009. But to be fair to the tanking chunk of old media, this week's cover article by R.M. Schneiderman isn't as bad as it could be. It's mostly just the story of John Matthews, a man who spent two decades undercover for the FBI, moling about various "extremist" groups. It's certainly an interesting human interest story. But Newsweek wouldn't be Newsweek if they didn't paint with broad strokes:

"What we're seeing today is a resurgence," says Daryl Johnson, the former senior domestic terrorism analyst for the Department of Homeland Security. In 2009, the department issued a report warning that "right-wing extremism is likely to grow in strength." And because today's extremists, unlike their predecessors, have at their disposal online information—bomb-making instructions and terrorist tactics—as well as social-networking tools, the report said, "the consequences of their violence [could be] more severe."

The report, which was quickly withdrawn after an outcry from conservatives, seemed prescient months later when an 88-year-old gunman opened fire on visitors at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. Last year, nine members of the Hutaree, a Christian militia, were arrested in a plot to kill police officers in Michigan. In January, Jared Lee Loughner, an Army reject, was charged with going on a shooting rampage in Tucson, Ariz., killing a federal judge, among others, and severely wounding Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Earlier this month, the FBI arrested four men of pensionable age in Georgia for allegedly plotting to attack federal buildings and release biological toxins on government employees.

That report, of course, was the one which included description of right wing extremist groups as including people who "reject.. federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or reject…government authority entirely." (Look Ma, I'm a right wing extremist! So is Lysander Spooner!) And the easy way that Schneiderman equates a murderous old kook, a dubious plot to kill police from the over-hyped threat of the Hutaree militia — who were so dangerous they were freed on bail before their trial — and most absurdly, the apolitically unhinged Jared Lee Loughner, is telling. It's about the level of nuance that the DHS displayed in the aforementioned memo.

It's also the level of nuance displayed in's recent four-part Kalispell-Montana-is-full-of-crazies series, perhaps brought on by some fresh Southern Poverty Law Center panic. The bare bones of it is mostly just a rehashing of AP and Gawker's nervousness from early this summer. All of them casually lump together admitted racists, alleged racists, anti-government types of all stripes, people who have actually committed violence, and people who have merely talked about it.

There are some familiar names who shouldn't provoke this level of nail-biting terror; Stewart Rhodes who founded the Oath Keepers; Randy Weaver, whose paranoia of government should really get a pass at this point; Chuck Baldwin, formerly of the Constitution Party, and currently of lots of hiding away in Montana and lots of vaguely militaristic and paranoid calls to strength type-talk. None of them have committed violence. Even the nasty actual racist April Gaede just has some very nasty friends. (But her daughters, whom she shoved into white power show business have renounced those beliefs and now they want to legalize pot!)

So in a not-so-bad human interest story, why does Schneiderman write the following about the Waco debacle, which is mandatory to mention several times in any piece like this? First some nuance from the subject, John Matthews:

In some ways, he recalls some sympathy for Posey's hatred of government; Ruby Ridge and Waco had angered Matthews; they had heightened his fears of growing federal power. But Matthews didn't buy any of the extremists' New World Order nonsense. And he certainly didn't think the answer was killing police officers or FBI agents.

Great! But just kidding; sloppy reporting on Waco is also mandatory. Writes Schnederman, "Federal agents and white separatists were in a standoff at a compound in Waco, Texas." Their status as white separatists must have come as a great surprise to the multi-racial group before they were burnt to death. The laziness of that passage reminds me of Salon's slide-show from March 2010 titled "A history of anti government rage and violence." It included as examples the New York draft riots, Vietnam War protests, Jonestown, and Waco — where they described the 76 dead Davidians as having died in a shoot-out. 

Jesse Walker on "the paranoid center," on how the Southern Poverty Law Center over-hypes militias, and on militias and violent rhetoric. Radley Balko's interview with Stewart Rhodes. Reason's April 2011 issue devoted to "The Loughner Panic."

NEXT: No More Foreign Aid Funding For Defense Department's Delusional Nation Builders, Says Bill Easterly

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Federal Government is the only institution which historically has helped minorities. It is the only institution which continues to improve the lives of minorities, through welfare. Therefore, if you are against the Federal Government, you are against helping minorities, which makes you a…RRAAAACCIISSTT!!!

    /leftist thought process

    1. yes, I get down on my knees every day and thank the federal government for helping me get joyfully reunited with my former massa via the Fugitive Slave Law.

      1. Seriously? Because I revel in the fact that the Supreme Court has codified Jim Crow as a legal institution. Long live separate but equal!

        1. Looks like being a KronyKoch pays-off.

          To: James W. Giddens, Trustee, SIPA Liquidation of MF Global, Inc. and Martin Glenn, United States Bankruptcy Judge

          From: Cathy Cuthbert

          RE: MF Global Heist

          I am a lucky, former MF Global client. Unfortunately, I’m not a multi-billionaire who got the memo. I had a modest account that was supplying me with a modest livelihood, when suddenly one Monday afternoon, my account was frozen, my livelihood was essentially gone and four years worth of trading profits vanished into cyber space. […]

          What could destroy the religioeconomic dogma of “free” markets more than a KronyKoch who got the memo just before the heist?

          1. Holy shit, I wonder if Reason will cover this story, and give you a hat tip! 😉

          2. What memo? I didn’t see one thing about a memo.

            Yet many customers pulled out a large sum of cash before the company declared bankruptcy on October 31

            “Everybody and their brother started pulling money out early,” said one commodity hedge fund manager who withdrew some of his funds prior to MF Global’s fall

            In total, customers pulled out more than a third of their accounts in the three months leading up to MF Global’s downfall, much of that in the frenzied final days, traders reckon.

            For instance, privately held Koch Industries — whose businesses make it a leading commodities trader — sent a letter to trading partners on October 3 saying it was switching eight accounts from MF Global to Mizuho Securities USA.

            So Koch was just one of many to pull their money out, and didn’t even do it until the run was well underway (it started in August). Yet only they are singled out in the article. Why?

            Yeah, we know why.

          3. Right, those evil Koch brothers found “inside” information all over Bloomberg and the entire financial press saying that MF Global was struggling, proving once again that the average Joe can’t catch a break when competing with billionaires who read the newspaper.

            Cathy sounds like the kind of person who would smell smoke in a crowded nightclub and figure it’s nothing, and then stand there with a dumb tharn look on her face and burn to death while the Koch Brothers exit the club in an orderly fashion.

    2. Jennifer? Is that you?

  2. Also, excellent alt-text.

    Riggs, take notice.

    1. I am too old for this shit.

  3. In b4 someone objects to being categorized as “right wing”.

  4. There was a shootout between ATF and Branch Davidians weeks before the final “accident” at Waco, so it’s possible the writer was just confused.

    Of course, which side initiated the shootout is an open question that will probably never be definitively known because the ATF “lost” the door to the compound and most other physcial evidence that could have shed light on it.

  5. For some reason I can’t see the Salon slide show, I just get redirected back to the article. I wonder if it includes the Seattle anti-glob riots or the Rodney King riots, or John Brown’s Harpers Ferry slave revolt?

