Capt Ed at captainsquartersblog.com

I'd say those are at or near the top. I never read Sullivan's blog anymore but I will read him in mainstream pubs. Josh Marshall has his fans. BTW, LGF is just Charles Johnson, there aren't any "these guys" I am aware of.

Allah is almost always funny and interesting.

Passe. As James Wolcott points out in Vanity Fair this month, all the energy in blogland is on the moderate left: atrios, eric alterman, juancole.com, kevin drum, etc.

The right wing bloggers are fighting yesterday's battles. In particular, they are unwilling to acknowledge that their Iraq war has been a failure BY THE METRICS THEY THEMSELVES IMPOSED BEFORE THE WAR.

When the facts on the ground change, and you're in denial about that, your political rantings will degenerate into self-parody.

This is what has happened to the right wing blog. It "reverse fisks" itself with every post.

I read Instapundit to bolster my views about the war--it's that laughable. Sullivan has been discredited by Bush's gay marriage stand. LGF is racist. Only tacitus has any credibility, in my view.

i especially enjoy Elderbear over al http://elderbearden.blogspot.com Plus, he's got a fine beard.

"As James Wolcott points out in Vanity Fair this month, all the energy in blogland is on the moderate left: atrios, eric alterman, juancole.com, kevin drum, etc."

I agree that the energy is on the side of the Left. After all, it's an election year, and they want to defeat the incumbent. But I disagree that the bloggers you mentioned are the "moderate left." They are the fringe Left. Intelligent, and witty, but fringe.

And LGF is not racist. He just doesn't like drooling Muslim fundamentalist murderers. If that is the definition of "racist" then I would hope the vast majority of America would fit that description...

Glen Reynold pounds the same nail every single day for months on end, that's not analysis, that's advocacy. One day
it's Kerry's a goner, the other day it's Edwards going down the tube, then he starts again.

His argumentation skills are very weak, like most on the left & the right, he never looks at the whole picture. He also parrots the republican talking points in his blogs, which is very very annoying.

An Example, he's always saying Saddaam did this, did that, hooo he's evil. The problem with that argumentation is that the US held Sadaam's hand while he was doing his dirtiest deeds and even gave him the weapons to do it. It is only because he invaded Koweit, going against the US, that he became "Evil". Although, by all standards, that's not the worse thing he did...

Saddaam wasn't more evil after 1991 than before. He was just a bombastic fool with dwindling resources. Bush is a bombastic fool, but with way too much resources ;-).

So, we must conclude that either the US has made itself a policy of attacking all "Evil" countries to help their poor inhabitants (since there's no WMD in Iraq, that's the only option left), or it only attacks those that are "evil", weak & strategically important. I'll go for the second option, since the US is not going into Iran or North Korea anytime soon.

Fellow Americans

Out in the world there are many countries where an individual doesn't have choices nor the privileges ...and it would be quite obvious if they shift places with us for the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO VOTE!


Together let's restore trust and bring back to life our "Glorious Democracy"!

For details click here http://sarajones1.blogspot.com/


Courtesy: www.StateDemocracy.com

For a long time there was this rumor that Atrios is actually Sidney Bluementhal. He denied it and nothing much ever came of it, that I know of -- but from what I've read the guy does seem to have an inside track.

Atrios was identified at the DNC

Damn, Eric -- sorry I missed that. But thanks. The resume makes sense:

Duncan B. Black holds a PhD in economics from Brown University. He has held teaching and research positions at the London School of Economics; the Université catholique de Louvain; the University of California, Irvine; and, recently, Bryn Mawr College. He also has been involved with grassroots political activism. Black is a Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America.

Maybe not an "inside track," but damn smart about politics.

Josh Marshall and his Talking Points Memo (opens in new window).

Wakes me up every morning.

In regard to Atrios, some of us sort of knew. People thought I knew for sure when I was his protege. I didn't. But, we had been in the same places often enough that I was very warm.

As for this list of best political blogs, it is what someone who is poorly read, doesn't really blog and has next to know grasp of history or the issues would come up with. (Not to mention being a Right Wing zealot.) There are intelligent discussions of the topic, but this entry is definitely not one of them.

Jean, exactly. Reynolds' blogging mainly consists of links to material he has not read. He hardly ever writes anything. If not for the far Right bias of the blogosphere people would see right through him.

poorly read, doesn't really blog and has next to know grasp of history

Unlike your own extraordinary grasp of spelling.

Hal, I love Josh. Maybe I should pull a Britney-:). One of the finest moments of the blogosphere in my opinion was when Atrios and Josh used the material on the neo-Confederate movement I sent them. It still doesn't get the attention it deserves. But, thanks to the Trent Lott episode a leg of the neo-Confederate movement is now sticking out of the closet.

My blog friends Lauren of Feministe, Rick Heller and Kevin Drum, are also excellent political bloggers. They do the research that makes a difference and write well.

And, no, it is no accident that all four of the Right Wing bloggers on this list are associated with the 'scientific racism' movement. Kaus and Sullivan have been explicit about their belief that people of color are 'inferior races.' (However, Sullivan does seek out black men for bareback sex.) Reynolds gives it (bigotry, I don't know about his sexual habits) a nod and blogrolls and links to clearly racist blogs and sources. LGF usually limits its direct racism to Muslims, but I suspect they are fellow travelers.

Can you back up either charge against Kaus or Sullivan?

So, one typo (use of a homonym) means I can't spell? Right Wingers are desperate people.

Lest my point get lost in foolishness, let me repeat it. Someone with a better grasp of politics would not list these large Right Wing blogs as being good sources of information. What they do is feed the need for reassurance that know-nothingness is good on the Right. Just about any mainstream periodicial that focuses on politics does a better job.

I am certain Kaus, Sullivan, Reynolds and Charles Johnson would be rather alarmed to hear that they are scientific racists and that they believe people of color are inferior.

I wonder if MD has found any centrist or right of center blogs she finds acceptable.

I'll take that as a "No, of course I can't."

