Archive for the ‘internet/free speech’ Category

Tim Blair and Don Surber already talked about this now Victor Davis Hanson explains the why when it comes to the left’s “call for civility”

In other words, the calls for a general toning down of rhetoric translate far more into a toning down of both an effective media opposition and a rising political obstruction to the Obama agenda. “Can’t we all get along?” in essence means, “Can’t we all just keep quiet and keep going on with the big-government, agreed-on politics of the last fifty years?”

And why it will fail:

bipartisan friendly dialogue cannot and will not be adhered to by those now calling for its implementation, since divisive language often achieves what an unpersuasive ideology cannot.

And the end result?

I predict that 18 months from now the president himself will still be calling for a new civility in the manner of his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention — and will once again adopt the sorts of over-the-top metaphors, similes, allusions, and rough-stuff politics that got him elected senator in 2004 and president in 2008, and pushed his health-care legislation through in 2009. If anything, the language of division will be shriller even than in 2010, as the administration grasps that loaded language, coupled with calls for an end to rancor, must now do what a record of unpopular governance cannot.

As I’ve already said today predictions are tough even for a classical historian like Hanson, but go read it all and decide for yourself.

A Democratic congressman compare republicans to Nazi’s and refuse to apologize at first then finally did.

A liberal talkshow host made oral sex jokes concerning the Republican Female Lt. gov of Wisconsin on the air.

A second lib talker fantasized on air about murdering Rush Limbaugh.

and on the Joy Behar show Sarah Palin was referred to as a Nazi and blamed her for the Tucson Massacre

We could go on but it’s kinda late as I’m writing this.

As Jim Treacher says “This ‘New Tone’ sounds a lot like the old one.”

Morning Joe et/al is breathlessly reporting that the president’s number are up, that a slight majority favor keeping Obamacare and things are turning around for the pres.

The media is all over this but if you look at the actual report there is a set of numbers not getting play:

Q15 Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as (ROTATE:) a Democrat, a Republican, an independent, or something else? (IF “DEMOCRAT” OR “REPUBLICAN,” ASK:) Would you call yourself a strong (Democrat/Republican) or not a very strong (Democrat/Republican)? (IF “NOT SURE,” CODE AS “NOT VERY STRONG DEMOCRAT/REPUBLICAN.”) (IF “INDEPENDENT,” ASK:) Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party, closer to the Democratic Party, or do you think of yourself as strictly independent? (IF “NOT SURE,” CODE AS “STRICTLY INDEPENDENT.”)
Strong Democrat ………………………….20
Not very strong Democrat ……………..11
Independent/lean Democrat …………..10
Strictly Independent………………………18
Independent/lean Republican …………11
Not very strong Republican ……………9
Strong Republican ………………………..12
Other (VOL) …………………………………7
Not sure …………………………………….2

So let’s get this straight, this poll of Registered (vs likely) voters that is showing the president’s numbers improving samples 31% democrats (or 41% counting learners) and 21% Republicans (32% counting learners). And you are judging national opinion on this? You are calling this news?

Think of it this way. If you had a poll on the popularity of the Red Sox vs the Yankees and asked 3 Guys from Boston for every 2 guys from New York City how would the Red Sox do?

This is what you call spin. The media manufacturing a story to create a bounce that doesn’t actually exist.

If people fall for this it is their own fault.

One of days I must have the Reclusive Leftist on my show on the subject of Sarah Palin and the left. We disagree on almost everything else but she has been willing from day one to call out her fellow leftists on Palin Derangement syndrome.

I finally had a chance to take a peek at her blog to see what she had to say about the last week and she wrote a series of post that confirmed her dislike of the right but were as honest as the day was long.

She started on the 9th:

As soon as I heard the news Saturday and read an online article (forget where) with the gleanings from the guy’s various communiques, that was my impression. Mind control, grammar, the possible constitutional ramifications and/or mind control of said grammar, strange obsessions with the currency and its frightening message to trust in God, nonsensical ramblings: it could be a page out of Vaslav Nijinksy’s diary. It’s not just the content, but the style. Classic paranoid schizophrenia.

