Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Spirituality » The Audacity of Liberal Hypocrisy – Part III

The Audacity of Liberal Hypocrisy – Part III

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Political dissent is a time honored tradition in the English-speaking world. Editorials, commentary, and cartoons over the years have been rude, crude, and barely socially acceptable. Political commentary has lampooned, harassed, criticized, annoyed, and has come close to threatening the opposition. It’s politics. All’s fair in love and politics.

Throughout much of human history a person practiced political dissent at their own risk. Greek city states, at various times in their existence allowed political criticism. It was allowed in the Roman Republic until Brutus attempted the ultimate expression of free speech; stabbing his political mentor in the back, literally, thus putting an end to “free speech and expression” for a good thousand years.

After that, your friendly neighborhood despot and conqueror frowned on opposition of any sort – most of the time. During the reign of Henry II in England, the cornerstone of the first viable constitution was laid, one which our Founding Fathers used as a building block for the Constitution of the United States. Under Henry, his best bud, pal, and drinking buddy, pushed the premise of free speech and political dissent to the breaking point, and paid the ultimate price for it, when one of Henry’s sycophants took him at his word and actually did rid him of that bothersome priest.

During the Puritan rule in those dark days of the Cromwellian purges during the British Civil War, free political speech was basically exterminated, only to spring forth, full blown, during the restoration of Charles II, and has never died since. Taking their cue from their British brethren, those disorderly American Colonists and early settlers took the whole idea of free political speech to the extreme; the world has never been the same.

Political discourse and commentary rose to the level of a spectator sport. It became the powdered wig version of world wide wrestling, complete with a thesaurus of steroidal verbiage. Not only was it indulged, but it was nurtured to the point where the Colonies, in open rebellion, were subjected to a very unpopular (the British Version) political action. It was about the right to speak freely, to criticize freely, and not be subjected to punitive action. It became the very bedrock of the American psyche, so ingrained in our political souls that the more the British tried to quench the flame of political discourse, the more it grew and flourished.

Free political discourse without fear of punitive reprisal is a unique creation of democracy. Free political discourse exists only where a bipartisan effort is made to allow opposition dissent. Once that dissent is prevented, a nation crosses the threshold from a bipartisan free society into something resembling a dictatorship.

If only one side of an issue or one political point is allowed full expression, then there is no longer free speech.

Unfortunately, the current trend here in the United States under the early days of Obama is to label any opposition to him to be “unpatriotic”. When radio personalities openly call for the execution of someone who is annoying them while expressing an opposing view, they are dangerously close to behavior bordering on the “unAmerican”. They are ignoring the fact that the hallmark of a democracy is freedom of expression and the freedom to express an opposing viewpoint.

It isn’t what someone says, but the fact that there are certain factions currently at work who want to silence any voice of opposition. When the political opposition is silenced, the fragile light of freedom is on its way to being extinguished.

Though the sensitive and politically correct who can brook only one version of a story, may not agree, there is nothing wrong with even crude, lampooning dissent. There is nothing wrong with rude dissent. There is nothing wrong with socially unacceptable dissent. There is, however, something wrong when only one political voice and only one side of the political equation is expressed, or is allowed to be expressed.

When differing opinion is silenced, Freedom begins to die a slow and agonizing death.

Our Founding Fathers did not intend for any rational or irrational political discourse to be silenced or discouraged. This tendency to do just that is a rather current invention by the political left; the MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, and Huffington Post end of the spectrum.

Some of it is simply the desire to win at all costs. Some of it is simply the fact that a rather ill-advised “show-biz” mentality has taken over the Democratic Party. More alarming, though, is the demand for political correctness. In other words, we are not to say anything that might hurt someone’s feelings, unless that person is a conservative, Republican, Christian, then it doesn’t matter what is said. apparently, this segment of American society does not have feelings, is incapable of being hurt, and should be treated as a subspecies of humanity; not quite the intellectual equal of the more worthy Democratic mind.

Political correctness is for “sissies’ It is for the do-good touchy-feely, "don’t hurt my feelings but I can say anything I want about you" mind set. It is a tool for silencing the opposition’s opinion simply because those who practice political correctness don’t like something that is being said. It is a tool for silencing the opposition that eventually leads to tyranny

Silencing of your political opposition and the systematic harassment of different opinions is a dangerous trend in the Western World. In the Netherlands, any open expression of disdain against the encroaching Islamic dictatorship that is on the horizon is now openly prosecuted. In the UK, Christian ministers who dare to speak out against Islam are subjected to harassment, physical intimidation, and beatings. In California, those who opposed Proposition 8 have been subjected to a campaign of public harassment, intimidation and threats. It has reached the point now where those who support the position openly express their hatred toward the Latter Day Saints and Mitt Romney in particular. If a Republican openly says something against anyone who is supporting Proposition 8, they are told they are spreading “hate”.

This is a dangerous trend that will eventually lead to the death of freedom and democracy.

It has happened many times in history. It is happening here in the United States via the concentrated efforts to intimidate any opposition to Barack Obama and the far left Democratic agenda into withdrawal and submission. Is it is ugly. It is nasty, and it is a vile corruption of everything this country is founded upon.

And if you think liberals are the only ones who practice the intimidation and silencing of their opposition, you are incorrect. The Far Right Conservative element, most of it not even remotely connected to the Republican Party, is involved in the first shots of an uncivil war. There are a few non-Republican conservatives, such as Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingraham who will do just about anything and say just about anything to silence and destroy anyone who does not meet their version of conservative purity.  Anyone opposes the extreme right are branded RINOs and subjected to some of the nastiest political harassment you can possibly imagine.

We are living through strange political times.

Powered by

About SJ Reidhead

  • http://whizball.blogspot.com Aaron Whitehead

    Unfortunately, the current trend here in the United States under the early days of Obama is to label any opposition to him to be “unpatriotic”.
    It is beyond hilarious to hear this after eight years of the Bush Administration.
    Perhaps you should avoid a short history of free speech if all you can muster is a vague reference to Henry II, who did something great (we never find out what). And he did it with the help of his drinking buddy, who should get his name mentioned in the article, if only out of respect (Thomas Becket). And then there were Puritans and then there were the ominous, uncorroborated tales of impending Islamofascist doom. No, that’s not a random segue (politically protected sarcasm).
    And perhaps you should refresh yourself about Part 2 before you write Part 3. In part 2, you turn up your nose about the state of political discourse. In part 3, you write about the necessity of free speech (even if it’s unpleasant) and the evils of political correctness. I can’t say I’m surprised that you contradicted yourself, just that you did it so quickly and efficiently.
    Is there going to be a part 4?

  • STM

    The only thing wrong with this version of history from SJ is that when it comes to democracy, Americans weren’t an oppressed people at the time of the revolution. Far from it. The truth is different to the myth, in many aspects of this discussion.

    It’s well documented that they had a better standard of living than virtually any of the countries in Europe they’d come from, and a great deal of open, political discourse that was gushing even well prior to revolution from the wellspring of personal freedoms that was the very country that spawned the 13 colonies.

    It’s also well known that a ruling regarding a slave bound for Virginia of the Court of King’s bench, in a classic case of executing a the writ of Habeas Corpus and execution of due process dating back to the statute added to the Magna Carta by Edward III in 1351 (that is almost a repeat of those that survived to become part of the constitution of the US), had effectively banned slavery in the British Isles and that that was in danger of spilling over to all British colonies (including those in the Americas) – as indeed it did.

    Less than a decade after the revolution ended, Britain had abolished the slave trade – a start, at least.

    My view, and one about which I can’t be swayed: The American revolution was less about free speech and liberty – the colonists already had it – than it was about a ruling colonial clique desperate to maintain its hold on power, prestige and money and to protect its own interests.