    1. Probably includes the Civil War and the War of Independence and all the Indian Wars.

      1. Heh, I was just wondering because the three examples I gave are things that lefties tend to at least semi-approve of. (I approve of the Harpers Ferry one myself, too)

        1. What about the Pottawatomie Massacre?

    2. Yeah, I don’t get why it seems busted. Perhaps the shame of factual inaccuracy was too great!

      But yes, as to the above, I know about the initial shoot-out, but they lazily said that all 76 people died that way. Totally wrong.

      Props for your withering use of quotes, as well.

      1. And that is how the state will wither away.

  6. Jonestown was anti-government rage and violence? That would probably be news to Jim Jones, who was a self-admitted communist.

    1. People who start communes tend to be communists.

      1. That’s just a paternalistic, right-wing narrative.

        Seriously, though – the “left” seems to be trying to reverse Hitler’s dictum. They’re trying to win by re-writing history.

        1. I think there was a guy who wrote a book about a society that did just that. I wish I could remember which book it was, but I do remember that shit didn’t end well for Winston.

          1. Yeah, but it all turned out okay for O’Brien, which is the important thing.

      2. And, as we all know, mass murderers.

      3. People who start communes tend to be communists.

        Not necessarily; you can start a voluntary commune without favoring forcing the entire society to become a commune.

        1. Try telling that to communitarians who could, if they so chose, start their own commune.

          It’s not about having their society, but about forcing everyone to support it for them.

          1. Not all of them. The Farm was a hippie commune where people actually had / have to work if they want to live there, and it’s still around.

            1. Broken clock, right twice, etc.

              Tell that to the OWS kind of communitarians.

              1. One positive to places like that is that it’s an effective argument against the whole “this can’t be done in a capitalist economy” bullshit.

                Presuming, of course, that the person isn’t completely intellectually dishonest.

                1. That’s one hell of a presumption. I’d bet that fewer than 1 in 10,000 lefties would concede to the possible effectiveness in a capitalistic society.

                  It also seems to me that the less government interference in the economy there is, the more possible it is for those who don’t like capitalism to engage in experiments like these.

                  But like I said; it isn’t about living in their utopia so much as it is forcing others to support it.

          2. Part of having a commune is not allowing rogue people to pick up and leave when the going gets tough. If we tried to implement this obvious fact in the commune, the current authorities would mistakenly consider us guilty of kidnapping or unlawful detention or something.

            1. mustard|11.21.11 @ 8:47PM|#
              “Part of having a commune is not allowing rogue people to pick up and leave when the going gets tough.”

              Spoof or ignorance? You decide.

            2. Hey, mustard… are you still having wet dreams about a nationwide involuntary commune? Or even a worldwide version?

            3. “Do these jackboots make my ass look huge? Be honest, now.”

        2. Saint Benedict was a communist?

          1. If any founder of a commune is communist, I agree with you, but communists tend to want to force people to join their collective, and to expand it over an entire country.

    2. Episiarch|11.21.11 @ 8:15PM|#
      “Jonestown was anti-government rage and violence? That would probably be news to Jim Jones, who was a self-admitted communist.”

      Jim Jones spent his entire career selling votes to lefty candidates in SF (are there any others?).
      “They [who wanted to leave the cult] tried to raise a public outcry against Jones and his cult in order to free their own family members from the clutches of the cult. […] But Jones and his cult were protected by Jones’ political influence within the Democratic establishment of the San Francisco area and the local media”
      Wanna make Willie Brown hem and haw? Ask him about Jim Jones:
      “Willie Brown proclaimed that he believed Jim Jones was part Martin Luther King, part Albert Einstein?, part Angela Davis?, part Mao Zedong?. “When somebody like Jim Jones comes on the scene,” Brown ironically gushed, “that absolutely scares the hell out of most everybody occupying positions of power in the system.”
      And Moonbeam?:
      “Jones delivered votes for Jerry Brown’s campaign for governor. As governor, Brown ordered the Temple’s records removed from San Francisco to Sacramento just weeks after the Jonestown murders”
      (squirrels don’t like three links)

      1. Expect a fusillade of “nuh-uh”s from our resident lefists over that post, sevo.

    3. yea. this blows libs minds. i can’t recall if the docudrama i saw when i was a kid on the jones compound glossed over it, but on any leftwing website, even when jones is brought up, there is never an acknowledgement that he was about as far left as you can get. he hobnobbed with the San Fran power elite and several well known libs were on record as feting him…. before that pesky “mass murder” thing

  7. You’d think that with all of the fear-mongering concerning “extremist right wing groups” we’d be overrun with violence and bombings and shootings.

    You’d also think that those who buy in to this shit would be able to ask themselves “If they’re such a threat, where is the violence?” but that would mean they’d actually have to question their worldview.

    Of course this is all at a time when left wing radicals are ACTUALLY engaging in ACTUAL violence and rampant private property destruction. But remember folks, it’s the right wing extremists that are the danger!

    1. Left-wing extremists have noble intentions. That excuses everything.

      In all seriousness, I’ve written papers in college about why people seem to excuse communist/socialist mass violence, while quaking in fear of nazies or fascists.

      Honestly, I think it just comes down to, “Workers of the world, unite!” is a much more feel-good slogan than, “Hey – let’s kill the blacks and jews!”

      Communists kill people because they’re trying to make a better world for everyone, and unfortunate excesses occur. Omlette, eggs, etc. They’ll get it right next time.

      Fascists kill people just for the fuck of it, because they don’t like the way they look. That’s not nearly as powerful a narrative.

      1. The liberals I know don’t really excuse violence from the left (globally) but moreso highlight that, historically in this country, the terroristic violence has come from conservative impulses. KKK.

        1. Just about every lefty I know not only excuses violence committed by lefties, but they actually place blame on the victims of said violence.

          In Greece, it’s because capitalism drove them to it (the actual response I got from a lefty friend of mine concerning the violence in Greece – one who rails on about imaginary right wing violence on the regular – was “Capitalism. End of story.”). With OWS it’s the 1% who is at fault. The excuses for lefty violence never cease.

          1. You and I have different friends. I realize most state sactioned violence in the world has had leftish roots.

            But American liberals are different. American liberals haven’t killed off masses of people by systematically abridging their rights.

            Yes, American liberals do love the state, and they do sanction violation of individual rights, but the history of violence in America is dominated by the right. The terror that was slavery and then Redemption in the Jim Crowe South was very socially conservative.

            The left has Oswald for terrorism in the US. What or who else? It pales in comparison to the systemic terror and violation of civil rights in the south from 1870 to 1960.

            1. American liberals haven’t killed off masses of people by systematically abridging their rights.

              Yet. Give them time and some help from the Stupid Party. Maybe they won’t have to go so far as to commit genocide. I nice, cozy police state will do.

              I wouldn’t go so far as to call leftists monsters, but they definitely come from the Duranty school of politics. Mostly.

              1. Which stupid party? Or both?

                1. Well, it’s certainly not the Evil Party.

                  But. no, no reason they can’t both be both.