So imagine my surprise when I checked in on the news later last night and saw that Sarah Palin had been blamed for the shooting.

In the post she insults the tea party but that doesn’t stop her from seeing nonsense for what it is.

Later that same day she reminds us of some of the non violent memes of the lefts opposition to Sarah Palin and says:

That’s right. He was busy calling for Hillary Clinton’s death and then, when Clinton was over, foaming at the mouth about

Palin hunt image via the reclusive leftist

Sarah Palin. Lots of people were foaming at the mouth about Sarah Palin. There was the “art” exhibit in New York inviting people to play at shooting her with a rifle. She was hung in effigy in Los Angeles. Sandra Bernhardt said she should be raped, and not a few other people gleefully called for her death.

Was there any outrage about this at the time? Only from people like me, who were running around with our hair on fire, screaming to our allegedly “progressive” brethren and sistren “UR DOIN IT WRONG!!!!!” Everybody else seemed to think it was just fine. After all, Sarah Palin really did deserve to be raped and murdered and shot and lynched because she’s a foul c*** who needs to die, so what was wrong with saying so? Lighten up, bitch. What are you, a secret Republican?

And again she is the reclusive leftist so she makes it clear what she thinks of Sarah Palin’s political positions:

Sarah Palin is a Republican. That’s all. She’s just a silly rightwing Republican. The country’s crawling with them. Look, they’re all around you! They’re your county supervisors, state senators, congresspeople, governors, and former presidents. Remember Bush? Remember Reagan? Sarah Palin didn’t invent any of this stuff. She didn’t invent any of the ideas or any of the rhetoric. She certainly didn’t invent extremist violence, nor does she seem to be in any way connected with that kind of thing. She’s just an ordinary idiot Republican who believes ordinary idiot Republican things, like the millions of other ordinary idiot Republicans in this country.

What is it about her that’s so special? What could it possibly be that makes this utterly ordinary idiot Republican somehow a billion times worse than all the rest?

…and she gives her explanation but go to the link and read it, she deserves the hits.

Finally on the 16th she hits it out of the park on RFK Jr’s essay:

He just wanted to talk about the dangers of right-wing hate. Okay, fine. That’s cool. Let’s talk about it. But still: how do you leave out the sentence about Oswald? As a writer, how do you do that? I couldn’t. It feels obligatory. You write this highly-charged essay, you make a big deal about how ugly the right-wing stuff was in Dallas, you evoke the horror of the president’s death; even if you want your takeaway message to be about the dangers of superheated rhetoric, how do you leave out the undeniable historical reality that Oswald was cut from an entirely different bolt of cloth? Even if you tuck it in as a parenthetical throwaway (”of course, ironically…”), you still have to acknowledge it. Don’t you?

I had just about persuaded myself to forget about it—chalk it up to a single editorial decision not to muddy the main point—when I learned today that Eric Boehlert wrote an extremely similar essay in 2009: A President was killed the last time right-wing hatred ran wild like this. It’s exactly the same argument RFK Jr. makes, and with exactly the same stunning omission. No Oswald! Oswald has simply disappeared. He’s gone. And everything that motivated the man is gone. No Cuba, no Fidel, no Soviet Union, no Marxism, no Communism, no nothing. There’s not even a nod to Oswald’s real motive, which was the inchoate longing to be somebody, to be a great man, to be important.

Read this whole essay, yeah it’s hard on the right, but it’s honest and fair and from the left.

I will never agree with the Reclusive Leftist on religion, abortion, George Bush and a million other issues, but boy do I respect her.

Update: Thanks for the lanche Glenn but thanks even more for linking to Violet, honest leftists should be celebrated. BTW Insty readers make sure you read all three of her posts on the subject.

Update 2: A lot of readers think that I’m giving Violet too much credit. Remember a lot of us on the right were once on the left, it took a while for us to get it, its not a switch. If you want to let people find their way to truth the best way is to encourage them along the way.