The first thing we would see is Wolf Blizter, who is nothing more than a Corporate Nazi and a Repiglican controlled Puppet, goose stepping around his set with his Corporate CNN uniform on, on hand out stretched ala 'seig heil' while mumbling in mind numbing repetition 'cnn, cnn, cnn' and masturbating himself with his other hand ..........

I totally agree. There is no rational nexus, here. But how many movies have shown scary middle eastern archetypes as the bad guys? Sure you can find films with scary old white guys, as well--a lot of them. But the public doesn't associate terrorism with guys that look like Wilford Brimley. There have been a LOT of violent incidents involving old white guys and the govt over the years--when has the rhetoric ever heated up? When has the public ever gotten exercised over this? None of it is rational.

Perfectly written and so very true. Imagine if it were Muslims...Fox and the rest of the "conservative" talkers would be freaking out and calling for more torture.

This is actually of a piece with the racial thinking in regard to Sotomayor, life experience, etc. In that debate, white men have no racial or gender experiences -- they are neutral on those qualities. In these cases, white male terrorists are not indicative of a demographic pattern, the way Arab or Muslim terrorists would be to the likes of Pipes et al. These people are just lone nuts and don't represent the possibility of even one more conservative white male domestic terrorist. And when it happens again, well, no one could've predicted this lone wolf would've gone off.

The way Debbie Schlussel sees it, none of those facts matter, it's still all the fault of the Mooooslims.

Allegedly? Really? In your examples, they all pulled the trigger, there's no denying that. The reason's you listed might be "allegedly" but not their actions. You're starting to sound like Brian Williams

Come on, this is where the TWM is going ? Made up scenarios with made up reactions. Let's not forget a Muslim did shoot up a recruiting station killing a soldier, still not seeing the freak-out mentioned here.

I hate republicans as much as the next guy, but this sort of post is pure speculation, worthy of a getting files in the garbage can.

It is partly rational, because rounding up all the muslims is obviously easier than rounding up all the Christians. It's always one of the dangers of being in the minority -- you're easier to liquidate wholesale and you are not considered "part" of culture, like the "Real Virginia."

That said, I think old white men are now threatening Western Civilization and something should be done about it. I plan to protest outside the next Bruce Willis movie. We have to make a stand. Also, if anyone has some ethnic uniforms I can borrow, and maybe some face paint, I'd appreciate it.

We HAVE had would-be Muslim terrorists.
They were turned in by their fellow Muslims who want no part of violence.

I thank the peaceful American Muslim community for their continued commitment towards peace among all the children of Allah/Jahweh.

If only we could say the same for the right wing nutjob white guys.

Steve brings up a good point, especially with how FAUX news would most likely respond, based upon past "reports" from various programs on that news station. However, I think the main focus should be that these are acts of domestic terrorism, should not be taken lightly, and should be called such by ALL news networks and websites.

Allegedly? Really? In your examples, they all pulled the trigger, there's no denying that. The reason's you listed might be "allegedly" but not their actions. You're starting to sound like Brian Williams Posted by: Goof Beyou on June 11, 2009 at 12:50 PM |

Distasteful as it might seem, a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and none of the individuals Steve cites have been convicted - yet. So "allegedly" is correct.

I'm not saying that all old white guys are terrorists. I'm just saying: Do we really want to take the risk? Internment centers now.

i was gonna say something like scott w (above) ...
only, you know, SATIRE

sweet jesus on a stick -- the world is indeed mad.

i'll try anyway...
steve steve steve... you know that it is all pure speculation that these rightwing white guy killins are meeting with a different societal reception than if they were little brown people of a different religion. of course everybody is equal in the eye of the, uh, law and of the, uh, media...

Scott W: you need to "engage brain before opening mouth." Steve was talking about what would happen IF the "shoe was on the other foot."

Personally, I think we need to point out these guys are from the Christian Wrong, since it does give us the opportunity to point out that they're about as "Christian" as Osama Bin Laden is a "Muslim."

What they all are is Fundamentalists - a religion that comes in various shades of shit brown: "christian," "jew," "muslim," "hindu." You'll note I didn't post these as proper nouns, since - when they follow the word "Fundamentalist," they are mere adjectives.