    To do that, it had to drag the rest of those in the colonies into a bloody war – and it’s also well documented that at the outset, most colonists weren’t interested in a revolution.

    They got pulled along by the coat tails initially.

    As proof of my hypothesis, I’ll offer up just the one well-known case – as there are more – and it’s that of Thomas Jefferson.

    How Jefferson (and many of those who joined him) could have signed those instruments proclaiming “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and ALL men being equal whilst denying those very rights to a certain group even on his own property simply because of the colour of their skin should be beyond the understanding of good men and women everywhere and stands as one of the greatest acts of political hypocrisy ever.

    It still stuns me and many others that he remains such a revered figure in the US, knowing everything we know now – and probably everything people knew then, too.

    While I don’t discount the right of people to decide their own destiney – and the revolution should be seen as totally legitimate for that alone – I maintain that despite George’s (illegal) meddling in parliament, the great majority of influential Britons had no issue with American home rule. Indeed, it was a change of government to the party opposed to the war from the start that effectively ensured there would be no further fighting.

    So I see the whole thing from a different perspective, and believe the way the revolution came about and was pursued, the issue of free speech, the catch-cry of “liberty” and the misguided notion of American exceptionalism have been shrouded in myth – and that the fog continues to blind Americans to the truth even today.

    As evidence, I’ll point out that in the English-speaking country I live in, we don’t have a Bill of Rights – because the framers of our constitution, in debating that issue, decided we already had those rights inherited from over 100 years of rule of law, and that they were protected at law. Indeed, the greatest of those is freedom of speech, and it exists here in a robust form that challenges governments, corporations, wrongdoers and bureacracies at every turn. It was taken to exist, and is therefore taken to be implied in our constiution.

    That goes right down to such things as Miranda-style rights, which while slightly different in wording, have exactly the same intent: “You do not have to say anything but anything you do say can be used in evidence – do you unsderstand that?” The fact that we have it means it all comes from Britain. I’d say that’s pretty good evidence in the case of America getting it from them too.

    I also believe that when the idea of the revolution going beyond just the right to decide one’s destiny, and being about true oppression, that is the greatest myth of all.

    American revolutionaries got their ideas of rights and freedoms not out of thin air but from the British, either through the laws that already existed in the colonies or from the great thinkers who were allowed to flourish in the other great modern democracy across the pond.

    So I see the early revolutionaries rather as self-serving traitors who started a nasty war and sucked the populace into it.

    On the other issues – of course, the real clue to all this rule of law – and that all our laws and rights in the English-speaking world are virtually identical and don’t come from America.

    Also, SJ is slightly wrong in her view history – Cromwell’s parliamentarians weren’t oppressing puritans (the same ones who’d fled to America). They were puritans themselves. King Charles I was the oppressor of puritans, and believed in absolute rule.

    By the time Cromwell had rid the country of the monarch at the end of the English Civil War, the puritans in Britain had the same rights of worship sought by those who in the few decades earlier had gone to America as Pilgrims, and behaved in much the same way.

    They even tore all the gold from the chucrhes, and stripped out such things as leadlight windows in the zeal to purify the corrupt Church of England, and to destroy Catholicism, of which it was seen as a vestige.

    However, Cromwell became a dictator and religious zealot and eventually did away with parliament. However, his overzealous religious views actually dovetailed quite nicely with many – perhaps even a great majority – of those on the other side of the pond.

    It was the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 that turned Britain into a genuine democracy – the longest continuous running one in the modern world – by making the king a figurehead with no real power who had to acquiese to parliament, it being the representative of the people.

    It wasn’t perfect though – and in my view, early American democracy was a shade better although both gave more rights to the rich and powerful than they did to the common man.

    But the march of time brought the two divergent paths back together, and they have arrived at the same spot.

    So yes, robust discourse is still very much in my veins, and of a similar type to yours too SJ since I share a common ancestry with many Americans – and who cares what shade of politics you are?

    The important thing here is not in the delivery but the right to free expression.

    I write this here for one reason: I understand that my view won’t be popular among many Americans, but I have a genuine right to say it, and know that nmy view is as valid as those that are diamterically opposed. The beauty of modern democracy is that anyone can say what they like, as long as they aren’t encouraging anyone to do anything illegal.

    Which kind of knocks your idea on the head a bit here SJ. I say, in a representative democracy, all points of view are valid and everyone has a right to deliver those points of view how they choose, so long as that delivery is within the letter of the law. Notions of morality and good manners, while preferable, have nothing to do with free speech.

    SJ should probably embrace it, and all it stands for, in its current American form or search for an alternative that won’t be anywhere near as good – and I know that because I’ve seen a few of those first hand in some awful places around the world that leave me feeling incredibly lucky that I can write this stuff without fear or favour.

    The moral: Just don’t get caught up in the myth of American exceptionalism, though, SJ – because it’s just that and taints anything else you write.

    (And if you can write the Gettysburg address, so can I).

  • Jordan Richardson

    Our Founding Fathers did not intend for any rational or irrational political discourse to be silenced or discouraged. This tendency to do just that is a rather current invention by the political left; the MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, and Huffington Post end of the spectrum.

    Expressing an idea from the other end of the political spectrum that you don’t agree with is not “silencing or discouraging” political discourse. Nor is wishing for the president to fail. All’s fair in love and war on BOTH sides, so I’m not quite sure you understand what you’re actually saying here.

    The entire basis of your argument, that liberals and liberals alone are attempting to “silence” other views, is presented without evidence and without any logical support. Seemingly you aim to get your point across by gutless repetition and fear-mongering.

    Also, political correctness isn’t bad on its face. The overuse and abuse of it, from BOTH sides, is what ruins the concept. Conservatives tend to ignore the growing diversity of the world they live in, while Democrats tend to ignore the basis of the world they came from. Both sides are flawed and political correctness, ideally, should be an attempt to reconcile these flaws in a changing, evolving world. Instead, it’s a weapon against free speech in some hands and a tool of paranoia in the others.

    The reality is that nobody has it quite right, every political party is stacked to the rafters with hypocrites and cheats, and to paint particular villainy or evil (as in “liberals are trying to destroy America”) one or the other is simply immature and, I daresay, dangerous in a physical sense to the construct of society.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Now the question is: will SJ stand up for the political discourse and freedom of speech she attempts to uphold in this piece by actually participating in the commentary and discussion she provokes or will she once again bash it from afar and continue to prove her hypocrisy?

  • Clavos

    @#4:

    Well said, Jordan.

  • Clavos

    @#3:

    Assuming for the sake of argument that you’re correct in regard to the motivation of the leaders of the American Revolution, it nonetheless was a serendipitous event in the sense that, without it, there would be 300+ million more Poms in the world today.

    Think about it.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    You mean the prospect of another 300 million civilized, well educated, polite people who can talk and spell properly somehow seems less attractive than the armed penal colony we have now?

    Chortle!

  • http://www.joannehuspek.wordpress.com Joanne Huspek

    “The reality is that nobody has it quite right, every political party is stacked to the rafters with hypocrites and cheats, and to paint particular villainy or evil (as in “liberals are trying to destroy America”) one or the other is simply immature and, I daresay, dangerous in a physical sense to the construct of society.

    Very true words…

  • Clavos

    Would that were true, Chris.

    The Britain you describe may have existed in the 18th, 19th, even the early 20th century, but not today.

    Today you’re just like all the rest of the countries; run over with coarse, poorly educated, louts and slackers — witness the crowds at your football games.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    STM,

    “Less than a decade after the revolution ended, Britain had abolished the slave trade – a start, at least.”

    “Amazing Grace,” the movie, is a great though somewhat fictionalized account of those times.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    STM,

    Could you provide some sources/books please? I would like to familiarize myself with the British account of the Revolutionary War.