Better than that. They have backed up their views on race themselves. Anyone who actually reads them should know their views, which I have accurately stated. So, I gather you don't read Kaus and Sullivan. As for the barebacking ads, Sullivan was outted in quite a brouhaha. I don't know how you missed it. Unless, again, you engage in kneejerk defenses of Right Wingers you are not very familiar with.

I would give RJ credit for acknowledging the abilities and efforts of those whith whom he disagrees

An interesting case study from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government about blogs and Trent Lott. It asserts that most of the players mentioned above from both sides contributed to Lott's ouster.

For people willing to take a walk on the wild side, here is more info about the real Andrew Sullivan.

*Milky Loads is on Tripod.

*Daze Reader was interested.

*But, the person who has done the most to expose Sullivan is Michelangelo Signorile.

I'm not into such things, but documentary evidence, ie., pictures, is said to be available.

In the interest of less window confusion, I will do Sullivan and race in another comment. It is easily documented, too. So, one must ask, why are Right Wingers [edited] unaware of this information? I think it is because they rarely go beyond the confines of Right Wing sites, including Blogcritics. The truth is out there, but they avoid it.

Another excellent political blogger I forgot to mention, economist and man about the blogosphere Brad DeLong, has 'done' Sullivan and race well from a philosophical perspective. (Sullivan is, of course, opposed to any remedy of the consequences of slavery, segregation and continuing discrimination.)


Here, neatly side-stepping American society's responsibility for racism, Sullivan offers his solution to it: People of color should IGNORE any abuses they encounter, including crimes based on race. Benign neglect, anyone? ([edited]: The term was popularized by Richard Nixon as how Hispanics and blacks, who he considered genetically inferior, should be dealt with. Proof of his views: the Nixon tapes.) Note that Sullivan cites white supremacist H.L. Mencken as an example of the way people ought to be. He also tries to claim people aren't racists unless they hate their victims. That is a purposeful mangling of the definition. A racist believes some 'races' are better than others. Hate is not a requirement.

In this lengthy ode to sexism, Sullivan slips in the racist myth that black men produce more testosterone than white men, feeding the suggestion that they are therefore more violent. (The difference in testosterone in black cancer patients is explicable in terms of their being in worse health and seeing doctors later in the illness. However, misstatement of the results of this study has become a trope of racists.)

The Village Voice gets to the bottom of Andrew Sullivan, rank hypocrite and opportunist. Here's an excerpt, but read the whole thing. (Pun not intended.)

The Times lecture was an excellent occasion to sample Sullivan's contradictions. He has always depended on the amnesia of his audience to cover his tracks. You might never know from his libertarian stance that he opposes abortion rights, or from his embrace of civil rights that he published excerpts from Charles Murray's racist tract, The Bell Curve , on his watch at The New Republic . Tonight, Sullivan pleaded for gay solidarity ("We need each other's support; we do not need to tear each other down") and then complained that all the major gay organizations are run by women. He endorsed antidiscrimination laws, though he once declared that after gays win the right to marry and serve in the military, "we should throw a big party and close down the gay rights movement for good." He rhapsodized about leather bars, though he once called joints that cater to such fetishes "abattoirs of AIDS." And in the evening's most bizarre moment, he urged his audience to reject hate-crime laws and arm themselves instead. To support his point, he cited Martin Luther King as an advocate of armed self-defense. This is the sort of reckless reasoning that has made Sullivan a star.

Sullivan's escapades were big news in the gay media when it happened. He lost a lot of respect and readership over it. What he did is stupid and probably criminal, but at the same time, the whole concept, and therefore all people present were stupid. If you're going to attend a Russian Roulette party, it's only reasonable to expect that at least one of you will be shot in the head.

Mac:

I realize you're not exactly the most rational person on the planet, but surely you aren't seriously suggesting that Democrat Mickey Kaus is a Right Winger? Or that either he or Mr. Sullivan or Mr. Reynolds are racists?

I am suggesting they are not opposed to racism to someone who is neither intelligent, nor rational. And dishonest as hell, to boot. People who support benign neglect support the status quo, which locks in racism, homophobia and gender discrimination. Unless these problems are remedied, the people who suffer from them will continue to do so. So, Kaus and company, whatever they call themselves on a given day, are supporters of the inequalities in American society. Nor do I care much what opportunists call themselves. Part of being one is going the way the wind is blowing.

Regarding doing one's research: can anyone possibly be unaware of my own personal debunking of Sullivan as a liar and a hypocrite as well as a preening narcissist? It's all over the Internet. No one could have missed it.

Would anyone who had done more research than looking in a mirror call Rodney and I right-wingers?

Do the fucking research.

I don't know how it could possibly be considered "criminal." He admitted to being HIV+, so it's not like he was trying to insidiously infect people or something.

If someone is stupid enough to have unprotected anal intercourse with a guy with AIDs, then they frankly deserve whatever they get.

As I've said before, I consider this a Right Wing site. How could anyone not part of the Right not? This is a site where the proprietor was upset when a member who was posting entries and comments extolling slavery last week was taken to task for it. Never mind that the material (and other entries by the person) had no basis in fact, as well as being morally offensive, the fellow's' bias was far Right so he was welcome. Nor do I expect Blogcritics' problem with being a friend to such people to remain here. In her new book, Debra Dickerson talks about two nationally known racists who are members of Blogcritics. (And, Eric, of course, has defended.) She had been away from the blogosphere while writing the book and does not tie them directly to Blogcritics. But, anyone doing an Internet search will. It will not be long before the connection between some of the most bigoted people in blogging and Blogcritics becomes well-known.

The handful of liberals and progressives who were here when I arrived have become disgusted and vacated the premises. Steve (Boom), Hal and I are about the only ones left. Still, Eric Olsen claims not to realize the site is definitely Rightward and has a racism problem.

Furthermore, I can only respond to what I see. In earlier comments, it appears Eric is agreeing with RJ Elliott's blind adulation of Andrew Sullivan. Now, he says he is not. Point acknowledged. The one purpose I think Sullvan is good for is studying how a very, very sneaky opportunist operates. Eric may agree.

Lots of interesting links, Mac, a few of which I read a few years ago when Sullivan's sexuality became an issue. Maybe they're worth reviewing.