Imagine if James Von Brunn, Scott Roeder, Poplawski, and Adkisson were all Muslims.

What would the rhetoric be like? What kind of legislation might congressional Republicans offer? How many special reports about the "epidemic" of domestic Muslim violence would Sean Hannity host?

Imagine if four Muslims were arrested for plotting to blow up a synagogue.

Imagine if a Muslim shot up an army recruiting station, killing a soldier.

What sort of legislation would the President put forward? What would prominent left-wing blogs say?

Yeah, these hypotheticals are lots of fun.

And let's not overplay the racial dynamic ... what if all these guys were COMMUNISTS? There's certainly a political element to our laissez-bomb attitude.

Those of you claiming that these are pointless hypotheticals would do well to remember that from FOX to blogs to ignorant governors, the right wing is strongly resisting the labeling of any of the white guys as "terrorists." Indeed, conservatives are spending large amounts of time and energy assembling convoluted and unconvincing arguments as to why the political assassination of an abortion provider, the blowing away of a religious liberal and the shooting up of a Holocaust museum do not fit the proper definition of terrorism.

In contrast, none of these folks has had any problem calling the soldier-shooting Muslim terrorist a terrorist.

Some of the hypotheticals may be a bit of a stretch. Pointing out that there's a distinct double standard in play is not.

If you wanna talk racial profiling, I'd just mention that, in terms of body count, the most deadly people in world history are, that's right, white, Christian, European males.

Frankly, I cross to the other side of the street when I see one of them,
-Z

Indeed, it's not just the Kansas and DC shootings. Richard Poplawski, a right-wing extremist and white guy, allegedly gunned down three police officers in Pittsburgh in April, in part because he feared the non-existent "Obama gun ban." Jim David Adkisson, a right-wing extremist and white guy, allegedly opened fire in a Unitarian church in Tennessee last year, in part because of his "hatred of the liberal movement."

Saying the same thing yesterday got my post deleted and a bunch of whiny posters complained.

God, you are all messed up in the head. Why are conservatives shooting liberals?

Distasteful as it might seem, a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and none of the individuals Steve cites have been convicted - yet.

A person is legally presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Facts, however, do not exist in state of quantum indeterminancy for all purposes outside of the legal system until a court reaches a verdict.

"Allegedly" may often be appropriate when the statement is about legal liability (i.e., the people at issue may have "allegedly murdered" people), but its just weasel-wording when it is used to describe facts for which there is no substantive basis for doubt.

I caught a bit of Billo's program last night and I don't know who the guest was but he was making this exact statement, that the guy who shot the recruiter was a "Muslim" and therefore a terrorist while these other terrorists where white guys who have been pushed to their acts of violence and should be treated differently. this is not a "made up scenario" but an actual line of bull being pushed by the talking heads of faux news and programs.

If we're building a case about growing internal political violence, I do think it is entirely appropriate to include the Little Rock Army recruiting center shooting by a Muslim convert. And before anyone thinks I'm a conservative troll, I'm a socialist-leaning, latte-drinking, bike-riding, CSA-member, etc. progressive. But the situations are similar.

"Saying the same thing yesterday got my post deleted and a bunch of whiny posters complained."

Calling for the murder of conservatives is what got your post deleted, fucktard. Get a grip, loser.

This is Hutu Power radio/television with a white, fat, American face. Are people expecting them to start asking people to put down their machettes and to all just get along?

The suggestion that the [Weekly] Standard may have been a target complicates any view of the racist shooter in contemporary left-right terms. Von Brunn's white supremacist roots put him under the rubric of a "right-wing extremist," but the substance of his views -- which included everything from believing that President Bush may have been in on the September 11 attacks to denying that President Obama is an American citizen -- are too far on the fringe to fit into conventional political classification.

I'm confused.

In the past 8 years we have had:
1) 9/11
2) A black muslim sniper terrorizing the nation's capital and killing 11 people while "expert" profilers speculated the killer was a white male
3) Sgt. Hasan Akbar of the US Army attacking and killing his fellow soldiers
4) A Muslim immigrant gunning down 3 innocent people in the LA airport
5) A black Muslim killing a US soldier in a recruiting station (you may have missed this one - the mainstream media didn't cover it because it coincided with the abortion doctor killing).
6) Many more incidents I don't have time to list

By your logic shouldn't we already have seen the concentration camps for Muslims in the US? Where are they???!!!!