            2. I’ll take Eugenics for a thousand, Alex.

              1. What family planning pioneer said, “Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”?

            3. Right and left didn’t exist in American politics until the 20th century — geographic sectionalism was much more important than ideological division — so pinning the CSA on “right wingers” is ridiculous.

              Oh, and the socialists and Jim Crow supporters were political allies during the period you describe. So you’re doubly full of it.

            4. Right and left didn’t exist in American politics until the 20th century — geographic sectionalism was much more important than ideological division — so pinning the CSA on “right wingers” is ridiculous.

              Oh, and the socialists and Jim Crow supporters were political allies during the period you describe. So you’re doubly full of it.

              1. Very true about right and left existence in American politics. I would say our current balance mostly settled in during the cold war.

                I would think the geographic sectionalism largely translates to the North being more socially liberal than the south. There were big ideological divisions going on during and right after the Civil war. I also never called the CSA explicitly right wing. I would say they were socially conservative. Economically they were illiterate. But it is certainly a different sort of illiteracy compared to todays liberal.

                All I can say is social liberals today are shocked more than any social conservative I’ve ever met concerning slavery.

                1. Actually the current right/left balance comes from Nixon’s strategy to get the southern white christian conservatives to stop voting democrat.

              2. Damn, Tulpa… the ‘net squirrels hit you thrice.

                1. That should teach the fucker to pay proper tribute.

            5. Right and left didn’t exist in American politics until the 20th century — geographic sectionalism was much more important than ideological division — so pinning the CSA on “right wingers” is ridiculous.

              Oh, and the socialists and Jim Crow supporters were political allies during the period you describe. So you’re doubly full of it.

            6. Your reading of late 19th and early 20th century American history is dreadfully incomplete. Racism during that era was widely embraced by the political persuasion that Americans call “liberal”; i.e., favoring an expansion of government authority for the betterment of society at large. During that era, these folks referred to themselves as progressives, a description that is again in vogue.

              Teddy Roosevelt, originally a Republican advocate of an expanded federal government, trustbusting President, and founder of the Progressive Party: “Nineteenth-century democracy needs no more complete vindication for its existence than the fact that it has kept for the white race the best portions of the new world’s surface.”
              In other words, ain’t it swell that the white race has supplanted the aboriginal people in North America, Australia, and South Africa? “The world would have halted,” he once wrote, “had it not been for the Teutonic conquests in alien lands.” In Cuba, he dismissed the people he was supposedly liberating: “The Cuban soldiers were almost all blacks and mulattoes… They were utterly unable to make a serious fight against even a very inferior number of Spanish troops.” Regarding Hawaii: “It was a crime against the United States, it was a crime against white civilization, not to annex it two years and a half ago.”

              Or maybe Walt Whitman, Clinton’s favorite poet of the era:
              “I see the savage types, the bow and arrow, the poison’d splint, the fetich, and the obi.
              I see African and Asiatic towns,…
              You Austral negro, naked, red, sooty, with protrusive lip, groveling, seeking your food!
              You Caffre, Berber, Soudanese!
              You haggard, uncouth, untutor’d Bedowee!
              You plague-swarms in Madras, Nankin, Kaubul, Cairo!
              You benighted roamer of Amazonia! you Patagonian! you Feejee-man!”
              Much like today’s liberals, Whitman thought the “black, divine-soul’d African” was “dim-descended”, though deserving of “equal terms with me”. Gotta give credit where credit is due.

              Or, maybe Woody Wilson, the Democratic president sworn in by a Klansman and big-government, internationalist progressive whose Administration re-segregated the Federal Government: “segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you [black] gentlemen.” When the startled journalist William Monroe Trotter objected, Wilson essentially threw him out of the White House. “Your manner offends me,” Wilson told him. Blacks all over the country complained about Wilson, but the president was unmoved. “If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me,” he told The New York Times in 1914, “they ought to correct it.” Wilson also heaped praise upon Griffith’s 1915 film “The Birth of a Nation”, which is essentially a Klan recruiting flick: “It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.” It’s a historical fact that the black politicians that the film ridicules were all Republicans; the white Klansmen that it praises were all Democrats.

              1. Cato, under the assumption that you are directing that at me.

                Progessivism spanned republicans and democrats, as illustrated by your mentions of Roosevelt and Wilson, who hated each other, but were both progressives. Teddy always considered himself conservative (as silly as that is on its face). So does John McCain. Liberals today have largely taken up the progressive torch. But progressivism was distinct from social conservatism, best illustrated again by todays liberal. They have the desire to basically view the country as a garden and want to cultivate it to their hearts content. But they don’t have the socially conservative heart of their progressive ancestors.

                Whitman was celebrating what he saw as savage beauty and I don’t know why you bring him in. I know Emerson was a fan, but I don’t think the powers that be at the times had him on their radar.

                Concerning Woody, I share any disgust you have with him. I would add that not only did he endorse BOAN, but Griffith and Dixon used Wilson’s academic work as source material for the above mentioned film. But, I can’t call him socially liberal. Because he wasn’t. He was a liberal in the progressive sense of cultivating society by using government as his tool, but he was certainly also socially conservative. He didn’t want to extend de facto rights to anyone. Social liberals do. At least such is how I understand it.

                1. Also Cato, the progressive movement gained steam well after the Civil war and Reconstruction/Redemption. The terror that ruled the South predates progressivism in power by a generation. Which is to say, progressives didn’t start the lynchings, they just let them keep on going. But so did most everyone else.

                2. I guess the main problem with your commentary is that you’re being squishy with the labels. Republican/Democrat and liberal/conservative have referred to very different philsophies favored by very different groups over the time period in question. I mean, during most of that duration blacks were steadfast Republicans and the southern whites were uniformly Democratic, so tossing around those labels like they have the same meaning as today is incorrect.

                  Even the meaning of “social conservative” has changed, since the societies that such persons have been trying to conserve have themselves been very different. For instance, a social conservative in 1780 was a staunch monarchist who believed in a landed aristocracy and divine right, so trying to treat today’s social conservatives as somehow linked to those ideas would be ridiculous. But that’s exactly what you’re doing in your analysis of liberal vs. conservative histories of violence (and btw, during the 19th century the ‘liberals’ were libertarians).

                  For some reason liberals seem to think the definitions locked in in 1932 and their defense of 75-year-old New Deal programs and the welfare state in general doesn’t make them conservatives. Fish don’t feel the water, I guess.

                  1. I can see how it can look like squishy use of labels. It’s hard because of all the co-opting of terms to be precise. I agree that trying to retrofit terms such as liberal and conservative is a fools errand. I started down that road and didn’t do a very good job of being clear as to what I meant. I didn’t care to write a history book, but apologize if it seems I was playing fast and loose.

                    In the history of violence of the U.S., I think slavery and then the Jim Crow South were the two most horrific epochs. Would you agree or not? And then, I simply add that in most of the rest of the modern world, by contrast most coercion has had clearly leftish roots. (I view National Socialism as born of the left as described by Hayek in The Road to Serfdom). I’m not so sure the terrorism in the U.S. which was slavery (and it’s offspring Jim Crow) came from any similar place.