It's interesting, though, that when pressed for evidence, you say the alleged racism of Sullivan and Kaus is true because you say so, and second, the burden is on us to prove YOUR charges. I reject both and suggest you're the one who needs to get off her lazy behind. I am intrigued, though, by your unashamed homophobia; the unmistakable implication through all your posts is "--and on top of that, Sullivan's a FAGGOT."

I trust you will come up with something deeper regarding Sullivan's alleged racism besides the fact that he published Charles Murray. TNR publishes a lot of strong opinions that reevaluate basic assumptions; Murray's book was also strongly debated in the pages of the magazine.

I can't really object to your depiction of me as a right-winger. I don't think of myself that way, but then you probably just wrote it in a fiery huff without thinking, which is fine -- we all do that, I know I have. At any level, surely you are aware by now that your disdain worries me far less than your approval.

He admitted to being HIV+, so it's not like he was trying to insidiously infect people or something.

I don't really want to turn this thread from it's original discussion, but I this does need to be commented on. Insidiously? No, perhaps not, but by criminal, I am referring to the knowledge of the participants. There is an entire generation of gay people out there, who were born after the original onslaught of AIDS, so they didn't see all the people becoming skeletons in hospital beds. What they grew up on, are AIDS commercials where healthy models talk about taking a few pills a day. The life expectancy of AIDS victims is now at least 20 years after diagnosis. Magic Johnson seems to be okay. etc. And thanks to restrictive sex education classes, there's an entire generation that now thinks that AIDS is a livable disease. They are of the mindset that it's like herpes or crabs. So safesex rates have been falling for a few years, this is statistically provable, if you look it up. These people don't realize they have to live on cocktails of 20 or more pills a day, with all their side effects and it's insurance that's paying for all this.

Andrew Sullivan, having talked about it, is aware of this mindset of ignorance. So if it's criminal, as many gay people think it should be, then the criminal part comes in taking advantage of someone's ignorance at the expense of their life, even if they 'think it's okay', the actuality of it is that they are too ignorant to know the full consequences. To participate in it, while condemning it, didn't go over well. He lost quit a few syndications in the gay market because of it.

If someone is stupid enough to have unprotected anal intercourse with a guy with AIDs, then they frankly deserve whatever they get.

Nobody deserves anything negative or life-threatening, RJ. If nothing else, a cold heart should at least look at it through a insurance rate-payer perspective.

STOP trying to polarize this site.

Just STOP making assumptions and generaliations about people - it fails you every single time.

RJ is more nuanced than you are - ponder that for a moment.

People are vastly more complex than you seem to comprehend, and simplistic categorization is almost always wrong and often worse.

And I am weary to the point of narcolepsy of the depiction of Blogcritics as belonging in ANY political category. The absurdity of this claim from any direction has been refuted numerically, objectively, subjectively and otherwise. There is no political litmus test to join, post, comment, or breathe the air here. It doesn't even come up. Every numerical study we have done, where the leanings of a given post can be determined, have come out almost identically left and right of center.

I'm not sure how I could be any more centrist myself. I am socially liberal, pro war on terror, strong on education and civil rights, economically centrist - I AM the middle. What kind of mind leads a person to call the epicenter of the middle of the median of the mean Right Wing? Or any wing?

And what in the name of all that is not both insane and retarded is this supposed to mean?

This is a site where the proprietor was upset when a member who was posting entries and comments extolling slavery last week was taken to task for it.

Is English the common language here? Did anyone else read the course of that particular thread? Did ANYONE who is affiliated with this site agree with anything that was posted? There was absolute UNIVERSAL disagreement with the assertions, conclusions and basis of the argument.

And racism is NEVER condoned on this site, period. I absolutely and categorically refute this. It is a false, vile canard: every single - without exception - time an instance of actual racism, or even the appearance of racism, has come up, the members of the site - left, right and center - have collectively repudiated it and refuted it, period, as they DID ONCE AGAIN LAST WEEK.

For I hope the last time, and I am so not fucking kidding: this site is an open forum. People write their own posts, they input their own posts, their opinions are their own. This Big Tent policy has led to REMARKABLE balance, it's almost uncanny.

Sorry if a few of your friends - who happen to be leftists - aren't currently active. Should we make a list of all the right-leaning or centrist people who aren't currently active either? Is there a trend? No, there most certainly is not.

Is there ANYONE on this site who feels pressured or intimidated to not express their honest opinion on ANY matter on this site?

Speak now.

I think I have published enough links to Sullivan supporting bigotry to convince a reasonable person he does not favor racial or gender equality. Obviously, I can't read the material for the person griping. It is up to him to do that.

As I said above, racism does not require that the racist hate people of other races. What it requires is a belief that some races are better than others. That belief is often reflected in support for the status quo, which is racist because of the longterm and continuing discrimination against people of color. The bigot is saying the status quo is fine because it favors the right people (men, whites, straights) at the expense of the wrong people (nonwhites, women and homosexuals). Efforts to change the status quo, affirmative action, for example, are avidly opposed. Meanwhile, the bigot will latch onto efforts to justify the status quo such as biased claims of whites being inherently more intelligent. That is the kind of racism Sullivan is given to.

I gather Rodney Welch will only be satisfied that Sullivan is not on the side of the angels in regard to race if I can produce a photograph of him in Klan regalia, shouting 'I hate n-----s!' That is not likely to happen. (If Sullivan dressed that way he would scare off his colored barebacking partners.) However, since bigotry can be expressed in much less blatant ways, I believe the burden of proof has been met.

As for equating disapproval of unprotected sex that might spread HIV with disapproval of homosexualtiy, that has the same kind of failure of reasoning embedded in it as desiring proof of Klan apparel or cross burning to prove someone is opposed to racial equality. Unprotected sex is not, as Welch seems to believe, synonymous with homosexuality. One can disapprove of the former without disapproving of the latter. People who disapprove of Sullivan's sexual activities do so because they expose people his partners to a fatal disease, not because they are homophobes. Some of us also wonder if Sullivan's penchant for black men as sexual partners for unprotected sex does not offer further evidence of what he considers their worth to be.

