Archive for the ‘internet/free speech’ Category

At least according to Dan Riehl at Riehl world view who recalls an old Sullivan Post per election concerning Barack Obama:

On October 27, 2008, Andrew Sullivan posted: The Top Ten Reasons Conservatives Should Vote For Obama. Given all this playing out today, I thought I’d go back and have a look.

It’s high comedy but let me explain something. It’s my opinion Sullivan’s turn on Bush had everything to do with Bush’s position on Gay Marriage, it was after that point where Sullivan really started changing his tune and it was the (likely correct) belief that Obama was paying lip service to actual marriage during the campaign that made the difference in the other direction.

But as Glenn Reynolds points out the rubes are self identifying, but never fear. As soon a there is an actual Republican challenger to Obama all of our friends on the left who are beating their breasts today will support him, Mendoza line or no.

Update: Stacy Links and comments seem to agree with my Sullivan assessment, Oh and BTW the Mendoza line is a baseball term referring to hitting .200.

…at least that would be the headline at Think Progress if they were 1. Consistent 2. Not multicultural cowards, and 3. Covering this story:

“America is not showing its power it’s showing appeasement, they are laughing all the way to the bank” Nonie Darwish

Personally I’ve got no problem with the fixing the Egyptian sewer system (promote the general welfare and all that) but we need to realize that we are earning no brownie points by doing any of this stuff. I really think the whole funding Mosques overseas stuff is just to get us wound up.

Meanwhile ThinkProgress hits Newt Gingrich for opposing Gay Marriage along with the majority of the country, Stacy notes:

Except, of course, that there wasn’t anything “secret” about the “funneling”: It was duly reported as required by law and, as Think Progress itself notes, Gingrich was outspoken in his support of the effort “to oust three of the nine Iowa Supreme Court justices” who had voted to mandate same-sex marriage in that state.

Is it “hate” to oppose same-sex marriage?

It is “hate” to oppose Obama, “Gay Marriage” is just one club to beat his opponents with, additionally Newt is a particular target because he committed the ultimate sin to them, he converted to Catholicism.

Exit question: Under Think Progress’ definition since no president has ever supported Gay Marriage and until the mid nineties no congressman ever talked about the subject would they all be considered “Haters”? I’d ask if they would call Islam “Haters” for the same reason but that one is too easy.

…and jump into the argument between two of the people I am most fond of on the net.

I’ve already talked about what I think of and owe Stacy McCain and There is no person in bloggerdom whose company I enjoy more than Little Miss Attila, but this is getting ridiculous.

Stacy put out 4000 words last night on the History of feminism. It is very detailed and quite a read. I would recommend it to anyone.

Yesterday Joy today fisked a previous Stacy’s post and answered his magnum opus with a single drawing and two sentences proving she is an expert in blog Jujutsu.

I haven’t talked to either Stacy or Joy about this exchange but I am going to comment very briefly on the substance and I’ll let them correct me if I’m misinterpreting it either of them.

The way I see it Stacy is saying that Feminism and its origins are a lot less clean than a lot of people see it and that conservatives should avoid being seen as “feminists” because it means something that is quite different that what we think it does.

The way I see it Attila is defending Feminism or what she is calling equity feminism and saying that is is not invalid for a conservative to believe in it.

A lot of this is starting to look like dogs chasing tales so lets cut to that chase:

1. Per Stacy’s argument, There are a lot of nasty roots in the feminist movement, just as there were a lot of people happy to break bread with the communists in the civil rights movement. We might even stipulate that both groups used addressing an actual wrong (Jim Crow and inequality before the law of the sexes) to advance something they were more loyal to (the overthrow of capitalism and western culture that they found racist and/or sexist). Thus feminism means something and we should let the left have that label and stew in it.

2. Per Attila’s argument the basic equality before the law of women (and the equality of souls in the before the eyes of God) is a basic human right. Such a belief and the advancement of said belief is feminism 101 in the same way that belief in Christ is Christianity 101. One can adopt the label feminist without paying homage to the leftist maxims of some of those who followed it at the time. Or to use the Christian example, Protestants don’t shun the term Christian because we Catholics were using it hundreds of years before Luther was a gleam in his mother’s eye.

In terms of an intellectual point and history, Stacy makes good points, but I think he is forgetting something about society.

Words mean things as he says but the meaning of words change over time. 150 years if someone said “Michael Jordan is cool” the answer expected would be “Well have him come closer to the fireplace.” More importantly the public perception of the meaning of those words change.

When society thinks of the word feminism, they do not think of the Marxist roots or any of the class warfare BS that the left was trying to peddle, they are thinking simply of the base equality before the law of the sexes. The terms has become mainstreamed to the point where it can be used without incident.

Stacy correctly worries that like planned parenthood’s Eugenic past, this allows Radical feminists such as NOW and those in the gender studies department to co-op the uninformed because people think they are simply supporting woman’s rights when they are in fact supporting wrongs, wrongs simply used to sexualize our society even further or as a club to beat Western Civilization, Christianity and the US while ignoring actual wrongs against women in the East and in Islam. It’s a valid worry and I think it is very important to call them out loudly and regularly!