                    The U.S. history of violence is unique. I think modern liberals still get scared by what they perceive to be its shadow.

            7. KKK was a democrat institution; Abraham Lincoln was a republican. Just thought I’d throw that in here.

        2. “The liberals I know don’t really excuse violence from the left (globally) but moreso highlight that, historically in this country, the terroristic violence has come from conservative impulses. KKK.”

          Confirmation bias is indeed much nicer than overt lies. but still makes their logic wrong.

      2. Joke I once heard: “Okay, I see the broken eggs. Now where’s this omlette of yours?”

      3. “In all seriousness, I’ve written papers in college about why people seem to excuse communist/socialist mass violence, while quaking in fear of nazies or fascists”…..gewanted=1
        It’s a shame it disappeared, but when this article ran in the SF Chron, they featured a photo of a Soviet poster.
        My question is why didn’t they include a Nazi poster? The Nazis killed far fewer.

      4. The real distinction is that national socialism inherently cannot get good PR outside of national boundaries. The untermensche residing in foreign lands tend to regard it as hostile to their interests.

        1. Say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.

          1. The OWS nihilists have been getting some pretty bad PR, too.

            1. Crapping all over town square tends to have that effect.

      5. Communists kill people because they’re trying to make a better world for everyone, and unfortunate excesses occur. Omlette, eggs, etc. They’ll get it right next time.

        Fascists kill people just for the fuck of it, because they don’t like the way they look.


        Fascists kill people for the same reason that socialist do, because they both think it will make a better world.

        The only difference is in the way that they imagine society’s perfection.

        1. His point was that the narrative described above is incorrect sir, just as you have doubly pointed out.

    2. The Right-wing militias are too busy hanging out with the Islamofascists the Right is warning us about.

  8. Not enough links.

  9. If you want to see left-wing loons in action, and nakedly hating and targeting anybody or any institution to the right of Che Guevara, you should check into the Montana Human Rights Network. These filthy bastards make a taxpayer-funded LIVING off of desperate low-rent shit like this.

    1. Show us on the doll where the nasty liberals touched you.

      1. They touched me on my sense of fairness and my ability to reason, and my disdain for strawmen to advance a false agenda, and even on my pocketbook to get more funding for more of their false accusations and dubious research! Where did they touch you? And did you have a towel to wipe it up?

        1. To me (and, I assume, for you), fairness is everybody working for their shit, not stealing from others, and getting to keep the fruits of their labors. Fairness is not being unjustly constrained by government. Fairness is a level playing field in which government DOES NOT SHIT.

          To him and his ilk, fairness is equality before all else. Financial equality. Educational equality. EVERYTHING equality. Fuck liberty, and fuck justice. Workers of the world, unite!

          I wouldn’t use that word around statists if I were you.

          1. fairness is everybody working for their shit

            I don’t care if people worked for what they’ve got. If their parents just handed it to them on a silver platter, that’s fine by me. As long as they didn’t fucking steal it, they’re welcome to it.

            1. That, too – I was emphasizing my anti-handouts radicalism

        2. It’s fun to poke mustard with a wooden spoon, Jamie, but it will never learn the error of its ways.

      2. You’re so original. mustard. how the fuck do you do it? Must be exhausting outputting bon mots by the shit load, and to do so to our great fortune.

  10. …says Daryl Johnson…

    Who the fuck cares what some dumb jock has to say about right-wing extremeism? Just tell me if the Cowboys will cover the spread next week.

    1. Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaryl, Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaryl, Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaryl, Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaryl, Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaryl…..

          1. I MADE MY CHOICE.

            1. You chose…poorly.

  11. Are the Newsweek editors the only people in the country who have not yet heard that Jared Loughner had nothing to do with the Right Wing?

    1. The Newsweek editors know perfectly well that Loughner had NOTHING to do with the right wing, but they purposefully lump him in with the right wing because it furthers their agenda.

      That’s how intellectually dishonest the left is. They will peddle what they know to be absolute lies because they know that otherwise, they got nothin’.

      1. I know that at least for the last twenty years Newsweek has had no concern for reporting the truth. It basically took Time magazines lead in that regard. They’re both chock full lies. Whatever it takes to further the leftist agenda. Those types of media are the reason the OW’ers exist in the first place. They have no concept of what the true reality in the world is because they’ve constently been lied to.

  12. The US has never had to go to war to defend itself against a major left-wing extremist power. Gadaffi, Al-Qaeda, Saddam, Hitler, Bismarck, Spain, the CSA, Mexico, and King George were all right-wing.

    So if you actually think about it, it’s natural to be more concerned with right-wing extremists than with left-wing extremists, if there is such a thing.

    1. Must Turd:
      You keep using the phrase “right wing.” I do not think it means what you think it means.
      America has gone to war not against the “right wing” or a chicken wing. It’s gone to war (far too often) to police the fucking world, only because it was convinced to mostly by leftist presidents like FDR and LBJ.
      You’re as dumb as a fucking brick.


        And LBJ? God, man, LBJ was once a TEACHER. How can you doubt a TEACHER?

        1. And FDR was/is a faith healer.

    2. “left-wing extremists, if there is such a thing”

      Fucking unbelievable. That is the most laughable phrase I’ve read in 20 years.

      1. In a political psychology course I took the professor said it was impossible for left-wingers to be authoritarians.

        I asked if Castro is left-wing and he said he was left-wing until he took over and then became a right-wing authoritarian.

        I still don’t get it.

        1. “You either die a left-winger or live long enough to become a right-winger.”

          He was probably using the definition of “liberal” as being against the status quo and “conservative” as being for it. Which of course doesn’t line up with the usual characterization (there’s little more “status quo” than Social Security and Medicare, for instance).

          1. Liberals are fine with questioning authority, provided that it stops once they’re in charge.

          2. That is how I eventually recognized it as well. But if I hadn’t questioned it, every leftist moron in the room would’ve be repeating this crap.

        2. Also, I get tired of the one dimensional left-right paradigm. I prefer the the Political Compass which basically destroys the idea of authoritarianism being only right or left wing.

          1. Baicially, it is a two dimensional plane with the horizontal plane being economics (redistributionist on the left, capitalist on the right) and social issues on the vertical plane (authoritarianism on top, libertarianism/anarachism at the bottom).

            The quiz takes a little time, but is pretty thorough. I take issue with the phrasing of a few questions, but it is satisfactory.

            1. I don’t know which came first, but that’s similar to the Nolan Chart.

              1. On economics I scored 7.75 (right)

                On social I scored -4.56 (down)

                1. On Economic I was 8.12(right)
                  On Social I was -4.77 (down)

                  Looks like we were pretty close. I would bet that might work out that way for a lot of libertarians…

            2. Dividing things into economic and “social” issues (whatever that means) is where the bias gets introduced, though. It’s more like “things libertarians agree with conservatives on” and “things libertarians agree with liberals on”.

              Are gun rights economic or social? How about eminent domain? School choice?