I don't feel that way at all, Eric, I enjoy this site. I have noticed a trend recently elsewhere, of a sudden disappearance of liberals. On a political message board on a gay website, I've been going to for years, just in the last few months, all liberals (which is 90% of the group) have disappeared and there are now straight guys for Bush all over the gay boards! (wanting of course, to talk about nothing but the swift vets)

I figured that liberals just quit talking about the swift vets, because that's all anybody wants to talk about, and frankly no liberal cares about Vietnam.

We care about all the important issues like the economy and Iraq, but we can't get a conservative to quit talking long enough, about the moral direction this country needs to go, based on a single line of text from a document thirty years ago, (except to maybe pour some right-wing ketchup on a burger brought to them by an underpaid, closeted minority, and cooked for them by someone who 'lost his green card'.). hehe.

Anyway, my experience with Eric, Phil and Justene, as limited as it may be, has always been positive.

There are some liberals who I miss reading here, but I can understand their frustration at the 'focus' of what the right wants to talk about. (Theresa's 'bitchy' attitude, partisan ketchup, the validity of purple hearts, Kerry's haircut, etc. geez, does no conservative want to discuss the issues worth voting on anymore?)

If anyone should be throwing a tantrum, it should be me. I was the one who was burdened with both being directly insulted by Stuart White (two "assholes" and an 'It' that should have resulted in banning him) and refuting all that nonsense. (Yes, some other people helped refute, but others supported the 'slavery is a good thing' argument.) Furthermore, one look at White's site would have revealed him to be someone both ignorant and hateful. Even if he were discussing a peanut butter and jelly sandwich he would manage to turn it into an attack on feminists, gays, blacks or liberals. There was no excuse for inviting him here in the first place.

Boom,

Quick question: Did Sullivan actively seek out HIV-negative partners to infect? Is there any proof that he would have knowingly had "bareback" sex with an HIV-negative partner?

I didn't think so.

Steve, (Boom) a disappearance of liberals from the 'Net? Are they killing us off-:).

Every person of color I've known at Blogcritics except Purple Tigress and Ol' Boxhead (email me for the name), who can't write a blog entry to save his soul, has left. Many of them told me why. Either we are all being effected by 'Circadian rhythms' or there is something awry here.

"If anyone should be throwing a tantrum, it should be me."

Mac, you ARE throwing a tantrum. You're ALWAYS throwing a tantrum.

"I was the one who was burdened with both being directly insulted by Stuart White (two "assholes" and an 'It' that should have resulted in banning him)"

You actually have the GALL to call for someone else being banned from this site? How many personal attacks have YOU had deleted in the past eight weeks?

"others supported the 'slavery is a good thing' argument.)"

Can you provide a cite for this remarkable claim? Or is this another one of your all-too-common delusions of a Klansman behind every rock?

"Furthermore, one look at White's site would have revealed him to be someone both ignorant and hateful."

Pot..Kettle...African-American...

"Even if he were discussing a peanut butter and jelly sandwich he would manage to turn it into an attack on feminists, gays, blacks or liberals."

And you've managed to turn an old post of mine about good Weblogs into yet another race-war.

"There was no excuse for inviting him here in the first place."

Who invited YOU here, and what was their excuse?

Quick question: Did Sullivan actively seek out HIV-negative partners to infect? Is there any proof that he would have knowingly had "bareback" sex with an HIV-negative partner? I didn't think so

Certainly even middle of the roaders can see the absurdity of this ideal.

An HIV positive man advertised for and got sex, unprotected, from among strangers. And here a right winger is trying to justify intent to infect. Trying to determine if he INTENTIONALLY tried to infect someone is moot. What you are trying to do is excuse his behavior, because you like his ideology. This behavior is what he was judged on, and this is what he did: Advertise for and receive unprotected sex from strangers, WHILE positive, and WHILE condemning people who do such as being gays who give our cause a bad name. Spin the 'intent' all you want, RJ, we still won't condone the practice.

Steve, (Boom) a disappearance of liberals from the 'Net? Are they killing us off

yes, with apathy, boredom and stupidity.

My excuse for being here is that I actually blog. Anyone who wants to see what is on my blog is free to look at it. [edited]

MacDiva: "In regard to Atrios, some of us sort of knew. People thought I knew for sure when I was his protege."

This just screams some sort of deep psychological issue.

[edited]

Will it ever end?

ffft.


PS: Shark wasn't included in the 'liberal' list of Those Left [sic] on BC!? Oh, that's right; I'm a right-winger -- since I oppose MD's racist, paranoid, narcissistic views on many subjects hereabouts.

Let her rant, folks. I'm takin' a nap.

zzzzzzz

[edited]

Hmm, I remember months ago MD posting a "farewell to BC". MD, what are you doing back?

Eric speaks of not polarizing BC. The funny thing is that the ONE issue that ALL wingers (right, or left) seem to agree on is their dislike of MD.

Where on earth have we heard dozens of times that this site is dominated by right wing racists? [sigh] Some people just never change with their diatribes.

If one really, really feels this way then h/she should start their own group and own website and point, counterpoint all these authors and posts. Who knows, maybe it would result in good business for both sites!

Otherwise I don't see any point in bashing people without concrete proof who are universally disturbed by racism and extreme political chest thumping.

It is like shitting where you sleep and makes just about as much sense.

Having the usual suspects pile onto the usual empty entry proves nothing. [edited] And, visitors know it. Very few of them return a second or third time. Why would they? [edited] The site is earning its reputation as just an excuse to throw up links to Amazon every day.

"An HIV positive man advertised for and got sex, unprotected, from among strangers."

Strangers who KNEW he was HIV positive...

"Trying to determine if he INTENTIONALLY tried to infect someone is moot."

No, it's not.

You're the guy who said his actions were "criminal." But they would only be "criminal" if he INTENDED to infect someone.

Get it?

"What you are trying to do is excuse his behavior, because you like his ideology."

No, what I am doing is pointing out that his behavior was neither particulatly reckless nor criminal. I find it personally disgusting, but hardly illegal or even immoral.

