Questions for the Palin Haters

Since you are so eager to smear Sarah Palin with a share of responsibility for the Arizona shootings, is it too much to ask that you produce one single scrap of evidence that there is even the most tenuous connection between Jared Loughner and Palin? Does he have a Sarah Palin poster in his room, a copy of her book, or maybe an autographed picture? Is there a print-out of her oh-so-scary crosshairs political chart on his wall? Did he attend any of her rallies? Anything? Any connection at all? And no, I don't mean a connection that exists only in your imagination.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to at least have even one minor connection before even speculating, let alone accusing, someone of any sort of responsibility for murder? Liberals are always whining about "fairness." Where's the fairness in accusing someone of complicity in murder without evidence?

Even if such a connection could be established -- which it hasn't been -- have you ever heard that correlation does not imply causation? Roosters crow when the sun rises in the morning. Do you believe that roosters have some responsibility for the sunrise?

For those upset with Sarah Palin's response -- as if she should just sit still while being smeared, or apologize for something she had nothing to do with -- how would you feel if some political opponents claimed, without offering any evidence, that the murderous actions of some unrelated lunatic were somehow influenced by your words and political literature? What if they then attacked you for defending yourself, claimed you were a bigot because of your choice of words, and redoubled their baseless accusations?

Would you think that the people leveling such attacks were worthy of any respect? Or would you consider them some combination of ignorant, intellectually-dishonest, and blinded by hatred?

An Excellent Example of Leftist Irrationality

I believe that most on the left pushing their current meme about the Arizona shooting -- that it was somehow inspired by violent right wing rhetoric and the political climate -- are intellectually dishonest and deliberate engaging in a big lie tactic. But it appears that some are actually dumb enough to believe their own propaganda -- either that or the echo chamber they inhabit makes them oblivious to to their own biased assumptions. I came across this post at the White Coat Underground, which is written by a doctor. From the links it appears that the blogger is a skeptic and possibly an atheist. So I wasn't expecting such a high level of irrationality. Let's consider it point by point.

Sarah Palin jumped the bigotry shark today, and bloggers are trying to explain just how offensive her comments really are.

Others have already explained why Palin's use of "blood libel" was legitimate. It isn't exclusively tied to anti-semitism. But of course this blogger is too clueless and lazy to check his preconceived notions. Smearing political opponents as bigots without evidence is common leftist tactic.

the shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords and 19 others happened in a particular time and place, and history will look back at this context in trying to understand the event. What Sarah Palin and others in the New Right are arguing is that context is meaningless

I'm not sure what the "New Right" is supposed to be, but no one is arguing that context is meaningless. What people are arguing is that the leftist spin on events is a smear, given that there isn't the slightest shred of evidence connecting anyone on the right to that shooting.

that their inflammatory, violent rhetoric is irrelevant

The things that have been cited as violent and inflammatory are neither violent nor inflammatory, but simple, commonly-used metaphors and symbols. And they are irrelevant because they have no connection whatsoever to this particular case.

and that the left is just as bad, which is patently absurd—we hate guns, remember?

The left isn't just as bad, it is worse. As many have already pointed out, there is at least as much violent rhetoric and use of symbols on the left.

Right wing reactionaries use gun rhetoric and Christian imagery and language to speak to their base, including such statements as “don’t retreat, reload”, and posting pictures of “targeted” districts like Rep. Giffords’ with gun sights on them.

Everyone uses those types of metaphors and symbols in political campaigns. This clown has apparently never heard of "targeting" someone for defeat. The idea that saying "reload" is somehow violent when you understand the context is laughable.

Giffords is gunned down by a presumed nut-job who easily purchased a firearm and ammunition, a “right” favored by the New Right.

Owning a firearm is a right favored by the constitution, something not exactly held in much regard on the left. It's also supported by a strong majority of America, something you might not know if you live only on the left-wing fringe.

He drew and fired on her point blank range, rendering idiotic any claims that being personally armed could have helped her.

This guy is on a roll for clueless assertions. There have been numerous times when someone faced an attacker already pointing a gun at them who successfully drew and used his own weapon in self-defense.

