Archive for the ‘internet/free speech’ Category

…that doesn’t mean it’s either smart or honorable.

This strikes me as troubling. Not because Petraeus is wrong; on the contrary, I think he is probably right. Already, mobs in Pakistan have demonstrated against the planned Koran burning by, among other things, burning American flags. History, e.g. the homicidal response to the Danish cartoons and the false report, circulated by the American press, that U.S. soldiers had flushed a Koran down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay, suggest that Petraeus’ fears are well founded.

Moreover, I personally am not in favor of burning Korans. My advice to the Florida church would be, don’t do it.

Still, is it not highly problematic when a senior military officer warns American citizens against exercising their undoubted First Amendment rights? This situation is different from the Koran-down-the-toilet story. We criticized news outlets at the time for endangering American troops, but that was mostly because the story was false. Presumably we can all agree that newspapers and magazines should not circulate false reports that endanger our troops. But what about accurate stories of Americans exercising their constitutional right to criticize Islam by burning Korans?

In one respect this is similar to the ground zero mega mosque. In both cases the people in question have a legal right to do what they intend. It both cases it is not only insensitive but provocative.

In the end we are going to have to fight to defend these people’s right to be glory seeking idiots. The provocation of course doesn’t make any violence by those offended justified, in fact it will simply prove their barbarity and insecurity

Update: Saw the preacher on the air declare this as a statement against Sharia law and for the 1st amendment, that’s a pretty good and strong argument but this still doesn’t sit right with me.

Back in Aug of 2009 I ran this chart of Vietnam vets against the war on Google news in a story of how Vietnam vets against the war decided not to back up Cindy Sheehan’s protest against the Obama administration:

Funny how they dropped off the radar in Jan of 2009.

I was reminded of that story when I saw this:

Several factors — war fatigue; a deep, lingering recession; and the presence of a Democratic president they helped elect — have drained the energy from organizations that led the fight against the Iraq war. Some of the most influential anti-war activist groups that once summoned half a million people to march against the Iraq war and the policies of former President George W. Bush are straining to raise the money and attention to fight what they see as Obama’s military entrenchment in Afghanistan.
“We don’t have a very vibrant anti-war movement anymore,” lamented Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Codepink, one of the anti-war movement’s most visible organizations. emphasis mine

Politico seems to be confused by this. If they had been paying attention a year ago they would not be so surprised. Have they given the anti war much attention in print themselves? Or perhaps they might remember this famous line:

If George W. Bush becomes president, the armies of the homeless, hundreds of thousands strong, will once again be used to illustrate the opposition’s arguments about welfare, the economy, and taxation.

George Bush is no longer president, those who oppose him politically who provided finances and manpower and media coverage in an attempt to bring him down will absolutely not do the same with Barack Obama.

BTW I figured I’d update my check of Vietnam Vets against the war on Google News since last year.

Vietnam vets against the war updated graph

A blip, we have a blip! Is it a press release, is it a march, is it a national event, no? What can that one blip be?

This is defiantly NOT the time to get out of politics. Some people feel threatened by the Tea Party movement. While I don’t subscribe too many of their viewpoints, I welcome them to the political fray. Their movement is probably the best thing to happen in politics since the Vietnam Vets against the War staged a million person demonstration in West Potomac Park in March of 1973.

One mention in a side article on the tea party in February. That’s it?

Don’t despair Cindy, Medina, it takes time to create true believers. Come November 2012 I’m sure many on the left who decided that American Military power is not something to protest will suddenly come around. Rest assured that you will have all the support and manpower George Soros and the Democratic party can buy.

Bob Herbert finds it outrageous that Beck’s restore honor march is on the same day as that other famous supporter of Republicans Martin Luther King’s was:

America is better than Glenn Beck. For all of his celebrity, Mr. Beck is an ignorant, divisive, pathetic figure. On the anniversary of the great 1963 March on Washington he will stand in the shadows of giants — Abraham Lincoln and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Who do you think is more representative of this nation?

Interestingly he finds Beck’s criticism of the president racist but his own critiques of the administration not. I wonder if he is working under the Bo Snerdley certification rules concerning Obama criticism?

Maybe he doesn’t know that Alveda King is speaking at Beck’s rally. And they are playing Lift every voice and sing there as I watch it live at noon, but then again he gets his news from the NYT, so how can he expect to be informed?

Question: What do Bob Herbert of the New York Times and a six year old child afraid of Monsters in her closet have in common?

What is the reliability myopic Bob Herbert afraid of that doesn’t exist? Why Tea party violence of course:

But I worry about the potential for violence that grows out of unrestrained, hostile bombast. We’ve seen it so often. A little more than two weeks after the 1963 March on Washington, the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham was bombed by the Ku Klux Klan and four young black girls were killed. And three months after the march, Jack Kennedy was assassinated.

Well yeah you know what happens when conservatives get angry, there was the Bill Sparkman murder, oops that was a staged suicide, they stab Muslim cab drivers, no wait that was a supporter of the park 51, or they firebomb democratic congressman’s offices, oh wait that was a liberal blogger who is suspected of that, well what about the death threats and shots fired at a party office this week? Sorry those were fired at a GOP office and the death threats were against Freedom Works a pro tea-party group. Ok so they aren’t all that violent but they do throw eggs at buses of people who oppose them, oh wait

Where is he getting these delusions? Why the Southern Law and Poverty Center of course and they do have a history of seeing growing threats:

How did this story line grow? Many of the claims that extremism is on the rise in America originate in research done by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based group that for nearly 40 years has tracked what it says is the growing threat of intolerance in the United States. These days, the SPLC is issuing new warnings of new threats. But today’s warnings sound an awful lot like those of the past.

In 1989, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of skinheads, saying, “Not since the height of Klan activity during the civil-rights era has there been a white supremacist group so obsessed with violence.”

In 1992, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of other white supremacist groups, which it claimed had grown by 27 percent from the year before.

In 1995, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of right-wing militias.

In 1998, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of Internet-based hate groups that, according to one press account, had “created the biggest surge in hate in America in years.”

In 1999, the SPLC warned that the growing threat of Web-based hate groups was growing even more, with a 60 percent increase from the year before.

In 2002, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of post-Sept. 11 hate groups, which it said had grown 12 percent between 2000 and 2001.

In 2004, the SPLC warned (again) of the growing threat of skinhead groups, whose numbers it said had doubled in the previous year.

In 2008, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of hate groups overall, whose number it said increased 48 percent since 2000.

And in 2010, just a few weeks ago, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of “patriot” groups, which it said increased by 244 percent in 2009.

In the world of the Southern Poverty Law Center, the threat is always growing. Ronald Reagan’s policies led to a growing threat. The first Gulf War led to a growing threat. The election of Bill Clinton led to a growing threat. The Internet led to a growing threat. Sept. 11 led to a growing threat. The war in Iraq led to a growing threat. Is it any wonder that Obama’s presidency has, in the SPLC’s estimation, led to a growing threat?

Well mathematically sooner or later there is bound to be an incident they can point to (lemon soaked paper napkin anyone?), perhaps he can write the column in advance like an obit and wait until something happens and then he can sub in the place and date.

memeorandum thread here.