              1. I would also add international affairs to the list.

                But this still adds more perspective in comparing ideologies then the left is communist, right is fascist one.

                1. Well, that’s because the right isn’t fascistic at all. Fascism is anathema to the basic precepts of the ‘right’. fascism is to the ‘right’ of Communism, but both are still on the left side of the spectrum. Ideologies based on race are there(races are collectives), ideologies based on religions(supreme central authority) are there as well.

                  Most of what is truly ‘right’ is theory and speculation because humanity has not progressed to the point where it contains only voluntary collectives.

        3. the professor said it was impossible for left-wingers to be authoritarians.

          “Fuck me! I don’t EXIST! AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH — !!!”

          [::disappears in sudden gout of eldritch fire::]

      2. They’re called college professors. Most of them used to genuninely believe in violent revolution against capitalism before becoming dedicated to wealth redistribution via peaceful obfuscation.

        1. +1000

          That’s the heart of it.

        2. dedicated to wealth redistribution via peaceful obfuscation.

          Seriously lol’ing at this phrase.

          1. And their students have learned well from them.

            Strategically speaking, there is a very real danger that if we naively put our cards on the table and rally around the “overthrow of capitalism” or some equally outworn utopian slogan, then our Tahrir moment will quickly fizzle into another inconsequential ultra-lefty spectacle soon forgotten. But if we have the cunning to come up with a deceptively simple Trojan Horse demand ? something profound, yet so specific and doable that it is impossible for President Obama to ignore ? something that spotlights Wall Street’s financial capture of the US political system and confronts it with a pragmatic solution ? like the reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act ? or a 1% tax on financial transactions ? or an independent investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice into the corporate corruption of our representatives in Washington ? or another equally creative but downright practical demand that will emerge from the people’s assemblies held during the occupation ? and if we then put our asses on the line, screw up our courage and hang in there day after day, week after week, until a large swath of Americans start rooting for us and President Obama is forced to respond ? then we just might have a crack at creating a decisive moment of truth for America, a first concrete step towards achieving the radical changes we all dream about unencumbered by commitments to existing power structures.

            If we cleverly obfuscate our message behind some message that everyone can agree with (say, a message like WE ARE THE 99%), we can sneak our real agenda in through the back door!

            1. Adbusters just got upgraded to outright evil.

            2. they’re toast and they know it.

              1. Yep. They know that dogs of certain political breeds won’t hunt. Not even in a USA with a shitload of dumb ass Team BLUE voters will some slightly altered version of the Marx and Engels Reader have any room to move.

                They have no message because any message they could have is a lie. A coverup. And they’re fully aware of it. They’re just hoping that most of America somehow dumber than they are, and go for it.

                It’s hard to survive as a popular political movement that way for too long, especially when the progressive stack controls every facet of their idea of a democracy.

                They want straight-up authoritarianism, right up to the point where they can bend the meaning of equality.

              2. And even worse is that they still have explicit HOPE that Obama will do what they elected him to do: take over the American financial sector and CHANGE it in their image.

                It’s kind of sad to see their cry for help to their overlord savior.

    3. mustard|11.21.11 @ 8:43PM|#
      “The US has never had to go to war to defend itself against a major left-wing extremist power.”

      Yeah, Kruschev wasn’t quite ignorant enough.

    4. Hitler was a socialist. Al Quaeda is anti capitalist. Bismark invented the welfare state. Basically every group you mentioned since the left abandoned liberalism at the turn of the century opposed free market capitalism.

      opposition to free markets defines the left.

      1. Indeed.

        Qadhafi, ideologically speaking, was a left-wing anarchist, combined with his own little unique mix of Islamism and pan-Arabism.

        Yes, I am the one person in the world outside of Libya who actually read his Green Book.

        Fuck, why am I even bothering? He’s clearly ignorant.

        1. Left-wing anarchist in the sense that the state took over everything, and then deemed its institutions ‘the people,’ operating under the fiction there was no actual state separate from them.

    5. Ever hear of Korea? Vietnam?

      Ever hear of the Cold War?

    6. Gadaffi, Al-Qaeda, Saddam, Hitler, Bismarck, Spain, the CSA, Mexico, and King George were all right-wing.

      And this means alot to me. Why? Because YOU said it.

      1. The fact that they were all male is truly significant

  13. Me and the dudes at the local range could form a much more effective militia than Mr. I Hate Niggers, Jr in the hills of Tennessee, or whatever the fuck they’re supposed to be according to Newsweek. Why fear Bible-thumping, sniveling retards, Newsweek? The federales have it all under control.

    Ice Nine, I’m sure they know — they’re just full of shit.

  14. OT: The American Letter Mail Company was started by Lysander Spooner in 1844, competing with the legal monopoly of the United States Post Office (USPO) (now the USPS) in violation of the Private Express Statutes. It succeeded in delivering mail for lower prices, but the U.S. Government challenged Spooner with legal measures, eventually forcing him to cease operations in 1851.[1]

    I didn’t know that, but why I am not at all surprised?

    1. Lysander Motherfuckin’ Spooner

      1. He is the man.

    2. Lysander Spooner is a complete badass. Highly recommend reading No Treason, particularly Part III about taxation.

    3. Commenter pro tip: Lysander Spooner is never, ever off topic.

    1. Was that a politician giving his honest opinion? Amazing.

    2. I love watching Farage and Hannan talking to European Parliament. It’s like they are trolling a statist forum, but irl.

  15. So does this mean Democrats and liberals are embracing things like the Patriot Act and enhanced police powers for the FBI, DHS, and state law enforcement agencies, provided they be used against anyone that doesn’t like centralized authority?

    1. Haven’t they always?

      1. libs on DU etc. LOVE europe. when you point out that most europeans countries have far fewer civil liberties via speech and fewer protections in regards to search and seizure etc. … you get cognitive dissonance overdrive.

        many of these countries have NO exclusionary.

        many of these countries, one’s choice to be silent CAN be used against you (england comes to mind).

        fuck, the amanda knox trial was the perfect example

        they prosecuted her parents for “libeling the police”. iow criticizing them. can’t happen here.

        they LOVE an all powerful state, as long as it is leftwing

        they decry laws like arizona’s proposed immigration law that would allow cops , based on RS to check citizenship status, but ignore that in some european countries, one is required upon reaching 16 yoa to carry such papers at all times. in france, until recently, cops could ask for them for NO reason whatsoever


  16. The only thing Newsweek has going for it is that Niall Ferguson writes an occasional article for them.

  17. It’s unbelievable to me that people are still caught up in dualities like “right wing” and “left wing.”
    This is a tortured metaphor, but there are only free wings until some cunt comes along and clips them.
    Whether you fight for a proletariat revolution or a nigger-free state, you are just another of the cunts.
    There is control of the people, and there is at least a semblance of allow people their freedom.
    “Left” and “right” have nothing to do with it.

    1. I had a high school history teacher who taught that it was really a circle where the far “left” and far “right” eventually join at Totalitarianism/Fascism. Ask any one in the media or other entertainment industries about the National Socialist Party and to them it’s common knowledge that they were right wing extremist even though their Central Planning is still a blueprint for the progressives that admired them at the time of their rise.