He then continues with his false assertions about the term blood libel, which is not just used with regard to the Jews.

Palin, who favors eliminationist rhetoric directed at, in this case, a liberal Jewish Congresswoma

No, actually she doesn't. This is a flat-out lie. She called for her defeat, not her "elimination." It sounds like this guy has been reading too much of Paul Krugman's crazed ranting.

absolves herself of any responsibility for the violence

Maybe because she has absolutely no responsibility for the actions of some lunatic who had nothing to do with her.

for the violence just happens to bear close resemblance to her rhetoric.

Maybe in left wing world where Sarah Palin-hatred dominates over rational thought. In the real world, the violence bears no relationship to anything Palin said. And even if it did, there's no evidence Loughner ever read a single thing by Sarah Palin. But let's just ignore that and smear her anyway.

Part of her reasoning is that it’s just rhetoric, and the guy was a nut.

Because the guy was a nut.

She then claims harm from the rhetoric leveled against her.

Really? I wonder why? Why would someone claim harm from being smeared in connection with violence she had nothing to do with? That's just too difficult for this logically-challenged blogger to understand.

I’m not one to see an anti-Semite behind every door, but this is blatantly anti-Semetic rhetoric, giving a whole new appearance to the attack.

He's not one to see an anti-Semite under ever door but he'll accuse someone of being an anti-Semite based on a supposed misuse of the term blood libel.

The majority of atheists are on the political left, and for many of them, their normal reliance on logic and evidence disappears when it comes to political issues, where they swallow leftist propaganda as if it were revealed truth. One of the main reasons I started this blog was to make it clear that not all atheists willing to speak out on political issues are on the left. When you see the kind of garbage that passes for political analysis at the White Coat Underground, you can understand that while I identify as an atheist and a skeptic, why I don't want to be associated with the left.

If Some Lunatic Shoots Sarah Palin, Should We Blame Andrew Sullivan?

Of all the Palin-haters on the internet, there's probably no one with a higher profile than Andrew Sullivan. I doubt there is anyone who has done more to demonize Palin. Oh there are plenty of people who spew hatred of Palin, but Sullivan does it from a heavily-trafficked blog at The Atlantic. And unlike most of those on the left, who are easily recognizable as fringe loons, Sullivan is not only highly prolific, but an excellent writer who comments on all sorts of subjects. On the rare occasion he even offers a reasonable analysis. Casual readers not familiar with him and his obsession with Sarah Palin might be inclined to take him seriously.

Let's suppose someone shows up at a Sarah Palin speech and shoots her along with various bystanders. The shooter is clearly disturbed, has no clear political ideology, and harbors a grudge against Palin. There's no evidence he's ever read anything by Andrew Sullivan, and to all appearances he acted based on his own unbalanced mental condition. Would it be reasonable to blame Andrew Sullivan for the shooting, or even to suggest that he's created the climate that made such a shooting likely? Should we comb through his writings to see if he ever used any sort of violent imagery in any way, no matter how routine or innocuous, with reference to Palin? Despite the fact that Sullivan has never advocated violence against Palin, would he still bear some responsibility for the shooting? In my opinion the answer is no, and that answer should be blatantly obvious. I'm sure Sullivan himself would be appalled at the notion that he might bear some blame for the actions of a deranged individual. But of course, like the intellectually dishonest, logically-challenged individual that he is, he has no problem trying to tie Palin to the Arizona incident despite the fact that she had nothing to do with it.

It shouldn't even need to be pointed out, but there is absolutely no evidence at all that the current state of political discourse, the political climate, or whatever else people are calling it had anything at all to do with this shooting. No one knows for sure what drives this type of killer to commit his actions. But people don't like to admit that they just have no idea what causes such shootings. They prefer to look for something or someone to blame. And who better to blame than political opponents?