    Roger

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “the greatest of those is freedom of speech, and it exists here in a robust form that challenges governments, corporations, wrongdoers and bureacracies at every turn. It was taken to exist, and is therefore taken to be implied in our constitution.”

    On analogy with the English concept of “common law.”

  • Les Slater

    Hi, I’ve been quite busy lately but just have to report what I just witnessed here in Chicago. I was picking up toner at a UPS store on the corner of S 35th and MLK and in the parking lot was a Jaguar with an Illinois license plate with the picture of Lincoln replaced with one of Obama. The Obama picture was much more prominent than that of Lincoln it replaced. It was bigger and while Lincoln was centered, Obama was, of course, on the left.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Clavos, actually, most of Britain is as I depicted it.

    There are a few small areas in some of the bigger cities that are a bit more challenging, but there is nothing in the UK that remotely compares to commonplace US urban landscapes everywhere from Liberty City to Baltimore, San Diego to Seattle.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    An interesting aside to the long-term tradition and rule of law in English-descended countries:

    One would have to get outside the US (or the UK or Australia, I suppose) to realize the extent to which bureaucracies have permeated almost every aspect of a person’s life. Interestingly, it doesn’t include other Western nations as France, Italy or Germany (where arcane system of laws and complex bureaucracies are still more of a rule than an exception). Kafka’s “Trial” should give anyone a pretty good feel as to how insecure you can be in your own person when there: it’s not that much of an exaggeration.

    If you’ve ever been there (or in any of the ex-socialist countries), you’d realize the extent to which bureaucratic functionaries (regardless of the agency they represent) are routinely exercising their “authority” in a completely arbitrary fashion: which necessitates bribes, cajoling, you name it, to get something done.

    This is uniquely absent in countries which follow the English tradition. And why?

    Only because “law” (and “appeal to law”) takes precedence over persons and individual decision-making And for this we really ought to be thankful to the British.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    “Under Henry, his best bud, pal, and drinking buddy, pushed the premise of free speech…”

    The name of Thomas Becket needs to be inserted here, in case anyone’s scratching their head over that one.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Jordan,

    “Conservatives tend to ignore the growing diversity of the world they live in, while Democrats tend to ignore the basis of the world they came from.”

    A heck of a statement. Could you explain the second part? I’m not certain I quite get it.

  • Clavos

    St. Thomas Becket.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #4 (Jordan)

    “Now the question is: will SJ stand up for the political discourse and freedom of speech she attempts to uphold in this piece by actually participating in the commentary and discussion she provokes or will she once again bash it from afar and continue to prove her hypocrisy?”

    I said it before and I’ll say it again. I’m almost certain SJ is not hypocritical but a true believer. And to me, that’s even more amazing.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #9:

    “Today you’re just like all the rest of the countries; run over with coarse, poorly educated, louts and slackers — witness the crowds at your football games.”

    Somebody had explained it to me once or I read it somewhere, and it made a great deal of sense – concerning “hooliganism” as being peculiarly British phenomenon.

    I believe it had to do with lack of the kind of diversions and/or toys (which are in such a proliferation in the U.S.), and therefore having “poorer economic conditions” as its source.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    STM @ #2:

    So I see the whole thing from a different perspective, and believe the way the revolution came about and was pursued, the issue of free speech, the catch-cry of “liberty” and the misguided notion of American exceptionalism have been shrouded in myth – and that the fog continues to blind Americans to the truth even today.

    The USA isn’t the only nation blinkered by myth, Stan. There’s a good piece on the BBC website today about France’s strangely edited version of her own WWII liberation – and how Sarkozy, by bringing the country back into NATO, seems to be steering the French towards a more honest acknowledgment of their long and intricate relationship with the English-speaking peoples.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Somebody had explained it to me once or I read it somewhere, and it made a great deal of sense – concerning “hooliganism” as being peculiarly British phenomenon.

    We may have ‘pioneered’ hooliganism*, Roger, but serious violence at British football games is now a very rare occurrence.

    Sadly, it proved to be a very appealing export, and was taken up with enthusiasm by ‘fans’ in the Netherlands, Germany, Russia, Italy, Greece and Turkey among other places – where I believe it still flourishes.

    * Although the word is actually Irish.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    How do you explain, though, it taking root so readily in the UK? I’m talking of times past – even in the ’60 or before (when I was still in Poland) it was already widespread?

    Was it a form of “rebellion”? Of taking a stand different from the mainstream, especially by the young?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “There are several theories about the origin of the word hooliganisme. The Oxford English Dictionary states that word possibly originates from the surname of a fictional rowdy Irish family in a music hall song of the 1890s.[1][2] Clarence Rooks, in his 1899 book, Hooligan Nights, claimed that the word came from Patrick Holligan (or Hooligan), an Irish bouncer and thief who lived in the London borough of Southwark.[citation needed] Another writer, Earnest Weekley, wrote in his 1912 book Romance of Words, “The original hooligans were a spirited Irish family of that name whose proceedings enlivened the drab monotony of life in Southwark about fourteen years ago”.[3] There have also been references made to a 19th century rural Irish family with the surname Houlihan who were known for their wild lifestyle.[citation needed] Another theory is that the term came from a street gang in Islington named Hooley.[citation needed] Yet another theory is that the term is based on an Irish word, houlie, which means a wild, spirited party.[4]”

    From the Wiki

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    One also thinks of “Clockwork Orange.”

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Interesting subject, Roger, and one about which there was a lot of debate in my youth, when the violence was at its peak.

    Economic deprivation certainly had a lot to do with it, but that doesn’t explain why a lot of the hooligans – and particularly the ringleaders – turned out to be otherwise respectable middle-class young men with families and responsible jobs.

    Unemployment was persistently high, young blokes needed some way of venting their frustrations and football was the working-class sport, played in ageing stadia which facilitated the sort of pitched battles that were such a familiar sight in those days.

    When the stadia were modernized, the battles moved to the surrounding streets, but that little era didn’t last long. Why? Because the media weren’t there. If you started a fight at a big First Division match, you could watch yourselves on TV that night and read about yourselves in the paper the following day – because the cameras and reporters were already in place to cover the game.

    It was an impossible ask, I know, but I always thought that the media should have made it a matter of policy not to report on any violence that happened at a game. I think the problem would have gone away quite quickly.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, middle-class background plays right into it, like the hippies in the U.S. They haven’t come from lower social strata.

    Of course, we had the Vietnam war – which provided the outlet, but the Brits? Just boredom or ennui, I suppose. So vandalism is an understandable response.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I think there was also a great deal of unrest among the youth in West Germany at the time – but it was more politically directed (a reaction against the recent history, I suppose).

    Try to get hold of John Le Carre’s “Absolute Friends,” a great read.

  • http://www.thepinkflamingoblog.com/ SJ Reidhead

    I would first like to direct you to the Blog Critics comment policy where personal attacks are not allowed. You might want to read it.

    Thank you for proving my theory. This has been most entertaining and very enlightening. The way the “liberal” mind works never fails to fascinate me. It is 50% “Truth”, 45% “Emotion” and 5% “Fact” (and in provable). Rather than spend a little time digging into my other writings on Blog Critics or checking out my blog The Pink Flamingo (shameless plug), you simply delve into ad hominem attacks, based on pure emotion and your version of the “truth”.

    Several years ago, while working on a book dealing with the prevarications of legendary writer, Frank Waters, I discovered there is a difference between provable documented fact and the truth. Documented fact, with footnotes is documented fact. The truth is something that can be molded, melded, re-arranged, and packaged according to one’s personal views. I don’t deal in the “Truth” I use documented “Fact”.