Hey - I went to college and so I learned that all white males are evil and all persons of color are saints just like you guys. But at some point, shouldn't we deal with reality?

Uhm, Midwest Yahoo...

Why must you accentuate the color of the Muslims involved? Is a black Muslim worse than a nearly-white one? Is a black Christian worse than a white one? And what color would you call Osama bin Laden?

Call me curious.

Since Caucasian genetic traits are recessive and there will be lean in numbers towards people with genetically dominant traits (people of color) in the upcoming decades - the white fringe elements may become more active. When a group of people (race, religion, ideology) feel threatened or feel as if they are a minority - some will lash out. It's human nature. When they feel provoked or fed propaganda from the leaders of their race, religion, or ideology - it only adds to hatred and violence.

To ignore this concept - to not group white terrorists with the same same contempt as terrorists of other creed/race is ignoring the root of the problem with terrorism and why it is practiced. I'm glad the DHS is keeping tabs on fringe elements on all sides. It's completely necessary. For conservative law makers to be up in arms over "watching right wing extremists" a few months ago is nothing short of absolute irresponsibility of their role of governing this country.

Dear Ms. Mudd:

Nice try.

In case you didn't notice, the blogger and all the previous posters mentioned that the evil men who have recently committed these acts of terror were all WHITE men. They then went on to speculate on what would have happened if they were Muslims. THEY raised the racial issue - I didn't.

For the record, I believe terror and violent crime are evil no matter who perpetrates it.

By your logic shouldn't we already have seen the concentration camps for Muslims in the US? Where are they???!!!!

I know, you and Michelle Malkin are pissed off that we don't have them already. Unfortunately for you, the voters intervened and we now have a president who has bothered to read the constitution.

"By your logic shouldn't we already have seen the concentration camps for Muslims in the US? Where are they???!!!!"

Guantanamo. And Abu Ghraib. And Bagram. Just for starters.

And, of course, you're ignoring the point here, which is the severe double standard of you right-wingers going nuts over Muslims while happily dismissing violence from white right-wing extremists like Roeder.

I'm not afraid of Al-Qaeda I'm afraid of Al Cracker -- Chris Rock.

After the 1995 bombing of the Federal Bldg in Oklahoma City, Congress held hearings basically about trying to understand why white supremacists and militiamen were so angry: ie., trying to understand them.

The default position is always that if white, people from the heartland are angry and willing to be violent then something is wrong with the US, NOT that something is wrong with these folks and their hateful ideology.

I don't know if I agree with the entire logic of the original post, but I do agree that when acts of violence (and let's just call it terrorism) are committed by people who the dominant culture sees as "mainstream" then they are more likely to be accomodated in some way.

Thanks Midwest yahoo, well put. If Steve going to engage in "what if's", maybe it would be noteworthy to say Muslims have killed and terrorized in the US before and yet none of the predicted results happened, so it's a stretch to assume they will in the future under whatever circumstances.

The post was lazy thinking, like a lot of them have been lately. And before the 'Steve is always right' crowd gets in their usual Hannity hyperbole, think about 50% of the post lately. It's the same, some out of the norm republican says something crazy or stupid, then Steve uses a post to show that they are crazy or stupid, which I am pretty sure everyone here already agrees to. I doubt many think Bachmann, Beck, Voight, Will, Steele, and the countless other hacks, are news worthy, but damn if we don't get to read each and every inane statement they make.

And this post is even worse, it's a hypothetical that doesn't even hold water to facts already at hand. Damn do I miss The Carpetbagger Report.

Imagine if James Von Brunn, Scott Roeder, Poplawski, and Adkisson were all Muslims.

I can see it: What remains of the United States would be in total lockdown, with curfews and Blackwater-financed militias roaming the streets looking for anyone "suspicious." That these "suspicious" people would, of course, all be black or Hispanic is a given -- provided they lived long enough to be arrested. Republicans and their mouthpieces in the media would be screaming about "terror" 24/7 and the tattered remains of our civil rights would be flushed down the toilet. Internment camps would be set up for anyone not white, male and indentifying as a "Christian."