Amazing Stupidity and Intellectual Dishonesty

I know I shouldn't be surprised that a shooting incident has brought forth such an outpouring of stupidity and intellectual dishonesty, but it is surprising in its intensity. Here's what we know so far, from what I've read. The shooter was an unstable individual with a penchant for conspiracy theories, and a specific grudge against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. That's really all we know for sure. But that hasn't stopped an amazing eruption of complete nonsense, mostly from the left and its enablers in the media. The ridiculous speculation that violent political imagery -- which is nothing new and no more intense than it has been in the past -- is somehow responsible for this incident, is actually being seriously discussed, instead of receiving the derisive laughter it deserves. People seething with intense hatred for Sarah Palin, who know full-well she had no connection whatsoever to this incident, have shamelessly tried to smear her with responsibility. Then there are the usual idiots who pretend that if we just passed another gun law, somehow these incidents could be avoided.

Unless some sort of multi-person conspiracy is unearthed, or a clear motivating ideology, as in the case of radical Islamists, this incident can be best explained by the same explanation that applies to most such one-person shooting sprees: nuts do crazy things. When you have someone whose outlook on life and reality is so out of whack that he's willing to kill a bunch of random people just to get someone he's formed a grudge against, there's no telling what might set him off. The idea, in the absence of any evidence, that he was somehow motivated by a politician or media figure you don't particularly like, even though those figures aren't actually calling for any violence, is utterly ludicrous. I believe most of the people pushing such theories know that, and are just behaving like the intellectually-dishonest hacks they are.

Responding to Stupidity With Intellectual Dishonesty

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote a column called, "Bill O'Reilly's Threats." I noticed the title and was wondering what threats O'Reilly had made. But once I read the column I found that the title is a deliberate lie. O'Reilly, who was apparently offended by something Milbank wrote about Fox News, made a bad joke about Milbank.

On Thursday night, the Fox News host asked, as part of a show that would be seen by 5.5 million people: "Does sharia law say we can behead Dana Milbank?" He then added, "That was a joke."

Bill O'Reilly is a moron for making a joke like that on the air, but obviously he isn't actually calling for Milbank's death. Milbank knows this, of course, but in his column he chooses blatant intellectual dishonesty, comparing what O'Reilly said to the murder of Daniel Pearl, and characterizing O'Reilly's words as

O'Reilly's on-air fantasizing about violent ends for me ... violent fantasies [and] intimidation and violent imagery

What a pile of garbage. O'Reilly's stupid joke was not a threat, not intimidation and highly unlikely to represent actual fantasizing about Milbank's head being cut off by Islamic terrorists. But Milbank pretends that it is, purely in order to paint O'Reilly as an advocate of violence. He actually calls O'Reilly's word's "thuggish tactics." Milbank's column provides hard evidence of why he is an intellectually dishonest hack whose writings about pretty much any subject should be taken with a big grain of salt. 

Being Against Illegal Immigration is Not the Same as Being Anti-Immigrant

In the last HOT5 I linked a post on intellectual honesty. Today I read several pieces written in response to a new ad by Sharon Angle in Nevada. The usual suspects are accusing her of racism -- there's a big surprise, leftists making racism accusations -- but the responses also provide examples of one of my pet peeves: the blatant intellectual dishonesty of most illegal immigration supporters. Liberal hack Alex Pareene at Salon helpfully offers the most striking example, right in the title: "Sharron Angle's ridiculous new anti-immigrant ad." If you look at the ad you will find that there is nothing about it that is in any way "anti-immigrant." Being opposed to illegal immigration, no matter how stridently it is opposed, has nothing to do with being opposed to all immigration, or to legal immigrants.

It is of course possible to be opposed to all immigration, legal & illegal, and to be against it on racist, nativist or other grounds. But the vast majority of people opposed to illegal immigration are opposed to having people illegally enter the country, not to legal immigration, which is a different matter. Even someone that thinks we should have stricter controls on legal immigration doesn't necessarily qualify as anti-immigrant. There is no question that writers like Alex Pareene understand the distinction between opposing illegal vs all immigration, or that there are various positions that can be taken on immigration in general. Pareene and others like him, are simply intellectually dishonest propagandists, deliberately conflating opposition to illegal immigration not just with immigration as a whole, but even with racial animus to immigrants. It's just another variant of the common left-wing smear tactic of false accusations of racism, which is deployed regularly against political opponents. Like much of what is found at Salon, there's simply no reason to take it seriously as any sort of rational analysis. When you engage in such obvious intellectual dishonesty as Pareene, you immediately identify yourself as a ideological hack whose writings should be taken with a big grain of salt.