"This behavior is what he was judged on, and this is what he did: Advertise for and receive unprotected sex from strangers, WHILE positive, and WHILE condemning people who do such as being gays who give our cause a bad name."

Did Andrew Sullivan really condemn HIV positive gay men who have sex? I find that rather shocking. Please provide a cite.

See, what AS did was advertise for sex on the Internet. Hardly a rare occurrance within the gay community, eh Boom?

And he openly stated in these ads that he was HIV positive. So, presumably, only HIV positive men would answer the ads. (Or disease-free people who are actively seeking a slow and painful death. Lots of those kind around!)

And what's the worst thing that can happen when two HIV positive men have unprotected sex? One of them gets the clap? Gimme a break. They've already fucked their way into a death sentence. Let the little poofs have their fun while they still can.

RJ, generally consent of the victim is not a defense to most crimes.

Here's a cite that backs me up:

California's "Willful Exposure" Law
The law makes it a felony punishable by up to eight years of imprisonment for an HIV-positive person to "willfully expose" another person to HIV through unprotected sex.
The law is narrowly drafted, however, so that it only applies to individuals who intend to infect others with HIV through sex. It is designed to prosecute cases like one in New York, where one man infected more than a dozen young women, not to police every sexual encounter engaged in by people living with HIV.

To be prosecuted under the law, you would have to do all of the following:

Have anal or vaginal sex. You cannot be prosecuted for oral sex. As to anal and vaginal sex, the law applies equally to men and women; tops and bottoms. The law punishes exposing someone to HIV through these types of sex. Your sexual partner does not have to actually become infected.

Know that you are HIV-positive. You cannot be prosecuted for sex that you had before you knew that you were HIV-positive.

Fail to disclose your HIV status. If you disclose before insertion, you cannot be prosecuted.

Fail to use a condom. Even if you do not disclose, you cannot be prosecuted unless you have "unprotected sex." The law defines "unprotected sex" as failing to use a condom. This means that every inserting penis has to be covered. Even if you are on the receiving end, you have a legal obligation to make sure that your partner wears a condom.

Have the "specific intent" to infect the other person. Most likely, this element will prevent the statute from being used to harass people living with HIV. To be prosecuted, you have to engage in the sexual activity with the specific intention of infecting the other person with HIV. Just knowing that you had HIV when you had sex will not be enough. The law explicitly states that: "Evidence that the person had knowledge of his or her HIV-positive status, without additional evidence, shall not be sufficient to prove specific intent."
Because of this specific-intent requirement, the law is narrowed in scope to only cover individuals who want to infect other people, and who are probably expressing that desire. If you slip up one time, it's unlikely that you will be prosecuted. However, the best way to stay clear of this law, and other legal liabilities, is to always disclose your status and/or practice safer sex. [emphasis mine]

As usual, I'm right.

And, visitors know it. Very few of them return a second or third time. Why would they?

Server stats will factually refute this statement. Server stats include raw and unique visitors (based on IP) so if "very few" people were actually, realistically, factually returning the server stats would definitely prove this.

Alas, this is just fiction being passed off as non-fiction.

Signed,

Usual suspect with usual empty entry

TD, yes, sigh. Our readers are very regular, loyal and number in the thousands. We have grown very organically via word of mouth and people finding the site one way or another and returning on a regular basis.

Tell Site Meter, Eric. Their stats must be wrong. 'Destination' sites show a much different profile. A former Blogcritic clued me in months ago, and I've been watching the stats. Those people who mistakenly thought they were going to read an intelligible essay about political blogs written by (giggling) R.J. have learned their lesson about Blogcritics. They will not be back. Throwing up space fillers provides an opportunity for Amazon links. But, once people realize they will not find much knowledgeable material, they steer clear. So, the Amazon links become the reason the site exists. But, links to an advertiser can't make a site worth repeat visitation if one seeks information, not ads.

No one on earth follows our stats more closely than I do. The two key stats are pageviews vs uniques and time spent. Time spent has actually gone up as the traffic has gone up, in direct contradiction to the normal pattern, and pageviews have stayed the same as traffic has gone up, meaning the more involved readers have been making up for the search engine drop-ins.

There are different kinds of "destination" sites, and we are certainly one of them.

I will finally stop fighting the impulse and say: with your endless, ceaseless, bitter, ridicule and condemnation of the site, why on earth do you bother to waste your time here?

Hilarious!

If you really want to research this situation, Mac Diva, then you'll learn that third party stats are never completely accurate or reliable. In my studies and rigorous testing they are at best case *70-75%* accurate for a wide variety of technical reasons.

But by hiding one's own stats (as you have chosen to do with your blog the last time I heard anyway), a person can claim to have whatever traffic they want :)

Blogcritics on the other hand isn't hiding anything.

Signed,

Still empty and still a usual suspect

Glenn Reynolds is provacative, but it seems that too often he is provacative by being stupid. Too many of his arguments against Kerry and Democrats apply even more strongly towards Bush and Republicans, but that doesn't appear to be worth mentioning very often. He did respond to one of my complaints (I mean he answered my email, not that he changed his column) personally, so that is one point in his favor. But I give him thumbs down over all.

Why Vote on a President & V.P. Who Will Be Impeached or Removed Via Force?

Why Are Congress & American Media SILENT ON CLEAR IMPEACHMENT ISSUES?


September 21, 2004 (Editors may edit as necessary for space & time constraints)

When ever were Congress and our bastion of American Media held hostage to a 'focus group' mentality? This has come to an astounding pinnacle here in election 2004.

When we look at past history such as Watergate with Richard Nixon, and later Iran-Contra with Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, both Congress and media were all over these issues like starving bees on honey. WHY HAS ALL OF A SUDDEN OUR CONGRESS and AMERICAN MEDIA LOST ITS VOICE?

We have a situation with OVERWHELMING E V I D E N C E that the ENTIRE administration was directed by President George W. Bush AND Vice President Dick Cheney to MANUFACTURE intelligence data so as to mislead our Congress and our American people in the run-up and drum-up to the Iraq War. It is not an issue of faulty intelligence or faulty interpretation of intelligence. All the past and more recent explanations of such, spinning and re-spinning are SHEER CRAP.