It's the same, some out of the norm republican says something crazy or stupid

...and the countless other hacks

If there are countless others, they're not really out-of-the-norm now are they?

"maybe it would be noteworthy to say Muslims have killed and terrorized in the US before and yet none of the predicted results happened,"

Are.

You.

SERIOUS?!

Have you been paying attention at all? Did you even bother to read Steve's article? Every single prediction *has* happened. Here are the important paragraphs from his article:

"What would the rhetoric be like? What kind of legislation might congressional Republicans offer? How many special reports about the "epidemic" of domestic Muslim violence would Sean Hannity host?

"How willing would the public be to give up civil liberties to respond to the attacks? How loud would the laughter be from conservative leaders when liberals warned against racial profiling?"

Have you already forgotten all the racist, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim crap from the past 8 years? And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Look at how the GOP and Fox "News" reacted to bringing Muslims accused of terrorism from Guantanamo to the US, or their reaction to that Muslim convert shooting that soldier. Look at the kind of rhetoric we've seen coming from the right for the past 15 to 20 *years*, maybe even longer, about Muslims and Arabs wanting to kill us, and not really being human, and always being responsible for any terrorism, and all that.

And you're sitting there writing that Steve is just making empty and false predictions? Which planet are you living on?

Not sure if ScottW and Midwest Yahoo are merely stupid, or just being obtuse. Perhaps a bit of both … ?

The point of the post is that the rightwing had no issues with (correctly) calling attacks by Muslims "terrorism" (nor did the left, for that matter), but are already bending over backward to claim that the recent attacks by unhinged white males are not terrorism.

Basically, the GOP lines seems to be that when brown people of a different religion make attacks, it’s an assault on the heart of our nation! But when a Christian white guy does it? Well, that’s just the act of “lone wolves.”

The fact neither one of you get the double standard isn't surprising. Disappointing, but not surprising.

Whoa ... formatting got all goofed on my comment. Sorry about that.

And Shade Tail -- we're trying to converse with people who create their own reality.

They forget things like illegal wiretaps, rendition, Abu Grahib, Gitmo, torture, profiling, xenophobic rhetoric, and all the other over-reactions and just plain fear-based rationales because it's inconvenient to their narrative.

It's like the claim that Bush and Cheney kept us all so safe and sound ... after 9/11/2001. Because, you know, Bush didn't become President until 9/12/2001, and all the failures before that were Clinton's fault.

Or something. Trying to understand their world makes my (and any other sane person's) brain hurt ...

grinning cat (1:37 PM),

You are exactly right.

Another example besides Rwanda would by Milosevic's Serbia. Again the people in power who were threatened had to find some internal enemy to blame for their failures. The civil wars between the Serbians,Croatians and the Muslims were all brought about because Milosevic wanted power and he had control of the media. He then used it for propaganda the same way the media was used in Rwanda and the same way the conservaives here are using FOX.

The technique is to find some minority group to scapegoat for all the social problems. This then quickly escalates to eliminationism - imprison, deport, ethnically cleanse or otherwise kill the members of the scapegoated minority. Soon the extremist fringe takes the media "permission" up on their offer.

The fringes are not controlled by the media, but they are certainly motivated and feel given permission by it. The media owners and operators, of course, then stand back in shocked horror at what such "lone gunmen" and crazies do.

That's different.

The point of the post is that the rightwing had no issues with (correctly) calling attacks by Muslims "terrorism" (nor did the left, for that matter), but are already bending over backward to claim that the recent attacks by unhinged white males are not terrorism.

This. I'm more than happy to call the actions of extremist Muslims "terrorism." Why can't we call the actions of extremist anti-abortion and extremist anti-Semites "terrorism"?

Midwest Yahoo, why are the Muslims you listed "terrorists" but Roeder and van Brunn are not terrorists? Why is it that Abdulhakim Muhammad, who acted alone, is called a terrorist, but Jim Adkisson, who also acted alone, is not called a terrorist? Do you at least consider Timothy McVeigh to have been a terrorist, or was he just another guy with white supremacist ties who just happened to snap and blow up a building?