The Intellectual Dishonesty of Pope Benedict XVI

Pope Benedict is at it again, attacking "atheist extremism" and "aggressive secularism" on his visit to Britain.

The leader of the Roman Catholic church concluded a speech, made before the Queen and assembled dignitaries at the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh, with the argument that the Nazi desire to eradicate God had led to the Holocaust and a plea for 21st-century Britain to respect its Christian foundations. ...Benedict was more explicit in his condemnation of militant atheism, noting that Britain had fought the atheistic evil embodied by Adolf Hitler.

"Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live," he said.

Promoting atheism was not one of the missions of Nazism, and there is no good evidence that Hitler himself was an atheist. The one major political organization directly associated with atheism, the communist party, was a mortal enemy of Adolf Hitler & the Nazi party. Its German members were exterminated or thrown into concentration camps once Hitler gained total control of the state. Anti-Semitism, and the denial of our "common humanity" did not begin with the Nazis. Hitler was able to act on his own radical hatred of the Jews because of the long historical foundation of European anti-Semitism, which had strong roots in certain Christian attitudes and teachings, including those of the Catholic Church.

Pope Benedict is a highly-educated man. It is impossible to believe that he isn't aware of the basic history of the Nazi era in Germany, or the roots and practice of European anti-Semitism and its linkage to Christianity. His attempts to tie atheism to Nazism & anti-Semitism are pure intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind. He is smearing an entire category of people as somehow responsible for atrocities that they had nothing to do with. Portraying atheism as a motivating force for the Holocaust is an outright lie -- and the Pope must know that what he is saying is untrue. He apparently thinks enough people are stupid enough to swallow his ridiculous anti-atheist propaganda.

It should also go without saying that it takes amazing nerve to make false linkages between atheism and Nazism when you yourself were a member of the Hitler Youth. I can't remember a pope in my lifetime that has presented such an ugly face of Catholicism to the world. I wonder how many Catholics will be secretly relieved when this guy is gone and a new pope is in place.

Another False Analogy from the Left

The use of false analogies has long been a staple of left-wing argumentation, almost as important as smear tactics. But occasionally you see one that is outrageously idiotic, even for a logically-challenged leftist. Such is the case over at Balloon Juice, in a post called, "Who’s being naive now?" According to DougJ, the South Park situation involving Revolution Islam happens "in some form, every day on every show on television." Really? I guess we missed all those death threats that regularly force people not to show certain things on tv. But for clueless leftist DougJ, radical Islamic death threats are somehow equivalent to "complaints."

here’s a partial list of people who lost their jobs for not being sufficiently psyched about Operation Iraqi Freedom: Bill Maher, Ashleigh Banfield, Phil Donahue. NBC wouldn’t rebroadcast the clip of Sinead O’Connor tearing up a picture of the pope. ... When it happens because of right-wing American complaints, it’s called family values or patriotism. When it happens because of Muslim complaints, it’s called censorship.

Let's pretend that DougJ is correct about why those people lost their jobs. How is losing your job because you offended advertisers, the viewing audience, or network executives somehow equivalent to threatening people with death if they show certain images during a television show? Are peaceful protests, boycotts and other non-violent acts against things you find offensive the same as issuing death threats to enforce your demands? Is Balloon Juice run by complete imbeciles without a shred of logical reasoning ability, or is this just another typical, intellectually dishonest attempt to draw false equivalence between radical Muslim extremists and right-wing Americans?

The Flexible Definition of a True Christian

This Christmas I received a DVD from relatives called, "Is America A Christian Nation," by David Barton. For those who haven't heard of it, it is basically a piece of propaganda designed to support the view that America was founded as a Christian nation, and that everything wrong with the country today is a result of getting away from our close relationship with God. Like most propaganda, it cherry-picks evidence that seems to support its thesis, and ignores or minimizes everything else. As I listened to Barton select quotes from the founding fathers that supposedly indicate their strong Christian beliefs, I was struck by just how flexible the "true Christian" definition can become.