      1. That’s how it was explained to me in high school and inferred in earlier years. Actually, looking back, all of my history teachers in high school were libertarian leaning.

        1. i had this total socialist ninny who was CERTAIN that we would have the metric system within a few years


      2. That’s how I learned it too. Once you get to the state controlling everything it doesn’t matter the “why”.

      3. I had a high school history teacher who taught that it was really a circle where the far “left” and far “right” eventually join at Totalitarianism/Fascism.

        But it’s not. If you actually use the precepts that form the base of what is called ‘right wing’ you can’t get to fascism. You can’t get to any kind of totalitarianism because as the idea winds towards it’s extremes you get smaller and smaller parts, utterly independent and internally voluntary until you hit the wall at completely self sufficient individuals that need nothing from any other individual. That’s the end of the ‘far right’.

        The circle is a leftist ploy to make you think that some kind of collectivisation is inevitable.

    2. right wing = free market capitalism
      left wing = totalitarian communism

      yes, there is a real duality at the heart of it. all the other peripheral shit is just a hook. thats the heart of the matter.

  18. So, anyone else seen any other conspiracy theories about PATCON around the same time as this article came out?

    While I’m tempted to dismiss them as right-wing nuttery, the guys that brought them up are the same guys that first started pushing the Fast and Furious story, so who knows.

  19. Seriously, I just heard this on Maddow:

    Quote from Rand Paul: “As you can see from these declining lines, either [asthma and pollution] are inversely related or not related at all.”

    Maddow: “INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL?! Senator Paul actually believes it is possible that pollution CURES asthma!”

    1. She needs a laughtrack, really.

      1. Maddow should eat shit and thank Rand Paul for his service in protection of civil liberties…or just eat shit, I don’t care.

      2. But seriously, this interpretation of Rand Paul word’s words might border on outright lying.

        1. Oh, silly me, I thought Senator Paul was such a Repulitard that he was unfamiliar with reductio ad absurdum….unlike I, who has a degree from Oxford University. [bends over, smells own fart]

        2. “…this interpretation of Rand Paul word’s words might border on outright lying.”

          Naah. It is outright lying.

          1. seriously? no shit. thats all they do.

    2. Maddow: “INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL?! Senator Paul actually believes it is possible that pollution CURES asthma!”

      That sound suspiciously like a post from shithead.

    3. The word “or” involves a logical concept. Maybe that’s where Maddow had difficulty.

    4. Careful. Show insufficient obeisance to the MadCow, and there are a few hereabouts who will automatically get all moist-eyed and trembly-lipped over it.

  20. SportsBreak: Sidney Crosby scores 2 goals and 2 assists in his triumphant return.

    1. Just got done watching the game; Crosby ain’t fucking around.

      1. Yup, I knew he’d do well, but that was pretty amazing to watch.

      2. What has two thumbs and attended that game? This guy.

        Read Sid’s lips: Fuck yeah!

      3. One good hit between now and the end of the season and his career is over a la Lindross.

  21. “…as well as social-networking tools…”

    Wouldn’t those technically be called anti-social-networking tools?

  22. I remember when the media would include home schoolers in with the anti-government right wing militia types. I’m wondering if this douch nozzle including Casey Anthony and Jerry Sandusky on his list of right wingers. I mean if you’re going to blatently lie, why not go for it all.

      1. How far around the bend do you really have to be to write that article?

        1. At least ALL of the comments also saw that comparison as patently offensive.

          We have that. For now.

    1. included

    2. That was before the data came back that home schooled kids were outperforming the state schooled kids. They had to drop the narrative.

      1. I’d like to see a study of public schooled vs home schooled kids on social skills.

  23. Seriously, I just head this on Lawrence O’Donnell:

    “President Obama is the greatest budget negotiator in American history.”

    1. Do you know what else I heard on Lawrence O’Donnell? Right wing publications like Reason magazine never complain about cops!

      1. Lucy,

        LOD is a bit of a shit-sack, isn’t he?

        1. He is great on police brutality, pretty rubbish on noticing others who are great on the issue.

          Balko was peeved.

          1. Balko should be peeved. I’m pretty sure he shaves his head because otherwise he would be pulling his hair out all day long.

            1. god help you if you piss off The Incredible Balk!

            2. Shaved head = right-wing extremist

              1. fwiw, the majority of rightwing extremists/white supremacists i run into these days in the pac NW do not have shaved heads. the whole hammerskins/shaved head thang doesn’t have a lot of traction here.

                i’m talking hardcore too. one guy i arrested had a tattoo of a swastika. across the entire front of his neck.

          2. When he left to go preach to the heathen, did we mothball the Balko signal? Someone should turn that beast on and summon him.

            1. The particular lightbulb that thing took has been banned.

            2. I follow him on Twitter. Instead of one big nut punch it’s like several 140 character nutpunches every day.

          3. Balko was peeved.

            Did he go out and break some legs? Because I know what guys who like to break legs look like, and I can tell that Radley Balko likes to break legs.

          4. That’s not good enough. O’Donnell is a socialist, and proud of it… therefore, even his one good quality (the police brutality concern) is moot.

      2. Link or it didn’t happen.

      3. bwahahahahahahahahahahaha! ha ha ha!



    2. Have we even passed a budget yet???

      1. negotiation ? passing

        1. In order to be a successful negotiator, you have to actually negotiate something. If I spend 3 years telling the guy at the Ferrari dealership I will give him $100 for a Ferrari, and never actually get said Ferrari, that does not make me a successful negotiator.

          1. If you don’t want the Ferrari it does.

            1. What does that have to do with anything? Are you implying that Obama doesn’t want a budget?

              1. In trollo veritas

            2. Additionally, you have yet to offer any evidence how unsuccessfully coming to an agreement about a budget makes Obama a “successful negotiator”.

            3. Oh, mustard… you’re just saying that due to your intense, burning hatred of people who can afford Ferraris.

              Though, quite frankly, Ferraris are for pussies. One should buy a Koenigsegg Agera or a Bugatti Veyron Super Sport if they want to avoid Tiny Penis Corvette Owner status.

      2. Budgets are for quitters.

  24. Its [sic] also the level of nuance displayed in’s recent four-part Kalispell-Montana-is-full-of-crazies series […].

    Hmm, I grew up in Kalispell. Can’t say I even noticed the right-wing elements MM frets about.

    1. All of this weirdos!!!! obsessing really makes me want to go visit. Plus I already love Montana.

      Sic has been un-sicced, thank you.

      1. Honestly, I’ve come to hate the way much of the media portray Montana like it’s some kind of cesspool of violent, right-wing, militias drinking deer blood and engaging in daily police shootouts.

        Every state has its weirdos. The left just needs to lighten the fuck up.

        1. I don’t blame. I make my self-deprecating homeschool bunker jokes. But the weirdos do fascinate me, especially since I know they’re not the swarm that the SPLC fears.