Ah, Scott W, no I remember you, the fucktarded moron at Carpetbagger - the one who always got pummeled for failing to "engage brain before turning on mouth."

Nice to see some things don't change, that you're still the same idiot you always were and obviously always shall be.

"...Imagine if four Muslims were arrested for plotting to blow up a synagogue...." Tom McGuire

Sorry bud, but that incident was a complete set up and has been thoroughly debunked...do your homework.

MCA, FISA, Patriot Act all from the terror of the Muslim 9/11 myth. The facts are now avaiable to completely debunk the 9/11 commission report...but just like the commission planned...too much time has gone by and nobody's interested in the truth. Look at all that happened because of that tragic incident.

I hope everyone gets a chance to watch "9/11: The Myth and the Reality" and see what the new Pearl Harbor event enabled...world domination with weapons in space. Why do you think the US's military defense budget is DOUBLE the amount of defense spending of all other countries in the world...COMBINED.

We need to find ways to make sure that people like those mentioned murderers do not have legal access to guns. there are ways to close those gun show loopholes by monitoring every weapon going in or out of those shows, making sure none are sold without background checks and all guns accounted for. Something along those lines.

As long as FAUX, CNN and hate radio are allowed to cultivate hatred, anger, violence and divisiveness these violent radical nutjobs will feel encouraged and justified to use violence to enforce their vision of America.

For ratings people like O'Reilly demonize people they oppose, condemning some to people America should be rid of. Just listen to how often he condemned Tiller, calling him "the Baby killer" rather than a mother's life saver, as "a mass murderer", comparing him to Mengles(sp?) and Auswitz rather than being brave enough to save mother's lives in danger from delivering a dead or dying deformed fetus. Women who wanted families, who had families but would die from complications if not for him.

O'Reilly cultivated hatred and condemnation to the point of getting him murdered...just for ratings. I fear nutjobs feeling it's bravery to commit murder, that they are justified...O'Reilly certainly makes them feel they are cult heroes. They have no regrets so far. White men in the service of THEIR country are still terrorists...but note how understandable.

"...Posted by: Midwest Yahoo on June 11, 2009 at 2:16 PM

The point Miss Yahoo is "would they have been treated differently by the media and wingtards if they had been Muslims?". Also isn't it amazing that the groups who these radicals seem to support all seem to use hate and fear rhetoric making targets by their condemnations. The point I believe is that we have domestic anti-Muslim terrorists being treated as non-terrorist simply because they are not Muslim.

Also, you've been around the wrong "white men". Sometimes it's not what you're doing but who you're doing it with that makes all the difference. There are lots of caring sharing loving white men...pretending to be evil AAARRGH.

If radical Muslims had carried out terrorist attacks in Kansas and Washington DC over the past five days, we might be trying to pass legislation giving the president the legal authority to place people in preventive detention, and Daniel Pipes would be implying that we need to round up Arab-Americans (correction: Muslims) and put them in relocation camps.

1. Bush and Pipes responded to an attack that killed almost 3,000 people in a single day.

2. Most of the "preventive detention" was of Arabs who had illegally overstayed their student visas -- people actually breaking an American law already. It was not directed at Muslims, as explicitly stated multiple times by the Bush administration. Most Muslims were no more threatened by this than the various informal militias had been by the increased FBI surveillance after the bombing of the Murrah Building.

3. The bombing of the Murrah building, just referred to, did in fact lead to increased surveillance of hundreds of informal militia participants who were guilty of no crime.

4. Just a few days ago a confirmed Muslim killed army recruiters, and he still has said that, under the law he recognizes, it was not murder. He's in the same class of "unclassified" nuts as the others whom you named. They are not left or right wing, Republican or Democrat, Christian or Muslim, according to almost everyone in those groups.

They are not left or right wing, Republican or Democrat, Christian or Muslim, according to almost everyone in those groups.

Wrong. Von Brunn explicitly and definitively a "right-wing" extremist as described in the DHS Report. Some clues for you: he was a neo-Nazi, hated taxes, hated intrusive government, hated liberals, and hated Jews and blacks. It doesn't get any more right-wing than that, and there is nothing "leftist" about it.

If that's not enough for you:

"He's a well-known right wing extremist," says Frank Cilluffo, director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University. "It's tragic.