Conservative Christians, fundamentalists, whatever you want to call them, normally have a very narrow definition of what it means to be a Christian. In their view, the vast majority of people calling themselves Christian are not "true" Christians at all. I saw this from my own personal experience growing up. The people we called Christians were those who met certain criteria, such as believing in Jesus as their personal savior, the acceptance of the Bible as the inerrant, inspired Word of God, and the doctrine that salvation was by faith alone, not works. This left out most Catholics, most mainstream Christian denominations, and many other Christians. 

But isn't it amazing how flexible and inclusive the definition of Christian becomes when it is time to argue that America was founded as a Christian nation? There's no question that a modern individual who held beliefs similar to Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, or a number of the other founders would not be considered a true Christian by Christian fundamentalists. But yet they have no problem claiming the founding fathers as Christian, based on cherry-picked statements from their writings.

Laughing at Little Green Footballs

Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs has a post up called, "Why I Parted Ways With The Right." He lists 10 things that supposedly caused him to "part ways." Many others have already commented on his post. But I thought I'd give my take. Lest any LGF defenders think this is a typical knee-jerk right-wing response, let's quickly run down some of my positions. I probably agree with Johnson on many issues. For anyone new here, aside from being an atheist, I'm pro-choice, pro-gay marriage & strongly pro-gay rights in general, pro-immigration and in favor of some sort of amnesty for illegals, and pro-legalization of drugs & prostitution. With that out of the way, let's consider Johnson's points, and why I laugh at them.

1. Support for fascists, both in America (see: Pat Buchanan, Robert Stacy McCain, etc.) and in Europe (see: Vlaams Belang, BNP, SIOE, Pat Buchanan, etc.) This is nonsense. Pat Buchanan isn't popular with most on the right, McCain is just a blogger, most on the right have no idea who Vlaams Belang is, and don't support the BNP. Pat Buchanan has been a conservative for decades. His influence is probably lower now than it's ever been, yet somehow he's now a reason to leave the right. And there is little or no support for actual fascists on the right. Johnson probably knows all that, so reason #1 is just blatant intellectual dishonesty.

2. Support for bigotry, hatred, and white supremacism (see: Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Robert Stacy McCain, Lew Rockwell, etc.) None of these people actually support "white supremacism," and bigotry and hatred is pretty vague. Smearing people as white supremacists could be described as bigotry and hatred. Lew Rockwell is not exactly popular with the vast majority of the right, so his inclusion is idiotic. And again, Buchanan & Coulter are long-time conservatives, hardly reasons to leave the right now. Point #2 is based on nothing but empty slurs, and an apparent personal vendetta against another blogger.

3. Support for throwing women back into the Dark Ages, and general religious fanaticism (see: Operation Rescue, anti-abortion groups, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, the entire religious right, etc.) Ridiculous hyperbole. The religious right and anti-abortion groups have long been part of the right. Point #3 can easily be dismissed as hysterical exaggeration.

4. Support for anti-science bad craziness (see: creationism, climate change denialism, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, etc.) Support for creationism among part of the right is again nothing new. And climate change denialism is no more anti-science than extremist global warming fanaticism -- which is actually far more dangerous. Skepticism is far preferable to fanaticism. Point #4 is pretty weak, and only applies to part of the right anyway.

5. Support for homophobic bigotry (see: Sarah Palin, Dobson, the entire religious right, etc.) Sarah Palin is hardly some sort of poster-child for "homophobic bigotry," based on her record as governor. I'm no Palin fan, but that characterization is just another smear. That seems to be a Johnson specialty. And again, the religious right has long been part of the right. Pretending that its continued existence is a reason for breaking with the right is just silly and unconvincing. Point #5, gratuitous Palin smear and pointless sputtering about the religious right. 