    Since most of my detractors know nothing about me, let me enlighten you a little. I’ve spent the past 4 years investigating conservative sourcing and the roots of the anti-immigration movement. You will rarely see me use a “conservative” source for my work because I don’t like their sourcing. The average conservative non-profit group, including the Heritage Foundation has funding roots that include cult leader Sun Myung Moon. He and his organization are two of the major puppet masters within the “conservative movement” with ties to more than a few leading “Christian Conservative” groups. The other source of funding comes from John Tanton’s anti-immigration machine. Tanton’s funding basis includes a major start up grant from the Pioneer Fund. One of the Pioneer Fund’s major early funding sources included real old fashioned, German Nazi money. (This is provable, documented fact). This is the original funding source for most of the anti-immigration movement, which has co-opted the conservative movement and basically destroyed the GOP’s chances within the Hispanic community.

    I have been writing about this for 4 years, including here at Blog Critics, but have you bothered to even read my criticisms of conservatives? Obviously not or the terms “hypocrite” and “true believer” would be dropped. Nothing is farther from PROVABLE FACT. But that would not be very convenient for the liberal mindset and might cause a little squirming.

    It is documented, provable fact, complete with a money paper trail that the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Media Matters, and MoveOn were funded with grant money by wacky billionaire George Soros. (Sorry guys, but there is a paper trail. This is not “truth” but documented fact). Soros has a decidedly anti-American agenda, which is also provable and documented via his own words. Do a little homework and see for yourself. He truly detests this nation. His organizations were designed to promote a Soros based agenda just like the Heritage Foundation reflects Sun Myung Moon’s conservative views and Tanton’s various anti-immigration organizations reflect his original Nazi seed money for studies on eugenics.

    You can hyper ventilate and call me all sorts of names and make your pathetic little ad hominem attacks, but what I have related in the previous paragraphs is DOCUMENTED FACT. I don’t give a damn about the “truth”. As a writer and historical researcher, I am into footnotes and documentation.

    As for the coordinated liberal attacks against Republicans, do a little reading beyond Keith Olbermann and Christ Matthews. Expand your horizons. These attacks, planned in phone conversations between George Stephanopoulos, James Carville, Leon Pinetta, first began on September 10, 2001. This is DOCUMENTED fact. They have been assisting the Obama White House, along with Paul Begala, and Rahm Emanuel plan attacks against Rush Limbaugh and various other conservatives. This too is documented, provable fact, and can be found in the Politico, but I doubt if you bother reading it.

    I have found the average attack commenter here at Blog Critics to be pathetically ill-informed on current events. What they do know they take, spoon fed, from their various liberal sources. You can’t make a valid decision reading just one side of the story, you need to check out your precious liberal sources and see if they hold up, the way I did the conservative sources and found them sorely wanting in anything remotely resembling provable fact.

    The attacks by liberals against Sarah Palin were well planned and coordinated and continue even today. Oh, no you say, she’s an idiot. You can prove it. Go ahead, use your usual sources. Try going back to sourcing before July, 2008 and see how she was covered. Then, compare them with the material afterward. Did this person dramatically change from a competent governor overnight or did something else happen? Remember, there is a difference between “Truth” and “Fact”. Also, get a little background into the Katie Couric interview, and see what was left on the cutting floor. Then, read Sarah Palin’s more recent comments about those interviews. Also, delve into the story behind the “clothes” and you may find there was more than a little back-stabbing going on in the GOP. This is documented fact. (Check out Media Malpractice).

    What is the “fact” behind the arrest of Obama appointees Sushil Bansal and Yousaf Acar? I’m still waiting for the 911 on this one. What is the provable fact behind the information that the Obama Campaign paid bloggers to harass Republicans and conservatives online, doing exactly what you are doing to me. Go disprove it – and use viable sourcing, not Democratic sources.

    If you were to do a little home-work, you might discover that I am one of the most vocal critics of the right, and the non-GOP conservatives who are up to nothing but mischief when it comes to attacking Republicans who do not meet their increasingly pathetic version of what “conservative” is and isn’t. I have spent far more time criticizing the right than I have the left, in fact, these three articles, and a few others, are probably some of the few I’ve written about the Left. I spend most of my time dealing with PROVABLE FACT in conjunction with the far right sources who are determined to basically destroy the Republican Party.

    I gather there is nothing wrong with being a “true believer” as long as that person is an irrational liberal or Democrat who is intellectually superior, erudite, and far superior to pathetic little Republicans like me. That’s fine. Just try getting your information about history from sources other than revisionist. It might broaden your outlook in life, but I doubt it, I truly doubt it.

    As for the current article, I am perfectly aware that there were other roots of the American Revolution, but I am talking about “Free Speech”.

    I am also more interested in dealing with conservatives who are trying to destroy the GOP, and exorcize the party of anyone the consider “RINO”. I think it’s a Moonie thing, but I still can’t prove it. I know you are going to revel in the fact – provable – that Michelle Malkin, one of the worst of the worst when it comes to anti-GOP conservatives, writes for VDARE, which is a vile little publication owned by Peter Brimelow whose twin brother, John, was once the US leader of the National Socialist Party. (PROVABLE FACT). Malkin is one of the sources of the worst attacks out there against good, decent Republicans. Nothing liberals could dream up can match the vile material she has endorsed, and that’s documented, provable fact.

    Oh, and there is nothing wrong with being a Christian. To say otherwise simply exposes a pathetically biased attitude.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    SJ.

    I was about to compliment you (though didn’t get to it yet) about Part III being a definite improvement. You brought in more content, your argument more or less holds – lots of good things that were plainly missing (IMO) from parts I and II.

    And now you come with the following, and I quote:

    Thank you for proving my theory. This has been most entertaining and very enlightening. The way the “liberal” mind works never fails to fascinate me. It is 50% “Truth”, 45% “Emotion” and 5% “Fact” (and in provable). Rather than spend a little time digging into my other writings on Blog Critics or checking out my blog The Pink Flamingo (shameless plug), you simply delve into ad hominem attacks, based on pure emotion and your version of the “truth”.

    You have totally discredited yourself in my eyes by virtue of this obviously thoughtless and completely biased paragraph.

    I was trying all along to extend you to the extent possible the benefit of the doubt – argued that you’re not a hypocrite but a true believer.

    And I’ll still stand by my first statement (because a hypocrite you’re definitely not) but now I have to amend it.

    You are a simpleton, SJ. There really is no other way to describe you.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Either a simpleton or completely delusional – can’t make up my mind yet.

    And BTW, nobody here to the best of knowledge attacked your for your religious beliefs.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “Oh, and there is nothing wrong with being a Christian. To say otherwise simply exposes a pathetically biased attitude.”

    But when being a Christian results in the kind of simple-mindedness which, apparently, you seem unable to escape, then by all means – THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH BEING A CHRISTIAN.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Rather than spend a little time digging into my other writings on Blog Critics or checking out my blog The Pink Flamingo (shameless plug), you simply delve into ad hominem attacks, based on pure emotion and your version of the “truth”.

    For example?

    The attacks by liberals against Sarah Palin were well planned and coordinated and continue even today. Oh, no you say, she’s an idiot. You can prove it. Go ahead, use your usual sources. Try going back to sourcing before July, 2008 and see how she was covered. Then, compare them with the material afterward. Did this person dramatically change from a competent governor overnight or did something else happen?

    She became a vice-presidential candidate. So what? It comes with the territory. Coverage of Obama was pretty neutral at one time as well.

    If you were to do a little home-work, you might discover that I am one of the most vocal critics of the right, and the non-GOP conservatives who are up to nothing but mischief when it comes to attacking Republicans who do not meet their increasingly pathetic version of what “conservative” is and isn’t. I have spent far more time criticizing the right than I have the left

    This is actually true (sorry – fact!), at least with regard to Blogcritics. SJ has written a series of articles opining on the internal politics of the Republican Party.