We have a situation with OVERWHELMING E V I D E N C E that the intent to remove Saddam Hussein was established at 'day-one', 'ground-zero' of the Bush presidency. We have a situation where, given the facts as known along with President Bush's statements that yes, he would want Saddam removed because he tried to kill his dad, that in fact this Iraq War was NOT part of the LEGITIMATE "War on Terrorism", but was in fact a guise for a ILLEGITIMATE "Revenge War".

But no matter what the underlying reasons for bringing this war, the reasons proffered to the American people and the peoples of the world were MANUFACTURED under direct order and supervision of this president and vice president, and carried out via this administration. There is no basis in reality that with all the intelligence resources of the United States, the United Kingdom, the United Nations, and elsewhere, that EACH AND EVERY CLAIM BY THIS ADMINISTRATION TURNED OUT TO BE "FAULTY INTELLIGENCE", "FAULTY INTERPRETATION OF INTELLIGENCE". IN FACT, IT WAS TOTALLY FALSE INTELLIGENCE, MANUFACTURED LIES. NOT INACCURACIES, BUT CONTRIVED FALSEHOODS. EVERYTHING FROM THE GET-GO, AND CONTINUING.

WHERE IS THE OUTCRY FOR AN "INDEPENDENT/SPECIAL PROSECUTOR"?


Prior to the actual invasion in Afghanistan this administration stated they would hold to air power and use the Northern Alliance for the majority of ground combat. FreedomFocus.org clamored to place heavy troop concentrations along the border regions. This administration stuck to its strategies whereby troop concentrations were withheld from the border regions of Iran and Pakistan, allowing Al Qaeda terrorist-trained fighters to escape, merely walking away, to reconstitute, re-network, and fight another day. President Cheney recently said, "We killed hundreds of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan". But THOUSANDS ESCAPED to fight another day, and are doing so in Spain, Indonesia, and recently in Russia. We see the combination of Chechen-Islamic and Arab-Islamic terrorist-trained fighters launching well-coordinated and supplied attacks throughout Russia. Obviously the "terrorists" have reconstituted, re-networked, and are fighting another day because they were allowed to escape.

Had our military NOT been hunkered down in Iraq and instead been tracking and engaging terrorists and terrorist networks, TERRORISTS NEVER WOULD HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ESCAPE, RECONSTITUTE, RE-NETWORK, AND FIGHT TO THE EXTENT AS WE NOW SEE.

FreedomFocus.org had clamored to immediately beef-up troop levels in Iraq upon the finding of massive and widespread weapons and munitions depots after the initial Iraq invasion. This administration as in Afghanistan, refused to deploy necessary troops. This resulted in weapons and munitions merely walking away, to reconstitute, re-network, and fight another day as has been and continues to be the case each and every day killing American and allied troops, and innocent civilians.

Ourmilitary had Al Qaeda TRAPPED in Afghanistan. Had we put sufficient troops along the borders, and then when these enemy forces were pounded from the air along with the advance southward from the Northern Alliance, it would have been a "turkey shoot". Instead, troops were withheld because George W. Bush had already decided HE was going to make WAR on SADDAM HUSSEIN.

CLEARLY the strategies of this administration have only led to allowing terrorists to escape from Afghanistan, and for weapons and munitions to escape being secured and destroyed only to migrate throughout Iraq. These are not failed strategies, but intentional decisions to extend the "War on Terrorism" as a political tool.

THESE ARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES HERE. WHY THE SILENCE?


What makes this sadder is that in the past two months we have seen this administration and their party roll out NEWLY CONTRIVED REASONS for validating the Iraq War. None having any validity at all. Nothing proffered by President Bush, or Vice President Cheney, or Secretary of State Powell, or National Security Adviser Rice, or General Tommy Franks, or that TURNCOAT Crazy "Zig-Zag" Zell Miller is valid. More LIES and DECEIT UPON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE and the peoples of the world.

NO LEGITIMATE INTERPRETATION of the facts surrounding Iraq or the Middle-East itself supported going to war with Saddam Hussein in the "War on Terrorism". The only results were to: 1) Divert military and intelligence resources from tackling the REAL THREAT, that being Al Qaeda and other terrorists and their networks; 2) The evolution of ANOTHER FOCAL POINT for Islamic dissent; and 3) The destabilization of Saudi Arabia, where terrorist fighters transited the border in preparation for hostilities.

The FANTASY that bringing down Saddam Hussein would in some manner lead to LIBERTY throughout the Middle-East and peace for Israel, is ludicrous. The only thing that will lead to peace and security for Israel is that nation coming to grips with the REALITY that those peoples of Arab descent who fled out of fear for their lives from Israel proper after nationhood in 1948, do have inalienable human rights to be repatriated with their ancestral homes, farms, and other lands. It is THAT SIMPLE. It is a matter of VALUES, a matter of MORALS, a matter of RIGHT versus WRONG. And for a president who CLAIMS to be of Conservative Values, you would think he would understand this, he would GET IT.

President Bush made a disastrous move when, during Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's visit, he announced that the Palestinian Arabs would never be allowed to return home. That right then and there sealed the fate of ultimate failure for any Bush policy regarding establishment of "Liberty" throughout the Middle-East. These people want their ancestral homes, farms, and lands to live on. But George W. Bush DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THIS. HE JUST DOES NOT GET IT. With his "Boxed-In" mentality he never will GET IT. The result is that he will drag this nation into war after war, crisis after crisis.