6. Support for anti-government lunacy (see: tea parties, militias, Fox News, Glenn Beck, etc.) Oh please. Why not just write, point 6, because I'm now a clueless leftist. Look, I'll even spout their propaganda. Fox News, Fox News!!! And although this point doesn't even deserve a response, I'll just note that most anti-government lunacy is still far preferable to most big government lunacy.

7. Support for conspiracy theories and hate speech (see: Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Birthers, creationists, climate deniers, etc Alex Jones isn't a right-wing figure, Glenn Beck is doing his own thing, and conspiracy theories are prevalent on both left and right. It's also pretty amusing that Johnson, who smears opponents as white supremacists, bigots, etc, is somehow worried about "hate speech." This point is sort of a combination of hypocrisy and irrelevance.

8. A right-wing blogosphere that is almost universally dominated by raging hate speech (see: Hot Air, Free Republic, Ace of Spades, etc.) This is obvious nonsense to anyone who actually reads the right-wing blogosphere. I regularly read Hot Air and I've never seen a single instance of anything that could be reasonably described as hate speech, except from some commenters. And if you are going to count commenters, there's hate speech all over the internet on all sides. Point #8 is either a flat-out lie, or Johnson using a definition of "hate speech" to mean basically anything he disagrees with.

9. Anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide (see: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc.) I think there are some that do go too far in their attacks on Muslims at large, as opposed to the radical element. Johnson either doesn't know what fascism is, is being deliberately dishonest, or is using the left-wing definition, just a smear for someone on the right who holds opposing views. And there's obviously no support for genocide, except maybe for a few extremists. As for "violence," that's so vague it's meaningless. Only the first part of this point has any validity at all, and it applies to only a minority of the right.

10. Hatred for President Obama that goes far beyond simply criticizing his policies, into racism, hate speech, and bizarre conspiracy theories (see: witch doctor pictures, tea parties, Birthers, Michelle Malkin, Fox News, World Net Daily, Newsmax, and every other right wing source) Another massive exaggeration and attempt to smear the entire right with the views of a extremist fringe.I'm sure Johnson is well-aware that most of the criticism of Obama is based on his policies, not racism, hatred or conspiracies. It's possible that Johnson really believes left-wing propaganda, but it's more likely this is just another example of his intellectual dishonesty.

Overall, Johnson's reasons for breaking with the right are nothing short of laughable. The majority of the right does not subscribe to most of the positions he attacks, and he relies on slurs, propaganda, ludicrous exaggeration, and vague terms like "hate speech." Having read some of his material before, I find it difficult to believe that he actually swallows the left-wing propaganda he's spouting. Therefore it appears that his post is nothing more than an intellectually dishonest attempt to cover up the real reasons he has left the right. I'm not sure what those are, but they appear to have something to do with personal vendettas against other bloggers.

The Pro-Rape Smear

Not content with making false accusations of racism against political opponents, or fabricating quotations, the left has smeared anyone opposing the Franken amendment to the defense appropriations bill as "pro-rape." Never mind the actual reasons they are against it, or the fact that the Obama administration itself opposes it. 

Kathleen Parker takes note of this smear campaign in today's Washington Post. She points out that Republican senators opposing the amendment felt that it was

overbroad and might not be enforceable. The latter possibility was raised by the Defense Department in a letter to senators, saying that the Pentagon or its contractors "may not be in a position to know about such things. Enforcement would be problematic."

More details on problems with the amendment can be found here. But as Parker writes, the smear artists don't care about the details.

It's far more entertaining to insist that Republicans, instead of objecting to a potentially bad law, don't mind if women get gang-raped. Legal wrangling is not for sissies in Twitter World.

She's actually being generous. Rather than not caring about the details, most of those behind the smear campaign are intellectually dishonest scum exploiting the issue of rape for political purposes. Many of the same people falsely accusing Republicans of being pro-rape, are the same types constantly whining about "hate speech," "hate radio," and the supposed dangers of intemperate language coming from the right. But calling people "pro-rape" because they have objections to an amendment is just fine -- typical leftist hypocrisy in action.