    I have found the average attack commenter here at Blog Critics to be pathetically ill-informed on current events.

    That’s rather insulting to the BC community. Are we all ‘attack commenters’? Or does that description apply only to those who disagree with you? Commenters like Jordan, Handy, Roger and B-tone are politically well-informed and reasoned thinkers. (Aaron is an unfamiliar name to me, but he also seems to make some solid points.) If you are all about ‘facts’, can you show us how they obtain their information only from Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Media Matters, and MoveOn?

    If their responses to your articles have included charges of ‘hypocrisy’ and other attacks, and have addressed you in sharp terms, that has much to do with the way you initiated and have conducted yourself in this debate.

  • http://www.thepinkflamingoblog.com/ SJ Reidhead

    I would much rather be a simpleton than someone who is so full of sophistication and is so intellectual they cannot allow themselves to actually do a little research into a subject and perhaps admit they don’t know everything.

    It’s okay. I understand completely. I’m not as bright, well spoken, or as philosophical as are you. That’s fine. doesn’t bother me a bit. I don’t mind being simple-minded. I am a Christian, and if you knew anything about the faith I profess, you would understand it cannot be escaped.

    SJR

    BTW
    My religious beliefs have been thoroughly attacked in Part I.

  • Ma r k

    Dreadful, isn’t “You are a simpleton, SJ.” a personal attack? WTF? I thought we had to be a bit creative in expressing our negative evaluations of one anothers’ characters.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    My religious beliefs have been thoroughly attacked in Part I.

    SJ, I’ve just been all the way through that thread and could find only one comment that could even remotely be construed as being an attack on your Christian faith.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Mark wid de arbitrary spaces:

    Are you addressing me in my editing or commenting capacity? If the latter, that wasn’t me. If the former, then Roger actually did explain why he thought SJ was a simpleton. In other words, his attack was underlaid with an opinion rather than being simply gratuitous.

  • Mar k

    Interesting take on the policy…I like it as it opens all doors.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    SJ,

    I’m not a faithless person, BTW – though not part of any organized religion. No one should criticize you for your faith – if anything, they should criticize you for lack of it. Personally, even atheists, IMO, are not “faithless” though they proclaim themselves to be (as an act of rebellion): how else could they face the uncertainties and the vicissitudes of life?

    But your appeal to references and sources misses the point – and believe me, it’s not going to be heeded – for as long as you persist on seeing the world as black and white. If you show a little tolerance and understanding towards those with whom you vehemently disagree, then yes – the response to your writings would be quite different. Try and see – it might do wonders. But not before.

    Roger

  • http://www.thepinkflamingoblog.com/ SJ Reidhead

    Re #33 –
    Dr. Dreadful

    There are some very nasty commenters here, and none are part of your list.

    Here’s the info on Move On, Daily Kos, Huff Post, etc. I’m not sure how to insert URLs because I am a simpleton (and very dyslexic).

    There is a bottom line here. The multi-billionaire James Bond time villains are using their huge check-books to finance their political agendas on both sides of the argument. We’re nothing but their pawns. Seriously, if you dig deep enough, you will find Soros money in some of the truly nasty attacks from the left to the right, and you will find Tanton & some equally nasty money funding attacks from the right to the left.

    You will find, though, the far right is so busy attacking the GOP, they rarely have time to go after the “left”.

    I am so tired of the epitaphs being hurled here, simply because we do not look at things the same way. Look, I’ve spent 4 years investigating the money trails, primarily on the right, but also on the left. Our strings are being pulled. Somewhere along the line we need to stand up and say enough is enough. Probably the only way to do so is to either create campaign finance reform that is truly an infringement on our freedom of expression, or to just let things go back to a Wild West attitude of just going at it.

    SJR

    CNN Piece on Soros Funding.

    Huff Post Comment on Hillary Complaining about Attacks from Obama.

    Center for Public Integrity on Soros, GOP Donors.

    From Center for Public Integrity:

    “…We may never know exactly why any American would contribute more than $20 million in a single year to influence a presidential election. That is because Bob Perry, a residential housing developer in Houston, Texas, refuses to explain his reasoning and investor George Soros is somewhat vague about his motives.
    Neither man seems to want–or need–anything in return from the candidates they finance. Men in the top tier of wealth are not usually seeking a government job or a framed, autographed photo of themselves with the president. And while they are funding some of the most ideologically extreme advertising in American history–Soros on the left and Perry on the right–both men prefer to portray themselves as political centrists.
    No matter what their reasons, it was astonishing to many long-time observers of campaign financing that rich Americans were making record-breaking political contributions legally after three decades of post-Watergate efforts by Congress to limit the amounts of money that flow into campaign coffers. The role played by Soros, Perry, and other wealthy men and women in financing today’s presidential selection process suggests that little has changed since 1974, when the public was outraged that millionaire insurance executive W. Clement Stone had secretly provided more than $2 million to assist the reelection of Richard M. Nixon.
    In fact, neither Perry nor Soros were big political contributors until after the enactment of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, whose stated aim was to eliminate unregulated contributions. It was as if the new law had triggered an all-out arms race between Democrats and Republicans to see which camp could create the biggest independent, permanent campaign apparatus. In 2008, this race was still under way as independent groups scouted for new combatants in the contest of writing big checks. In the process, they were elevating the place of secrecy and negativity in the campaign arsenal, dramatically reshaping the political landscape, and attracting an array of corruption allegations….”

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “”You are a simpleton.”

    I used it descriptively (and motivationally, too), not as a personal attack. You should know better that it’s the context which determines what is what – not words themselves. Get a life!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    And it’s the most perfect term I could think of to express exactly what I wanted to express.
    You try to be more creative.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Thanks, Doc.

  • Cindy

    pompous ass.

  • Mar k

    Rog, historically, commentators have been encouraged to ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’, thus, attacking someone’s writing or position has been the limit.

  • Cindy

    SJ,

    Thanks for that info on Sun Myung Moon and Tanton. I wasn’t aware of that and it’s good to know. Also, the George Soros info. I did know he founded(?) MoveOn, but I didn’t know the rest.

  • http://www.thepinkflamingoblog.com/ SJ Reidhead

    Roger;

    My problem is I do not view things in just shades of black and white. All of my illusions were shattered when I started researching the roots of Immigration Reform. I am now cynical to the point where I am skeptical of everyone until I can prove that they are worthy of something less than contempt.

    My diatribe on “truth” v. “fact” is a pathetic result of several years spent writing a book on Frank Waters and his sourcing, and dealing with his psychological garbage, double-speak and manipulating “truth” to prove assumptions that have nothing to do with provable fact and actual sources. I have become such a cynic that if anyone cannot provide sourcing for a claim, I either ignore it, or research opposing information to see if the information actually proves accurate.

    Maybe what I’ve been writing could be more easily said by the statement, “Cut the crap.”

    SJR

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Mark,

    I’d like to believe that my harsh words at SJ was not to attack her as a person – what use is there doing something like that? – but rather to have her take a second look: at herself, what she is saying, the general tenor of her written work.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Cindy,

    Curious as to whether your #44 is an experiment.

  • M ar k

    Rog, I could set up to call you a ‘manipulative sexist pig’ or ‘manic depressive’ or ‘pompous ass’ with the same intention. Would those over the top descriptors inspire you to take a look at yourself?

  • Clavos

    Doc #44,

    Before you excise it, allow me to second it.

  • Clavos

    Doc,

    Commenters like Jordan, Handy, Roger and B-tone are politically well-informed and reasoned thinkers.

    Interesting, if one-sided, list…

  • Cindy

    lol Dr.D,

    I figured if all one had to do was make one’s case to call someone a name, then I’ve made mine already. (no sense in being repetitious)

    I didn’t really expect that comment to fly…sorry for the headache.