The REAL global terrorists and countries that lend support are reeling in joy over America's predicament. Look at history from when nations attempt to install their cultures, their form and function of governments. In 1952 Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was forced to flee by the temporary rise of Muhammad Mussadegh, a militant nationalist. Shortly thereafter, with intervention of the United States via our Central Intelligence Agency, Shah Reza reclaimed his throne. In time the Iranian government began a broad program of reforms to modernize the country, notably changing the quasi-feudal land system. However the reforms did not greatly improve economic conditions and the liberal pro-Western policies alienated certain Islamic religious and political groups. In time the Islamic clergy, headed by Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini were becoming increasingly vociferous. In the early 1970s, the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq organization assassinated US military personnel and civilians involved in military contracts, seeking to weaken the government and remove foreign influence. In 1979 Khomeini returned, led the overthrow of the government and established the extremely conservative theocracy, nationalizing the oil industry and restoring Islamic traditions in culture and law. Western influences were BANNED.

WHY ARE CONGRESS and OUR AMERICAN MEDIA SILENT, A LAME DUCK?


Then we come to the Republican National Convention. There has NEVER in the history of this nation been such a disgusting display of slanderous, unmeritorious, and UN-AMERICAN conduct on behalf of any political party, not to mention their political leaders. Each speaker and speech were fully 'vetted'. They cannot claim NO JOY in this instance as they did with the "Swift/Vets". The PRESIDENT is fully responsible for this wholesale LACK OF VALUES. The AMERICAN PEOPLE were treated to nothing short of a HIGHLY ZEALOUS 'INDOCTRINATION'. An indoctrination very similar to that put upon the German people by the Nazis in their unyielding goal of winning and retaining power.

The spectacle of Karl Rove and other party henchmen stating immediately after the convention concluded that the mantra of "Compassionate Conservatism" was put forth, is Snake Oil. "Compassionate Conservatism" is a slogan, a cliché that is rolled out for the election cycle, then boxed up and kept under wraps immediately afterwards. Furthermore, upon taking office this presidency hung out a big "DO NOT ENTER" sign to any person or group that did not share its very narrow, rigid beliefs. They operate with a "Boxed-In" mentality, unable to see or work "Outside Their Box".

Look at the theatrical demagoguery of the Republican National Convention. Moral? NO. Values? Value-Less. Lies, Deceit, Dishonor? From start to finish. A DISGUSTING example of politics OUT OF CONTROL. A DISGUSTING example of far right-wing, fringe zealotry. Dangerous to Democracy.

THIS IS WHAT WAITS FOR OUR NATION IN ANOTHER BUSH/CHENEY PRESIDENCY. AFTER THE ELECTION SHOULD THEY WIN AND THE EUPHORIA WEARS OFF, WE WILL ALL BE IN THE SAME BOAT WITH THE SAME EXASPERATED LOOK ON OUR FACES YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. "MY GOD, WHAT HAVE WE DONE". "WHAT HAVE WE DONE TO OUR CHILDREN AND OUR CHILDREN'S CHILDREN".

WHY HAS OUR CONGRESS AND AMERICAN MEDIA GONE WEAK IN THE KNEES? WHERE IS THE BACKBONE OF OUR CONGRESS AND MEDIA TO ALLOW SUCH TO GO UNCHALLENGED? TO ALLOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BE 'INDOCTRINATED' WITHOUT PUTTING UP A HARD-COURT PRESS? WHERE HAS AMERICA FAILED?

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED OUR CONGRESS AND MEDIA BASTIONS TO STAND UP, NOT KOW-TOW. GET YOUR LEGS BENEATH YOU, AND GO FAST-FORWARD!

IT IS ABSOLUTELY SICKENING THAT CLEAR UN-AMERICAN ANTICS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND ITS LEADERSHIP, THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ARE BEING UNCHALLENGED WHEN THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES, IN ADDITION TO DEHUMANIZING AND IMMORAL CONDUCT.

AGAIN, WHERE IS THE BACKBONE OF OUR CONGRESS AND AMERICAN MEDIA?

Do Americans have to invoke their "inalienable human rights" as CLEARLY EVINCED in the Declaration of Independence, so as to bring justice for these clearly unlawful, immoral, and un-American acts by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, their administration and political party? IF SO WE CAN AND WILL ACT. WE CAN USE FORCE TO REMOVE GEORGE W. BUSH, DICK CHENEY, THEIR ADMINISTRATION, AND IF NEED BE, THE ENTIRE REPUBLICAN HIERARCHY. WE WILL NOT ALLOW THE NAZIFICATION OF AMERICAN POLITICS. MORE SO WHEN SUCH UNDERMINES LONG-TERM RESPECT AND SECURITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

FreedomFocus.org

Bush Statements "EMBOLDEN" Terrorists

September 23, 2004 (Editors may edit for space & time constraints)

During the press conference September 23, 2004 with President George W. Bush and Iraq Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, the president stated that the "terrorists have an effective tool" in terror. During the August 30, 2004 interview with Matt Lauer on the Today Show President Bush spoke what 'his heart' knew was the truth when he clearly said "I don't think we can win it", referring to the winning the "War on Terrorism".

Of course in the days that followed there was a nation-wide effort by the conservative caucus to white-wash what these words really meant. Taking what President Bush says regarding Senator John Kerry's comment "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it", ... isn't it clear that when you state "I don't think we can win it", you MEAN JUST THAT. Do people talk that way in Missouri, in North Carolina, or elsewhere that when you say "I don't think we can win it", you really mean "We can win it"?

Also during the September 23, 2004 press conference the president gave a COMPENDIUM OF WAFFLING on a report by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The president went from explaining the report meaning from "possibility" to "probability", to where he, the president should have used a better word such as "estimate". Didn't we go through this SHEER CRAP a few years ago when former president Clinton remarked "That depends on what the definition of "is" is". And we come right back to the months-long use of Senator John Kerry's statement regarding his vote "for" and then "against" the $87 billion package which included procurement for the troops.

The fact remains that this president and vice president have LIED AND LIED AND LIED to the American people, as in WE THE PEOPLE, from the very beginning. From the run-up and drum-up to this DIVERSION WAR in Iraq, the war that took our military and intelligence resources away from the task at hand, that being tracking, engaging, and destroying terrorists and their networks, AMERICA HAS BEEN DECEIVED. AND THAT IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

The fact remains that when George W. Bush made the statement August 30, 2004 regarding winning the war on terrorism, "I don't think we can win it", 1) HE MEANT IT, and 2) TERRORISTS KNEW HE MEANT IT and WERE EMBOLDENED BY IT.