Yes, kooks are out there, but they are going to fall into various camps depending on their ideology and pathology. Daniel Pipes is a right-wing kook; so is von Brunn. Trying to pretend that they're "neutral" kooks is transparently desperate.

I would take the rest of your comments apart, but, you know -- tiresome. Suffice it to ask: how many Mexican illegal were deported after 9/11? How many calls were there for white supremacists to be rounded up and put into relocation camps after the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building.

I rest my case.

Wrong. Von Brunn explicitly and definitively a "right-wing" extremist as described in the DHS Report. Some clues for you: he was a neo-Nazi, hated taxes, hated intrusive government, hated liberals, and hated Jews and blacks. It doesn't get any more right-wing than that, and there is nothing "leftist" about it.

He also hated Bush, McCain, O'Reilly, neocons, the Weekly Standard, and was a 9/11 Truther.

Thanks to a great convergence of stupidities, it can be hard to tell the far-left from the far-right at time. Insane nutty far-rightists link approvingly to far-leftists, and vice versa.

The man also wrote some extended rants about how Christianity was a weakness dreamed up by Jews that caused the end of the Roman Empire.

Remember that Esquire wrote an article finding that three out of four white supremacists supported Obama over McCain, because they hated McCain and Bush's advocacy of immigration, thought that 9/11 was an inside job or done by the Jews, and that the Iraq war was done for the benefit of Jews and Israel and neocons.

At the same time, the black supremacist they found supported McCain over Obama.

I don't think any of these people can really be associated with mainstream "left" or "right." Not everyone who dislikes Bush, O'Reilly, and neocons wants to shoot Jews, after all.

Would you round up all columnists that have opinions that displease you? Set up a trex gulag for disgreeable "kooks" that are, you know, tiresome?

You're a sweet, malignant little Jiang Qing, trex, you have the soul of a re-educator.

You couldn't take apart a vicious cheesestik, much less Pipes in debate.

Would you round up all columnists that have opinions that displease you? Set up a trex gulag for disgreeable "kooks" that are, you know, tiresome?

No, I'm really content to use the discourse available in a democratic society to point out where propagandists are trying to sway public opinion by using deception and rhetoric. If you bothered to read what I've written here over the years you'd know that I am quite strenuously anti-gulag (Guantanamo, Black prisons) and pro free speech.

I strongly believe everyone in the rights of everyone to say what they want, but if they choose to lie and dissemble then they absolutely should be rebutted with the facts. A democracy can't prosper when members twist the truth for political purposes.

You're a sweet, malignant little Jiang Qing, trex, you have the soul of a re-educator.

Well, if by that you mean I spend time on blogs correcting the facts and countering propaganda of reactionaries and conservatives by citing sources that refute their claims and pointing out the invalidity of their arguments without recourse to politeness -- thanks, I appreciate the props.

As for Pipes, he is a kook, and I mean a REAL kook. He lives in an alternate reality dominated by ideas of hegemony and attitudes of xenophobia. You may draw whatever conclusions you'd like about a hypothetical debate between the two of us. My guess is as far as right-wing kooks go, he would not be a very strong performer.

I really think the cheese stick would be more of a challenge.

He also hated Bush, McCain, O'Reilly, neocons, the Weekly Standard, and was a 9/11 Truther.

Yep. And why did he hate them? If you read his essays it's because he believed they were, in order:

in the pockets of Jews;

in the pockets of Jews;

in the pockets of Jews;

in the pockets of Jews:

written by Jews, and;

crazy right-wing fear of the government that has been going on with the black helicopter types for decades.

Not one of those makes him left wing. Rather, they show him to be the classic right-wing, talk-radio conspiracy-theorist, anti-tax neo-Nazi xenophobe of militias and Freemen across this nation.

Give a cite from Von Brunn that is in scope or virulence even close to Pipes (or Kramer, or Huntington, or Spencer, or even Kristol for God's sake; cite anything from talk-radio you find comparable.)

You can't.

Here's Von Brunn on one of Benen's (This Week In God!!!) fave topics: " "Christianity" destroyed Roman Civilization. The "Holocaust" Religion is destroying Western Civilization. The Aryan gene-pool dies, "unwept, unhonored and unsung." "

So. Wow. Doesn't follow that trex trope.