    (I think you’re on to me…)

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Interesting, if one-sided, list…

    One-sided? Well, in the context of a discussion on ‘The Audacity of Liberal Hypocrisy’, what did you expect?

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    Might as well say it again:

    Blogcritics. It’s one word, not two. You’d think someone who has written here for four years would know that by now.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Ma r ( ) k; Clav; Cindy:

    The comments policy also says this:

    “Subjective? Yes, but we know them when we see them and so do you.”

    Context, people, context.

  • Clavos

    Picky, picky, picky, Matt…:>)

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dread Ful

    Let’s see what happens if we all start referring to him as Suss Man.

  • Clavos

    Doc D #54:

    Point taken.

  • M a( )r k

    Capriciousness is the heart of the just state.

    I believe that the policy also states (somewhere) that you can kiss my ass. Actually. if you met him, you might want to, as he’s a fine equine specimen.

  • Clavos

    Hee Haw…

  • Clavos

    Oh wait — you meant the other one.

    never mind…

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    M (a)r {….!…} ¶/ ® k:

    But that bit I quoted says exactly that; albeit couched in somewhat more genteel terms than your very apt paraphrase!

  • Clavos

    Where’d ya get the copyright thingy, Doc?

  • Cindy

    Dr Dread Ful,

    Where does one get a keyboard with a ‘registered’ mark?

    In fact, what kind of keyboard do you have Clav? It seems to have both French and Spanish accents…or do you use ‘number pad + alt + code’?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    If using Windows:

    Start>Programs>Accessories>System Tools>Character Map

    (Might be a slightly different path depending on what version you’re using.)

    Have fun!

  • Cindy

    You owe me a beer Clav…or I owe you a beer. Sumpthin like that.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    SJ,

    I have just gone through your latest article and your first comment, and I’d like to bring up these examples:

    1)I gather there is nothing wrong with being a “true believer” as long as that person is an irrational liberal or Democrat who is intellectually superior, erudite, and far superior to pathetic little Republicans like me. That’s fine.

    First off, when I used the term “true believer,” there was nothing derogatory about it. Eric Hoffer popularized it in the sixties – and it refers to all kinds of people, regardless of their political or religious persuasion. So there was no intent there to insult you, only to understand where you’re coming from. So in light of that, why do you find it so necessary to be on the defensive – as in 1) – drawing this sharp a contrast between “superior Democrats” and “pathetic Republicans.” I understand, perhaps, your sense of frustration and sarcasm, but repeated use of these dichotomies, especially when drawn in such “black and white” terms, is not going to serve you well; and after a while, it’s all going to fall on deaf ear.

    2) The way the “liberal” mind works never fails to fascinate me. It is 50% “Truth”, 45% “Emotion” and 5% “Fact” (and in provable).

    More of the same, SJ, except here it’s no longer sarcasm or irony: you’re stating this as a matter of fact. And this is kind of one-sided, don’t you agree? You do mention towards the end of your article the equally intolerant radical Right. But it’s kind of late, because in this remark here you do state what you truly seem to believe. So in a way, your attempt to be balanced is countermanded by what you say in 2).

    3)Unfortunately, the current trend here in the United States under the early days of Obama is to label any opposition to him to be “unpatriotic”.

    Another one-sided statement. Hasn’t the Bush-Cheney machinery used similar language with respect to those who opposed the Iraqi invasion from the get-go? So your omitting that fact, again, suggests only a black & white vision: Republicans good; Democrats bad. If you want to avoid criticism in this matter, be fair and balanced.

    4) There is, however, something wrong when only one political voice and only one side of the political equation is expressed, or is allowed to be expressed.

    Now, you do know that’s not exactly so. Limbaugh and Hannity and Fox News, and countless other talk-show hosts have been speaking for years. And I don’t believe they ought to be silenced; still, your omission, again, suggest a black&white view of things.

    5) It is happening here in the United States via the concentrated efforts to intimidate any opposition to Barack Obama and the far left Democratic agenda into withdrawal and submission.

    Not exactly true. The radical Left – e.g., Democracy Now! website – is very critical of Obama for not going far enough.

    (I won’t even go into the funding of the Democratic propaganda machinery (by Soros, et at), because the Republicans have their own sources of funding: we both know that.)

    So SJ. What I’m really saying, if you just try to pay little attention to these things before you submit, you’ll be OK. As I was going to say, the Part III has content and a decent argument – almost to the very end. Just eliminate these little “annoyances” from the bulk of your writing, and you’ll see what a difference it will make.

    Roger

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Mark #50;

    If I gave you the cause, then yes, because I’d deserve it.

  • Cindy

    ČôôŁ ĎЯ Đŗęåđ ₣ữĻ΅̣٭٬ٱٱٳٳ٭غ

  • M (a)r {….!…} ¶/ ® k

    So, Rog, were SJ to disagree with you concerning ’cause’, it would be reasonable for her to consider you descriptor a personal attack?

  • Clavos

    ¡Gracias, Joven!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    If what I write gave her reason(s) to think that “I am a ‘manipulative sexist pig’ or a ‘manic depressive’ or a ‘pompous ass'” then yes – she’d have a perfect right to say it because I’d probably deserve it.

  • Clavos

    Cindy,

    I do have both Spanish and French keyboards; they come with Windows.

    To install:

    Start>Control Panel>Regional and language Options>Keyboards and Languages>How can I install additional languages?

    The above is for Windows Vista. YMMV.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    If?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I haven’t seen much from you, big man, other than a comment now and then. You just like the sidelines, don’t you?

  • http://www.thepinkflamingoblog.com SJ Reidhead

    Am doing this on the blackberry so ignore errors.

    Why would I call Roger any of those epitaphs. I don’t know him. He may be a very nice pompous ass for all I know.

    That is my big complaint about forums,etc. People assume identies and we assume things about them that are not true. The most medicore unassuming people come asross as something they are not. I don’t do well on a forum because I’m all sarcism and irony and that does not come through. My snide remarkd come out as quite blond which I am not.

    So roger gets a pass

    SJR

  • Cindy

    Thanks Clav,

    I might eventually figure out how to use that. I installed it. But I need to get more info, it’s not being user friendly. That’ll be great to have.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    SJ,

    I wouldn’t deny, SJ, that I’m quite a peacock. One reason I couldn’t stay mad with Clavos because what he said (he knows the occasion), was PARTLY (though not completely) true. And I apologize for using that word.

    But SJ, there’s one thing I’d like to add. Internet is great, but it’s also defective in many ways as a medium because, truly, we don’t know the person on the other side. It can never replace a person-to-person talk. And it’s precisely for that reason why it’s utterly crucial to be as careful as possible to say exactly what you mean, no more and no less. Because what you leave on the printed page is the only indication as to who you are. There’s no other way to judge.

    Roger

  • Cindy

    ¿Entiendo?

    ¡Pienso que entiendo!

  • STM

    I think SJ’s just given us Part IV.

    And Clav, on the Pom thing …. I didn’t say it wasn’t legit for America to become America, as opposed to 13 colonies of Britain.

    300 million extra chooms probably would be a nightmare, but anyway … at least the lager industry would be safe from the global recession.

    I just have my view on the motivation of the founding fathers, and whether – at the time – they had their own wellbeing at the forefront of their minds or that of their fellow Americans.

    Please don’t miss the point though of why I did it, not just in response to SJ’s notions of American exceptionalism.

    BTW, there’s much excitement about the Big Macs.

    They are much larger … one is 2cms bigger.

    Two others come in today hopefully – from Bangkok and Lisbon.

  • Clavos

    ¡Brava, Cindy!

    ¿Ya encontraste la ñ también?

  • Clavos

    They are much larger … one is 2cms bigger.

    Which one, mate?