          1. The word “you” was supposed to be in there. Bed time for me, sheesh.

        2. If it’s a Red state, it needs a narrative.

          Southern, racist, religious extremist rednecks with no education don’t exactly fit the perceived sociology of the west which is still somewhat of a mystery to us in the east, so they come up with “foaming-at-the-mouth militiamen just itching to start the revolution” caricature to make up for their ignorance and unwillingness to actually try and understand country life. In their narrative, we’re all just in flyover country, even if they describe different parts of it differently.

          1. …to make up for their ignorance and unwillingness to actually try and understand country life.

            The Left has a hard time understanding country life in The West probably because there is a lack of strong characters or symbols to associate with it. Not everyone is familiar with cowboys, and ranching. There is no American mythology about Easterners who migrated West across the prairies to seek their fortunes. The West has certainly never attracted Easterners who wanted to practice their religion free from Puritanical (historic) objection. Things like the Gold Rush, the Californios, and the fur trade were never an important part of our history. I mean, Lewis and Clark traveled to The West, were unimpressed and went back to President Jefferson, and told him, “Don’t bother.”

      2. –Media Matters extremism reporter David Holthouse–

        Does he cover mtn dew updates?

        1. No, that falls under the beat of the Xtremeism reporter.

  25. Did Bubba just say on the Daily Show that the stimulus was too small?

  26. It doesnt matter. Nobody reads newsweek anymore.

  27. It doesnt matter. Nobody reads newsweek anymore.

  28. “What we’re seeing today is a resurgence,” says Daryl Johnson, the former senior domestic terrorism analyst for the Department of Homeland Security. In 2009, the department issued a report warning that “right-wing extremism is likely to grow in strength.”

    Those elderly women in the Tea Party are surely very feisty gals.

    Writes Schnederman, “Federal agents and white separatists were in a standoff at a compound in Waco, Texas.” Their status as white separatists must have come as a great surprise to the multi-racial group before they were burnt to death.

    The multiracial composition of the group did not fit the narrative the media wanted to portray. So they were brushed off by history, never to be remembered by the elites.

  29. Newsweek’s new cover story was already stale when it was Time’s cover story last summer (“The Secret World of Extreme Militias,” Sept. 30, 2010). Tina Brown’s mind is as fresh and sharp as…well, as the news media. Or come up with your own metaphor for something that’s essentially dead and rotten.

  30. You’re the ones splitting hairs. Yes you are right-wing extremists. The only thing stopping you from shooting up the place is pussiness. A nonagression principle that means the only thing governments should do is shoot people for going on your lawn? “Government” is the devil to you and that is what makes you right-wing extremists Except it’s not really government, it’s just aspects of government that right-wing extremists hate. Saying you hate the federal government and favor state government means you think Alabama has a better track record than the US government. Which a lot of Alabamans no doubt think.

    1. Weak, Tony.

      1. Weak AND angry, for that matter.

        Is the pressure getting to you, Tony? Buy a gun, and stick it in your mouth. Problems solved.

        1. I do have a gun, big boy

          1. i WORK for the govt. (but don’t hate it). seeing govt. inefficiency in action, the perverse incentivization i see (where govt. is often incentivized to be INefficient), the way civil service bureaucracies work etc…

            is part of what informs my libertarianism

            libertarians don’t HATE govt. but they recognize that govt. should be limited. kind of what our forefathers/founders recognized when they set up our govt.

            also, the way our govt works is states ARE allowed to do a lot of stuff beyond the minimal stuff the feds are SUPPOSED to do. law enforcement (generally speaking), for example is, and should be, almost exclusively a state, not a federal job

            also, in our laboratory of states, any state can recognize substantially more civil liberties (mine does) via state constitution and law

            it’s a very unique system. most nations do almost all this stuff at the national level. we are unique in having no national police, and a very limited federal govt.

            it’s how our nation was DESIGNED

            and it’s been through bastardization of the commerce clause etc. that we have seen it eroded

        2. Actually by the term “nonagression principle” I’m gonna stab and say this was actually a spoof and not Tony.

          He’s often intellectually dishonest and is definitely a Team BLUE hack, but there is only one thing that uses the phrase “nonagression principle”.

          It’s handle starts with W and ends with hite Indian.

      2. Libertarianism and this magazine represent the intellectual apex of the right-wing movement in this country. Put less charitably, they are the intellectual underpinning of a movement really based on loud, idiotic rage serving as the political muscle for powerful interests. Libertarianism doesn’t try all that hard to sound different from either the Republican party or its Bircher base. Since you’re the intellectual source, they must be getting it from you. Just because you’re for weed legalization doesn’t excuse all the points where you intersect, all the most politically relevant points I might add.

        1. Just because some liberals are for weed legalization doesn’t excuse all the points where they intersect with Karl Marx.

          Two can play that game.

          1. You lose. There is no meaningful Marxist movement in this country. Liberals are barely hanging on to the most basic aspects of the modern welfare state. Your confusing it with authoritarian communism (that’s what you mean by Marx) is the very problem I’m talking about and which you are blind to.

            1. OWS is on its way, and there’s always been at least a few serious commie-huggers in this country at any given moment.

              You types always talk about our “mixed economy”, but your only solution is to pour more socialism into the mixer. I say, we’ve had more than enough of that bullshit, and we need to pour some capitalism into it.

              1. Read madlib’s post above, or hit the link:


                The pot’s starting to boil, and if enough of these Occutards keep it up AND ramp it up, we may find ourselves faced with a repeat of Russia, circa 1917.

                You sure you want that to happen, Tony?

            2. Liberals are barely hanging on to the most basic aspects of the modern welfare state.

              Burbled, straight-faced, a mere year or so after the single greatest expansion of naked, absolute governmental authoritarianism over unwilling private citizens (i.e., ObamaCare) in, literally, generations.

              You’re not even self-aware enough to qualify as a cartoon any longer, Tony.

    2. I didn’t say anything about last weekend’s party. Let’s just say I woke up on someone else’s couch with someone else’s keys in my pocket. See, without any further details it sounds like it was fun.

      Last night was really fucked up. As you all know I’m not a violent person. I don’t like violence and anyway I believe in Enlightenment principles. But last night I almost?almost, and in the defense of another person, had to kick someone in the face.

      I was walking out of the bar with my drag queen friend, and some stranger from out of town, who had been sort of stalking me all night, decided he wanted to go with me to some mythical after party that didn’t exist. When my friend told him there was no party and that he’d have to find someone else to give him a ride to wherever, the guy punched my friend in the head and knocked him to the parking lot. Were it not for the pacifistic intervention of some guy, I would have been required to intervene myself fist-wise.

      It was not to be, in my mind, a drunken brawl so much as a necessary resorting to noble fisticuffs in defense of a lady (impersonator). It’s a good thing this wasn’t necessary, as I had neglected to bring my white gloves.

      I am quite a bit upset, because if not for this guy’s absurd violent episode, I may have volunteered to give him a ride (I was not what you might call ‘myself’ at this point in the evening), and who knows what his intentions were.