Happily there is an easy and well known term for such people propagated over the last two decades, that can be used without using the now generic terms Feminist: Feminazi.

I submit it would be healthier and easier to deploy the Feminazi term, particularly within the movement than to try and insist people stop deploying the, I submit now generic term “feminist”. In terms of changing hearts and minds I say its the best move. Additionally it forces the feminist left (read feminazi) to explain why a Sarah Palin or a Michelle Bachmann or a Tammy Bruce or a Little Miss Attila is “not” a feminist. Inevitably their anger leads them instead into the trap of proclaiming that they are not valid “women” retreating into a level of misogyny that alienates regular people and forces honest feminists to recoil, thus dividing them.

Or to put it another way Stacy has a good intellectual point, both socially and politically I think its to our disadvantage.

And although it is entertaining intellectually (and may or may not have been productive in terms of hits) I think that like Road Runner cartoons this is getting too long. I can’t think it’s generating enough hits to make it worth going on.

Stacy thinks we should abandon the term feminism to the left: Fine, that’s a valid opinion but I disagree.
Attila thinks we should not: Fine, that’s a valid opinion too. I agree and state why.

Now excuse me while I duck for cover.

Update: Cripes that generated a bunch of comments and links quickly. Maybe I should just schedule them together on the show and let them have it out. April 2nd is open.

Because when people have a secret ballot they vote against this:

Leftist thugs harassed and then superglued the doors of a popular Wisconsin grocer after it was discovered that individuals at the store had donated to Scott Walker’s campaign last year.

and this

Police are increasing patrols near the Brookfield home of a state tea party leader who has pushed for greater health and pension concessions from public employees after he received a veiled death threat over the weekend.

Wisconsin Tea Party Patriots State Coordinator Michael Hintze told police when he answered a call on his cell phone about 2:30 p.m. Saturday, a male voice “asked if he was wearing a bullet-proof vest” and then hung up.

And of course those who were chanting about democracy has a rather distorted view of it when practiced by their opponents:

Protestors both for and against the recall showed up. Even though they initially kept their distance, Holperin supporters engulfed the recall effort, and that’s when the situation turned tense.

“They circled around us, and they’re bullying us. They have a loud horn and they’re trying to intimidate people that would like to come and sign the petition,” said Kim Simac, recall leader, “I do think that this is an intimidation ploy.”

Simac says protestors even got involved with their petitions.

“We had a lady come up and write profanity and rip some of them right on our table…. so I guess that’s what democracy looks like to them.”

And it looks like the officers have taken a “liberal” view of serve and protect:

The policemen who were there, and who were standing in close proximity to these events as they unfolded, did nothing to assist those collecting the petitions as they were being destroyed, despite such an action being a Felony under Wisconsin law. Police also did nothing to clear the walk way for citizens that wanted to sign the petitions. Recall Committee members received many phone calls the following day from Merill area citizens who stated that they showed up to sign the petition, but were too afraid to get out of their vehicles and approach the recall table.

Kim Simac, leader of the recall effort, who has also received numerous personal threats, has now declared that enough is enough. “Tomorrow we begin taking the necessary steps to put a stop to this kind of behavior.”

As much as the national media would like to ignore these things the people of Wisconsin are not going to forget them. Add to that the sheer nonsense of the class struggle business:

The protests have been on behalf of well-paid people with excellent jobs — better jobs than the average Wisconsinite’s. And the protesters got massive extra doses of freedom to express themselves in the state capitol for over a month, without any threats of violence or even arrest for the crimes they committed in full view of the police. I mean, I know they have their complaints, but they are not even the bottom sector of the Wisconsin economy. If there were to be a class struggle here, they would be taken aback to find themselves in the role they actually have in this economy: the oppressors!

The left is right, this is looking more and more like Egypt. They are playing the role of Mubarak’s thugs.

Update: It is apparently even worse.

Update 2: The underground conservative lays it down:

Sad to say, I agree. There will be an ugly incident with violence, either toward individuals or toward perhaps a business that doesn’t support Da Union. And it will happen sooner rather than later.

Many of these union goons are trying to provoke an incident. Getting in people’s faces, as Der Fuhrer has urged, literally — such as the goon who literally blew a whistle in the face of Meade from Althouse or the thugs who are trying to steal phone cameras from anyone trying to record protests — will eventually provoke a physical response from someone.

At that point, it’s on. Eventually our side will have to fight back against the type of physical intimidation and Gestapo tactics that are being used by the Left. We have a case of a Madison bank branch forced to close because union thugs threatened the safety of the bank’s customers and employees.

And I seriously doubt if law enforcement will do the job we trust it to do. Clearly the sympathies of most law enforcement officers are with their union brethren instead of the public.

This is the most dangerous party of all of this. If public confidence in those who are sworn to protect them disappears then what makes America different goes away. Public safety unions should think long and hard before continuing down this path.