    (Might be worth moving there…not!

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    How Jefferson (and many of those who joined him) could have signed those instruments proclaiming “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and ALL men being equal whilst denying those very rights to a certain group even on his own property simply because of the colour of their skin should be beyond the understanding of good men and women everywhere and stands as one of the greatest acts of political hypocrisy ever.

    Stan, at the time of the writing of the Constitution there was a widespread belief that slavery was economically obsolete and would die out on its own within a generation. The assumption was that there would be a natural transition to free labor by the early 1800s. The assumption probably would have been correct had the industrial revolution not come along with the cotton gin and mechanical textile milling which increased the volume at which cotton could be processed into cloth and gave slavery a second lease on life.

    Dave

  • STM

    Doc, interesting piece on the French rewriting of history. It’s something that’s familiar to us, but this time America’s been rewritten out of the equation too. What must gall – no pun intended – the most is that the British, and later the Americans, provided de Gaulle and the Free French with both the resources and the base to continue the war against Hitler.

    I have read some pieces recently too from a French perspective that seem to focus quite heavily on the “perfidy” of the BEF’s withdrawl to the coast during the Battle of France, never mind that their French allies and the whole of France was collapsing around them and about to stick its hands in the air.

    Given the state of affairs in France at the time it’s a miracle so many – and so many Frenchmen too – were able to be rescued at Dunkirk to fight again.

    Of course, that was all whitewashed. The BEF was a tiny force compared to the French army, and yet it’s still somehow all the fault of the British that France was overrun. Unfortunately, De Gaulle wasn’t unrepresentative of his people in terms of his views about the world outside France.

    It’s less so today though, which might be one good result of a unified Europe. It’s true, though, that older Frenchmen haven’t forgiven the Anglo-Saxon allies for liberating them, but have forgiven the Germans their brutality.

  • STM

    Clav, they are all at least 1cm larger … but the Panamanian one looks to be the big daddy.

  • Oh Geez

    So, George Soros is just another side of the Sun Myung Moon coin?

    What a deceptive bunch of hooey. Here we go with one of the right’s favorite tactics, the false equivalency. U.S. citizen, Soros rolls into town in 2004 and spends about 25 million during that election cycle.

    Now go back the previous 25 years and take an honest look at non-citizen Moon. He has easily outspent anyone promoting, propping up and molding right wing thought in America over that period and that’s just from what we know about. No one else, including Scaife, has come close. We’re talking billions supplying the backbone of the right. Moon, who many call an anti-communist even though he has funded North Korea and wants “American style democracy” replaced, brags about using the Washington Times to “influence America” along with his “other activities.”

    Activities?

    The Washington Times, which has lost between $2-3 billion the last 25 years pushing our nation right for the conservative’s “savior,” has been the print spine of conservatism during this time. Moon’s media have fed lies and propaganda into our nation’s body politic for all conservatives to feed off. Without Moon the right’s “rise” to power would not have happened. Now some of you are thinking, “What about the NYT?”…and you are doing it with a mind Moon conditioned. Comparing the two is as silly as saying Soros is like Moon. But most of you will either deceptively act like you oppose Moon while making false equivalencies or worse; you will defend Moon, as he planned.

    Even the Unification Church admits that the cash to finance its “activities” comes mostly from Japan, a nation where the UC has been found guilty of swindling hundreds of millions, likely billions, of dollars from widows. Yes, the number one financier of the right in America over the last 30 years made much of his cash swindling widows and having his follower’s mule the cash into the country.

    The couple, and I mean couple, of conservatives who did speak up early about Moon were shouted down – as Grover Norquist did once when Jim Leach tried to expose the Republican Party’s new, primary, benefactor. Or they were accused of being “liberal” and told to abide Reagan’s disgusting evil empowering 11th commandment. But the rest, they honored Moon. Some did not want to be seen with him so they did like Reagan, who would meet with Moon’s top aid and first president of the WT, Bo Hi Pak. Reagan would tell Pak to send Moon his gratitude for propping him up. Pak also says he met Reagan during the 1980 campaign and Reagan told Pak he “needed Rev. Moon’s prayers and support.”

    Over the years some democrats have been in Moon’s web. The WP reported that one Moon operative wrote a memo telling Republicans not to worry about attending Moon functions because they would con a couple democrats into coming to shut them up. Fact is, Moon’s politics are all right wing, theocratic, union hating, authoritarian and homophobic. Isn’t it funny how that mirrors one party today, a few decades after they bedded down with him?

    It isn’t just the Heritage Foundation which is in bed with his organization.

    U.S. News and World Report revealed that by 1989 most every conservative organization in Washington DC was tied to Moon. The 300,000 strong American Freedom Coalition, was one of the two most powerful conservative organizations in the country during those key years for the new right, the late 80s and early 90s. The AFC was designed to bring together the “Christian right” for political power and it did so before Robertson even thought of creating the Christian Coalition. Like all Moon fronts, such as the WT, it would lie and claim to be “independent” of Moon yet, its president thanked Moon for his leadership, cash, and the Moon followers who ran the front. Moon called the AFC president one of his “three musketeers.” The AFC printed 30 million voter guides for Bush in 1988. Quite a vision there, millions of good “Christians” sitting in their church pews taking their voting orders from Moon who says Jesus was a failure who now serves Moon’s dead son in heaven.

    Moon propped up and funded many conservative groups and individuals who formed today’s Republican Party and conservative movement. People like Viguerie, Falwell, Lahaye and pioneer of the attack ad, Terry Dolan.

    It isn’t just that Moon should rightfully be called the father of today’s right; but that they have in turn helped him grow around the world. Whether it’s from the face he gains from the WT or people like Quayle, Haig, Dole, Falwell or the Bush family traveling the world honoring him and promoting his “messianic” mission the right empowerd Moon.

    I could go on but to compare what Soros has done for the left to what Moon has done for the right is just pure deception. But that is what people who are in bed with Moon do, they deceive, themselves and others.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Wow, that’s a lot of paranoia about the moonies. Interesting how a new user just pops in to share it with us out of the blue. So public spirited.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    It’s what George pays him to do…

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Stan, what’s also brushed under le tapis, and isn’t mentioned in that BBC piece, is that France had the opportunity to stop Hitler in his tracks in 1939, and didn’t take it.

  • STM

    Is it that they could have gone across the border to reinforce the terms of the Versailles treaty while the Germans were occupied in Poland and before Germany had completely built up its armed forces? Also, the get-tough in the Rhineland and Saar, which never happened – in 1936(?), is that another one?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Yes, particularly in ’39. (Adolf hadn’t done anything particularly heinous in 1936.) France had 92 divisions lined up along the Maginot Line against 30-odd German ones in the Saarland, and just let them sit there. Hindsight is 20/20, as the saying goes, but that was a biggie.

  • pablo

    87

    Great post!

    Nalle paranoid? hehehehe sure buddy whatever you say Davey.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I haven’t seen much from you, big man, other than a comment now and then. You just like the sidelines, don’t you?

    If that’s the case, you probably want to check out other sections of this website. The “big man” is all over the hizzouse, fo sheezy.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    I am a Christian, and if you knew anything about the faith I profess, you would understand it cannot be escaped. BTW, my religious beliefs have been thoroughly attacked in Part I.

    I don’t know if your beliefs were thoroughly attacked at all. But, Christianity was thoroughly attacked at Roger’s article, Politics and Ethics: Moral Foundations of a Just State at comment #213, and in the writings of Dr. Eugene Narrett, a man who influences my own thinking.

    We Jews almost didn’t escape Christianity. Here, I can speak for myself. My relatives who died in Christian inspired pogroms in Imperial Russia and in the Christian supported murder of Jews at Treblinka certainly didn’t escape. One of the reasons I write to you from Samaria instead of St. Paul was my desire to escape American Christianity and its likely assimilation of Jews like my sons. I never really promised my father Jewish grandchildren; it was a promise I made to myself. And one I was determined to keep if I could.