Given a pbs deejay jacking strawmen, preaching Cultural-Rev cheesestiks (shreiking hegemony and xenophobia every other sentence) to the choir at progg blogs vs. an advocate/scholar, your guess re: the outcome is, uh, a tad optimistic.

Realist @ 12:49 - if you read Debbie Schlussel's bio as well, you'd note that she is distinguished for her "unique expertise on radical Islam/Islamic terrorism", claims an online fan base "second only to Anne Coulter" and is a regular columnist for the Jerusalem Post. It's not difficult to see how somebody with THOSE ribbons on her chest would be able to find the hidden Muslim terrorist in a forest of crazy white guys.

Taking a closer look at the implications of "unique", having "unique expertise" on a particular subject might not actually suggest someone who is conversant with the subject. In fact, "unique expertise" and "crazy obsession" might be interchangeable here.

I noticed that one of her commenters accused Americans of "bending over backwards not to offend the Religion of Islam". Apparently the irony of America bending over backwards since the 1950's to accommodate AIPAC and the Jewish Lobby escaped this individual. It's almost funny.

trex: A democracy can't prosper when members twist the truth for political purposes.

Ours has prospered for 225 or so years now, despite plenty of members twisting the truth for political purposes. Consider some of Hamilton and Jefferson's disagreements in the Washington administration, when each man "shaded" (shall we say) the truth to fit his philosophy and political interests. Moving right along to the Adams administration and the prosecutions under the Alien and Sedition Acts; those were repealed by the Democratic-Republican Congress as soon as it was sworn in -- but then Jefferson launched that foolish prosecution of Aaron Burr for treason (the jury returned a verdict of "innocent" after about 10 min of deliberation.)

One man's honest slip or emphasis is another man's politically motivated (or psychoanalytically motivated) perversion, delusion, or outright lie.

Other than that, I agree with your defense of yourself. I always look forward to read how you'll disagree with me (distortions, selective recall, straw man arguments, etc.)

Till next time,

sincerely yours,

Matt

Rather, they show him to be the classic right-wing, talk-radio conspiracy-theorist, anti-tax neo-Nazi xenophobe of militias and Freemen across this nation

OK, so long as you're willing to admit that, according to Esquire, a fair number of those white supremacists voted for Obama over McCain. And that a ton of the classic far-left wing conspiracy theorists these days are cross-linking and working with classic far-right wing conspiracy theorists. They gain aid and succor from each other, and share conspiracy theories, even as they disagree about whether its world capitalism in general not just the Jews or the Jews, who run world capitalism, or whatever in their feverish minds they think is responsible.

This idiot had a lot more in common with both crazed right-wingers and crazed left-wingers than he did with his objects of hate, Bush, McCain, the Weekly Standard, neocons, etc. If you go enough far-right, you come around to the far-left.

Ours has prospered for 225 or so years now, despite plenty of members twisting the truth for political purposes.

No, it hasn't.

It precisely wasn't prospering when the Alien and Sedition Acts were enforced. Fucking duh. It groaned under the weight of the dishonest reasons for that arrogation of power. It took the reversal of those acts AND A RETURN TO HONEST DISCOURSE for prosperity to return.

Our democracy didn't prosper when robber barons ran amok and through greed and avarice ultimately caused the Great Depression and this recession, and it sure as hell hasn't prospered when a president and his administration lied to the American people to justify an invasion Iraq that has cost immeasurable blood and treasure to the republic, not to mention domestic tranquility.

Just because a country exists doesn't mean it's prospering, obviously.

always look forward to read how you'll disagree with me (distortions, selective recall, straw man arguments, etc.)

You be sure to point out one of those when you see it, Matt. Funny thing: in years of countering your transparent propaganda on issues ranging from Iraq to sea ice -- mostly by simply correcting your factual errors with actual data or providing context for said data, I might add -- you haven't noted any of those tactics.

If you'd like to back up your claim by an exhaustive study comparing the integrity of both of our comments here, I'm all for it.

I'll look to it next to your debunking of the Lancet Study and the stinking pile of unsupported assertions you made about it.