      Oh, such distasteful business. Also, somehow I ended up going home with three bags belonging to varying persons who aren’t me. I have developed a habit of inadvertent drunken kleptomania, it seems

  31. It probably isn’t fair to compare the OWS movement to militant right wing extremists, but it’s interesting that they seem to have to go to the extreme right to find somebody that’s willing to get arrested for their cause like the OWS people do.

    As frightening as the Tea Party was supposed to be, according to some people, I don’t remember there being much in they way of conflict between the Tea Party and the police. I don’t remember the Tea Party people getting arrested for much of anything.

    The OWS people, on the other hand, seem to make a fetish out of getting themselves arrested. It’s kinda hard to feel threatened by the Tea Party anymore.

    1. The tea party was protesting in favor of the establishment, they just didn’t realize it.

      1. How was the Tea Party protesting in favor of the establishment?

        The coverage of them was mostly about how they were a bunch of wild-eyed extremists. Against the bailouts, especially…

        They were blamed for everything from nut-jobs crashing their planes to nut-jobs going on shooting sprees.

        The Tea Party’s victims seemed to have been mostly establishment Republicans too. They’re still a thorn in John Boehner’s side!

        They may have achieved a few things politically, but when they were protesting? They weren’t part of the establishment at all.

      2. Using establishment procedure != in favor of.

        They simply decided to follow the rules rather than try and make new ones up whole-cloth and just expect everyone else to let them shit on their doorsteps.

    2. but it’s interesting that they seem to have to go to the extreme right to find somebody that’s willing to get arrested for their cause like the OWS people do.

      There are many people in the pro-life movement who’ve been arrested for the cause (ie, blocking clinic entrances, “harassing” “customers” on the way in, etc) who I would not characterize as particularly extreme.

      Of course, it’s debatable whether OWS people are really getting arrested for the cause; it’s not like they’re rallying against traffic and park usage, which is what they’re getting arrested for blocking.

  32. Look out, gang… Tony’s getting pissed off. He might go and join some Weather Underground-y kind of fringe lefty militia, any moment now.

    Which would be fun to watch, or at least read about.

    1. Maybe this time they’ll be smart enough to blow someone else up.

      Nah. Then they’d probably have the skills to be hired by someone.

      1. The Earth Liberation Front is good at blowing shit up… maybe they’re looking to hire some of the OWS cream of the croppers…

        1. If only we had a modern day Spanish Civil War to draw the idiots off elsewhere.

          The thing is, when it comes to open violence leftists in America and in Western Europe have been mostly pussies and incompetents, in Eastern European, Asian, and African movements. The Nazis are an oddball, but even Germany was more Central European (Prussia) than Western.

          Ours are masters of anti-sceptic bureaucratic coercion/tyranny, though. Probably a cultural thing.

          1. Tony, what do you think of Libya?

            I expect it’ll be heating up again. And I hear the weather’s relatively nice. You’d look good in a Bedouin tent getting banged in the ass by a camel.

          2. Well-put.

      2. Rule #1: The most experienced and qualified person to act in a revolution is the federal agent who’s been sent in to infiltrate your group.

        I’d almost guarantee that virtually every “militia” and gun club in the US has one. You know. Just in case.

  33. First off, I would like to wish a very merry happy drunken sexed up birthday to….MYSELF! At exactly 12:00 noon today I will have been post-womb for 23 years.

    Getting plans made around here is like, well, not pulling teeth exactly, but more like making an appointment to see the dentist. We just don’t seem to want to get it done.

    So I don’t exactly have an agenda for today’s and tonight’s festivities. I do know that at some reasonable hour I will depart with whomever I happen to be around to go bar hopping, and we will end up at Majestic. This is all assuming that I am not, at said hour, as broke as I am at this hour. If I am, well, I’m more than content to pretend that I’m not aging and hence do not need to celebrate it.

    So basically, if you care at all to bar hop, eat, drink, have sex with me, etc. in celebration of my being a year closer to death, give me a call and I will let you know what’s up.

    I realize that some of you might not know my phone number, so, with great hesitation, I am posting it here:


  34. Last night I was witness to, and occasional participant in, much fun debauchery. But those details are best left unwritten. (This is a PG-rated livejournal, after all.)

    Last night I got wasted. I suppose eating no more than 400 calories in a day, and drinking four martinis, two long island iced teas, a whiskey & soda, and a very large screwdriver isn’t the best way to stay sober. I was more or less fine, actually, until I had the screwdriver, which was at the after party. I suppose I could have been drugged. That’s a popular excuse these days, isn’t it?

    Deciding that I was too loopy to trust that I wouldn’t act like a total idiot, I quit myself from the premises of the party and spent the entire rest of the night in my car’s back seat. Not exactly my preferred end result of an evening during which I spent all of my cash, but it happens I suppose. I woke up freezing in petshopboy1983’s parking lot, drove home still a little loopy, where I greeted my mother and sister, both clad in full Sunday family get-together smiles, while I was still clad in my leather pants and eye makeup.

    And here I am at work writing about dead people and suffering from a hangover.

    On the positive side, there has been some movement in my brain, and I think I may be in creative mode again, that rare state in which I am actually capable of writing something I don’t hate. I think I have settled upon the subject of my next book. I’m not going to divulge any plot details here, but I am thinking about dabbling in some dark humor, maybe even the tiniest amount of magical realism (I know, get your groaning and eye rolling over with). We’ll see if I ever sit down to write it!

    That’s about it for now.

  35. Lucy, love ya, but “slopping reporting”?? Joe’z law strykes!

    1. Nooooooooo!

      What a law, what a law. Thank you, fixed.

  36. For the SPLC, every tragedy has a golden lining.

    The first of the children murdered in Norway last summer had yet to be buried and Millionaire Morris Dees was sending out dire fund-raising letters.

    The day after Jared Loughner’s lunatic rampage, the SPLC’s $146,000 donor-dollar-a-year Public Relations guru, Mark Potok, was analyzing a book list found on Loughner’s Youtube account, trying desperately to find some link, any link, he could use to spin out some more donor gold.

    It wasn’t until people started pointing out that almost all of the books on the list have been standard reading assignments for American high school students for decades that Swami Potok finally dropped the subject.

    Still, this never-ending fear campaign continues to pay off big time. Last year the SPLC took in more than $31 million donor-dollars, (that’s about $86,400 a day… every day), and that doesn’t include the $26 million in tax-free interest they made on their bloated $216 million dollar Endowment Fund.

    Doesn’t seem to be much “poverty” at the SPLC.

    1. That’s better than 10% interest on their investment! Wow, where can I get some?

  37. as I’ve often said to my lefty friends – to their shock – I would rather have a right-wing takeover than a left-wing. Why? Because historically speaking, lefties are better at killing large swaths of _everyone_, no matter their political stripes. The righties, on the other hand, tend to kill off the worst elements of the lefties, and once their done – it’s back to monocle polishing, farming, or industrial pollution. ok, I’m getting sarcastic here…

  38. What is this “Newsweek” of which you speak?

  39. “Stirrin’ up the rubes here, Boss.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.