The fact remains that when George W. Bush stated September 23, 2004 that "terrorists have an effective tool" in terror, 1) HE MEANT IT, and 2) TERRORISTS ARE EMBOLDENED BY IT.

The fact remains that when George W. Bush made the statement April 14, 2004 during a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that Palestinians should be absorbed into a future Palestinian state "rather than in Israel", 1) HE MEANT IT, and 2) TERRORISTS WERE EMBOLDENED BY IT. How in God's earth can any person who claims to be a person of god, a person of values, hold to such while telling families that their ancestral homes, lands, farms, etc., are to be lost forever. Where are the values, the morals in that position. Where is there a potential for peace in that position.

The fact remains that when George W. Bush wrote "The United States remains committed to the vision of two states living side by side in peace and security, and its implementation as described in the road map. The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan," 1) HE MEANT IT, and 2) TERRORISTS WERE EMBOLDENED BY IT. Here again the president impugns the integrity of all others not committed to his administration's narrow, rigid mentality. Here again the United States is seen as forcing its will against that of self-determination.

George W. Bush just does not GET IT. LEADERSHIP IS DIFFERENT THAN LEADING. Anyone can LEAD a nation into war, and into war after war, crisis after crisis. It takes LEADERSHIP to do so meritoriously, at the right time and place, and to do so with a broad coalition of support. Even if not actual broad-based participation, at least broad-based support. George W. Bush has FAILED THIS TEST OF LEADERSHIP ... for THREE LONG YEARS. AND HE WANTS FOUR MORE YEARS TO DO THE SAME, TO "STAY THE COURSE". WHY CONTINUE WITH FAILURE?

The facts remain that under Bush-Cheney and their "Boxed-In" mentality where they cannot see or work "Outside Their Box", there is no manner whatever that their administration can bring peace to Iraq, or make sustained gains in defeating the root causes that spawn extremism and terrorism. They have NO "LEADERSHIP" CAPABILITIES TO GUIDE THE WORLD IN A GLOBAL WAR AGAINST TERRORISM. This president and his administration want FOUR MORE YEARS to STAY THE SAME COURSE. A COURSE OF "GO IT ALONE", "US VS. THEM", "OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY". A Course of LEADING ... WITHOUT "LEADERSHIP".

ARE WE CRAZY. WAS AMERICA SO BAMBOOZLED BY THE "NAZI-LIKE INDOCTRINATION" EXHORTED AT THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION, THAT "WE THE PEOPLE" WILL FOLLOW LIKE LEMMINGS OVER THE EDGE OF THE CLIFF?
THIS PRESIDENT AND HIS ADMINISTRATION ARE TAKING AMERICA RACING HEAD ON INTO A BRICK WALL WHETHER FROM AN ECONOMIC OR FOREIGN POLICY STANDPOINT.

THE TERRORISTS ARE GREATLY MORE EMBOLDENED IN STANDING UP TO GEORGE W. BUSH THAN THEY WOULD BE WITH ANY OTHER SITTING PRESIDENT. WHY? BECAUSE THEY KNOW HIS HATRED. THEY CAN SEE AND SMELL IT. THEY KNOW HE WILL NOT GIVE UP AND WILL TAKE AMERICA DOWN WITH HIM. AND THAT IS WHAT THEY WANT. THEY WANT AMERICA TO STAY AND FIGHT ... AND DIE.

THE TERRORISTS HAVE GEORGE W. BUSH EXACTLY WHERE THEY WANT HIM. STAYING THE COURSE SO THEY CAN BEAT UP ON HIM AND AMERICA. WHAT MORE COULD A TERRORIST ASK FOR. A "CAUSE" IN THEIR OWN BACKYARD. A FAIT ACCOMPLI FOR AMERICA.

FreedomFocus.org

Allawi is referred to as "the butcher" he is a puppet. Chalabi tricked the CIA, the pentagon, and the administration(the only thing is..they wanted to be tricked)
Where are the WMD? Where is the justification?
CAN ANYONE ANYONE GIVE ME THE CRITERIA ON HOW WE JUDGE THE IRAQ WAR IS OVER.

Bush keeps telling us the war is over
-mission accomplished
-sovereignty transferred

but when confronted with a negative take on the war, the rhetoric changes from "we've already won it" to: "to pull out before we've won would be embarassing for us and disastorous for Iraq"

So anyone: have we won the war?
-if yes then: can we get the hell out of the country?
-if no then: Bush lied to us by telling us mission accomplished and sovereignty transferred

also: at what point have we won the war?
seriously someone please send me an email or post a comment on my site PLEASE i am desperate NOT A PERSON ON THE PLANET CAN ARTICULATE WHAT THE CRITERA ARE TO JUDGE WHEN THE WAR WILL BE "WON".

If you can't then this is 1984, this is not some future chance of totalitarianism, RIGHT NOW WE ARE CONTROLLED BY NEO-FACIST IDEOLOGUES. The rampant nationalism, the dehumanization of minorities(homophobia, the racist drug war/justice system), centralization of power in the executive branch, destruction of judicial review(evidenced by the guantanimo case and the lack of judical review of the clearly unconstitutional patriot act), militarism, appeal to religion to maintain popular support, the links between civilian and military have been removed(my congressman Mark Kirk is currenly in the military[unconstitutional] and has as well as continues to work for the CIA[scary, right? or should i say....SPOOKy], and one that particularly bothered me the atrocities at Abu Ghraib.
American soldiers will be tortured worse than anything you or I can ever imagine for as long as the United States of America exists, because of those photos and videos(now everyone believes the US does not follow the geneva conventions). The individuals in the administration and the pentagon that deliberately flouted the geneva conventions should be summarily executed for war crimes, to serve penance for the millions of US soldiers that will be tortured in our future military conflicts by enemies.

Every day you and I do nothing we have personally killed an american soldier and a few more Iraqi civilians, keep that in mind when the jingoists tell you they support the troops.
-Jimothy J. Jones
http://www.iheartimperialism.blogspot.com