Leftist Clown Calls Fox News Un-American

Normally, leftist insane seething hatred for Fox News is merely another amusing illustration of hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty, and an the overall inability to tolerate dissent, characteristics that dominate the left in general. I wrote about the left and Fox News briefly back in June, so I won't repeat everything I said there, but I'll just quote this passage.

One of the funniest things about leftists is their constant whining and sniveling about Fox News, and their inability to distinguish individual shows from general news coverage. If you watch standard news ticker type coverage on Fox, it is very similar to what you get on CNN. Fox slants Republican just as other channels slant Democratic, but it's basically a right of center approach. Fox News is no more extreme right than MSNBC is extreme left.

The Obama administration has been on the attack against Fox, and liberal hack Jacob Weisberg felt compelled to weigh-in, writing an article in Newsweek called, "The O’Garbage Factor." The subtitle is, "Fox News isn't just bad. It's un-American." Speaking of garbage, Weisberg, you might remember, is the same individual who basically smeared all McCain voters as racists, writing at Slate before the election. That piece should have destroyed any claim of his to credibility, but if it didn't, this one in Newsweek should do the trick. He actually makes the unbelievably laughable argument that Fox News has politicized the media, destroying the "century-old tradition of independence" of the press. Where has this clown been? The media has been politicized for my entire lifetime. The major television networks, and most of the big newspapers have long been staffed with people who, in the vast majority, are either Democrats, or favor Democratic policy positions on most major issues. During the lastest election and beyond, we had repeated demonstrations that most of the mainstream media was in the tank for Obama, who received the most uncritical coverage, and the least investigation of probably any presidential candidate in history. The reason Fox News has become so successful, is precisely because it offers an alternative slant that leans right. But having one network that gives a voice to Republicans and others on the right is one too many for Weisberg.

There have been innumerable ridiculous attacks on Fox News from the left. But rarely have I seen one that is either as shamelessly intellectually dishonest, or as utterly clueless as Jacob Weisberg's. It's also worth noting that leftists whined and cried constantly during the Bush years about having their patriotism questioned -- even when such questions were well-deserved. But now that Obama is in power they have no problem calling opponents un-American or treasonous.

Joe Klein, Clueless as Ever

Joe Klein, who writes at Time's Swampland blog, is horrified that people think Obama has put communists in the government:  

I was at a Blanche Lincoln town hall meeting in Russellville, Arkansas, yesterday--and the number of people who believe that the President has larded the government with communists (!) was astonishing.

Hey Joe, could that be because Obama actually did appoint someone who was a self-proclaimed communist in the 1990s to one of his czar positions? Oh no, it's because of Glen Beck and Republican " slinging of garbage." That's pretty funny coming from someone who writes garbage on a regular basis. Klein says that beliefs that Obama has put communists into the government are "vomitous, disgraceful notions." Putting someone with a communist background, who is also a truther in the government -- no problem. Complaining about it? "Vomitous" and "disgraceful." That's liberal "logic" in action.

"Could I just say that the intensity of this getting pretty scary...and dangerous? We are heading toward a cliff and the usual brakes of civil discourse are not working"

What's scary is that anyone actually believes Klein's propaganda. And Klein talking about "civil discourse" is the height of hypocrisy.

I'm usually not one to panic or be overly worried about the state of our country--even when we do awful things like invade Iraq and torture people, we usually right our course before long--but I have a sinking feeling about where we're headed now. I hope I'm wrong.

Oh please. What a whining idiot. 

Hypocrite-in-Chief

According to the Washington Post, the president actually criticized "scare tactics" by opponents of health reform. But in the second paragraph, we find that Obama asserted that Americans are "held hostage by insurance companies." Sounds a little like a scare tactic, doesn't it? Obama's entire pitch on healthcare involves scaring the American people about the current system. His ridiculous whining about opponent scare tactics just reveals him to be a gigantic hypocrite.

When the president isn't being intellectually dishonest or hypocritical about the health care issue, he's blatantly lying or spouting doubletalk.

"I don't want government bureaucrats meddling in our health care - but the point is I don't want insurance companies' bureaucrats meddling in our health care either,

What's that supposed to mean? He wants far more government involvement, which obviously necessitates government bureaucrats "meddling," plus he's been working with insurance companies to get their support for his "reform" efforts, even while he demonizes them. 

Hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty, scare-tactics, doubletalk, and lies -- that's President Obama on healthcare.

False Accusations of Racism

Smearing political opponents with false accusations of racism has long been a left-wing staple. The leftist base of the Democratic party simply assumes that conservatives are racists. Any Republican tactic or statement that could possibly be interpreted as racist -- no matter how implausibly -- is pounced upon and condemned as racism. We saw this during the last election, when every anti-Obama GOP ad was scrutinized, and hidden "racist" elements were pointed out by race-obsessed leftists -- even though the supposed racism was invisible to normal, rational people. Today, master of shallow thinking Matt Yglesias has an article in the Daily Beast called, of all things, "Here Come the Racists." 

If you read through Yglesias' article expecting to find actual examples of racism on the right you'll be disappointed -- well, unless you are a leftist, since you know that conservative criticism of Obama is race-based. Here's one of Yglesias' hysterical overstatements,

The Gates affair was the opening right-wingers used to pummel Obama with race-based attacks—to prove that America’s first post-racial presidency was anything but

In Yglesias world, criticizing Obama for how he handles racial topics is itself inherently racist. Isn't that convenient? Here's an example of one of these supposed "race-based attacks," most of which exist only in Yglesias' imagination.

Brit Hume whined on air that "to be labeled a racist" in today's America is very bad

Obviously Hume meant being falsely labeled, but Yglesias, with typical intellectual dishonesty, pretends that Hume is against "the existence of social opprobrium against racists." When you have to reach that far to find "race-based attacks," you know your case is pretty weak.

Basically anyone that brings up reverse racism, or otherwise doesn't toe the left-wing line on race, or of course dares to criticize Obama in anyway related to race, must be a racist. That's the entire substance of Yglesias' "thinking." Unlike what he apparently assumes, accusing the president of being a "racial opportunist," or even labeling Judge Sotomeyer a racist, are not necessarily racist attacks -- any more than are incorrect or false accusations of racism by people like Yglesias. When Yglesias falsely accuses people on the right of racism, it isn't necessarily because he's a racist himself. It could just be that he's wrong, being intellectually dishonest, stupid, or otherwise clueless and incapable of determining what constitutes racism.

Double Standards & Hypocrisy

Left-wingers are attacking conservatives like Newt Gingrich and Tom Tancredo for calling Judge Sotomeyer a racist. The racist charge is based on this statement:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life,"

Her defenders point out that the statement was part of a larger speech, and has been taken out of context. Here's the full speech. Take a look. It definitely doesn't look as bad in context.

Let's pretend that the judge was a white man and he said the following, in similar context.  

"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life,"

The very same people who are now screaming and howling about the evil Republicans taking quotes out of context, would instead be foaming at the mouth with accusations of racism. They would insist that such a statement was incredibly offensive and racist, and disqualified the speaker not just from the Supreme Court, but any public office. Since when have left-wingers ever considered the context before accusing political opponents of racism? Many of them just assume that conservatives are racists. Look at the past presidential campaign and the numerous ludicrous accusations of racism leveled against anyone who dared criticize or make fun of Barack Obama. The left is the last group that should be lecturing anyone about false accusations of racism. 

No Defense Cut

In a recent post I commented on a report that said the Obama administration would request a 10% cut in the military budget.  Congressional Quarterly reported yesterday that the actual budgetary request is in fact an increase. Apparently the amount is less than the Pentagon would like, so some there decided to spread misleading information and call it a "cut," when it is no such thing. 

Characterizing actual increases as "cuts" for political purposes has long been a Democratic tactic. How many times did we hear that the Bush administration had cut funding for something, only to find that there was an actual increase once the details were examined? Even now you will still hear blanket statements claiming that Bush "cut" regulation, even though he massively increased it.  Just about  any time the rate of increase for some pet program has slowed, it has been characterized as a "cut." It's unfortunate to see some on the right now resorting to the same type of intellectual dishonesty. An increase, even if less than expected or desired, is not a cut.