    In the end, my dear, we will escape from the evil that is Christianity, that unfortunate mixture of Roman savagery, Greek sophistry and Hebrew humanism twisted the wrong way. That statement is as good as gold. In the end, if you are truly wise, you will drop that evil yourself, of your own accord. It is not my job to convince you of the truth of my beliefs. I am a puerile persuader, and I can only hope with time to be a decent enough guide to those who may seek guidance in the future. But that is for the future.

    In the meantime, Spring peeps out from Winter’s winds, and May promises events and portents.

    Have a pleasant morning.

  • STM

    Doc:

    I have just watched a History-channel series on this and studied some of it also at school in detail. The BBC series is really excellent and informative and offered as a dramatic rendition but based on actual events.

    The BEF sent to France in 1939 consisted of only 10 divisions, which was actually most of Britain’s small between-the-wars professional Army. It was just a 10th of the overall defending force – but suffered the heaviest casualties among the defenders during the German advance into France and the low countries and was involved in the only land action that decisively checked the Germans (at the Battle of Arras, in which the 1st Tank Brigade and the 50th Northumbrian Division overran the SS Totenkopf Division, and against quite overwhelming odds overall). It turned out to be useless though.

    Unfortunately for them, they inflicted very heavy losses on the Nazis’ SS “supermen” and would pay for it later when nearly 100 of the British Dunkirk rearguard, who were told to hold out to the last man if necessary until the evacuations were finished, were massacred by the SS as PoWs. The Germans were too hasty and lefty some survivors, who told the story afterwards.

    On that score, in regard to the whole debacle, I would be very reluctant to say the French have no bollocks, though. They aren’t cowards – far from it. They just used outmoded methods of fighting and organisation that were better suited to WWI, and most of the commanders were also commanders during that war. Their whole strategy was flawed in that they they thought they could win by defence.

    What I do believe in this regard is the Allies couldn’t believe that Germany had plunged Europe into another awful war barely 20 years after the slaughter of WWI, and the French in particular were just still very war weary. It permeated the very fabric of life in France.

    No one really got over the millions of dead and wounded suffered by both countries in the previous conflict, which is why I’ve never understood how ordinary Germans could get sucked into Hitler’s madness. I bet many of the older German WWI veterans wanted nothing to do with it.

    As one of my uncles used to tell the story, “There we all were, enjoying our youth, hoping beyond hope for a long and lasting peace, and the bastards decided to have another go at us”.

    He had a passionate dislike of them. I can’t say I blame him or any of the others like him.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    SJ, re: #95:

    This is for your information. When Ruvy mentions “Christianity being attacked” (citing my article), the actual reference should be to the comment made by him, #213, not the article itself. I’m certain this is inadvertent.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Roger,

    I’m certain this is inadvertent.

    If I could have linked to the comment alone, I gladly would have. But the media here does not grant that option. I think that the author here is sharp enough to pick up that she is bring directed to a specific comment.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Ruvy,

    I fully understand.

    The only reason I felt it necessary to bring it up, SJ and I are developing a rapport of sorts (for which I’m glad); so I just didn’t want her to get the wrong impression.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    All you need to know about Michelle Malkin, and more.

  • Cindy

    ¡Sí Clav, encontré la ñ, pero parece que perdí el punto y coma! lol

  • Cindy

    Ruvy,

    Look at this.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Stan,

    You wrote:

    No one really got over the millions of dead and wounded suffered by both countries in the previous conflict, which is why I’ve never understood how ordinary Germans could get sucked into Hitler’s madness. I bet many of the older German WWI veterans wanted nothing to do with it.

    While I don’t know, I suspect you’re right.

    I think that is pretty much always the situation. Anyone, who has fought and survived one war, has little stomach for another.

    How many American westerns in the 40s and 50s depicted old Indian chiefs pow-wowing to make peace with the white man being having been made weary by long and constant fighting, when a firey young warrior enters – usually the chief’s son – chiding the oldsters as being like squaws and demanding war? I won’t go into all the politics that evokes. Usually the firey young warrior wins the day, but of course, loses the war. (I mean, that’s what the movie’s all about, right.)

    Although, on the other hand, it is often the old fogeys, sitting fat and cozy ensconced safely in mahogany walled offices who choose to send our sons and daughters out to war. They count on their youthful naivete’, nurturing their religious/patriotic fervor, so they will go out and do battle for god and country.

    The bottom line is that whether it comes from the old or the young, it is difficult to talk people out of going to war once the gauntlet has been dropped. After all, it’s all about the glory, isn’t it?

    B

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    …white man [being] having been made weary by long and constant fighting,…

    If you remove the bracketed word, the sentence actually makes a little sense. Sorry.

    B

  • Clavos

    Cindy,

    Punto y coma: Shift + coma.

  • Cindy

    Gracias, muy bien. Hay los dos puntos también.

  • STM

    I think you are very spot on Baritone.

    My son was making noises last year about joining the Army, which now carries some risk of being sent to Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Not only that, he is a very tough little bugger and was talking about joining the Commandos, who are in Afghanistan and as this is a small force, there’d be a chance he would go if that went on for a while.

    My heart sank. I felt really ill in the stomach as he was talking about it but because he’s headstrong, I didn’t say anything to him except to point out the very real risks and that I’d prefer it if he spent more time thinking about it. He’s a man now and makes his own choices but telling him not to do it might have had the opposite result.

    His mother would have had a heart attack if she’d known.

    I have been a supporter of the war on terror too (although not in the way George Bush envisaged it), which made me feel even worse – like a complete hypocrite. What, someone else’s kid, that’s OK, as long as it’s not yours that’s putting his head over the parapet?

    Luckily, he decided to go to university instead – but imagine being in a situation where a parent and a child had no choice in that – like the situation of some commentators on this site, and the situations of those we’ve spoken about above.

    Pretty sad I reckon.

  • Clavos

    Cindy,

    Shift + punto.

  • Cindy

    Hay = It is?

    That was funny. I found the colon based on where you said the semicolon was. Then I lost the equal sign! haha!

    I am going to print out a diagram.

    This is very cool. I’m going to start practicing.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    On that score, in regard to the whole debacle, I would be very reluctant to say the French have no bollocks, though. They aren’t cowards – far from it.

    Absolutely not. The fearsome reputation of the Foreign Legion is well-deserved. Not to mention the bravery of the Résistance.

    They just used outmoded methods of fighting and organisation that were better suited to WWI, and most of the commanders were also commanders during that war. Their whole strategy was flawed in that they they thought they could win by defence.

    Yup. They didn’t take into account the vast leaps that had been taken in those 20 years in military transportation and particularly the mobility and flexibility of modern tanks and field guns. They hoped to dissuade the Germans by fortifying the Maginot Line and rattling some sabres (probably quite literally in some cases) so that Hitler would attack Belgium instead, thereby giving them a pretext to retaliate. They were right: Hitler did invade Belgium – and proceeded to march right through it, around the end of the Maginot and rear-end the bewildered French. Oops.

    But shouldn’t we be talking about the Irish today? :-)

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    How many American westerns in the 40s and 50s depicted old Indian chiefs pow-wowing to make peace with the white man being having been made weary by long and constant fighting, when a firey young warrior enters – usually the chief’s son – chiding the oldsters as being like squaws and demanding war? I won’t go into all the politics that evokes. Usually the firey young warrior wins the day, but of course, loses the war.

    Which of course wasn’t exactly how things worked. Most of the plains and western tribes didn’t even have ‘chiefs’ as we would understand the term. The older men were respected and there would usually be one or two who acted as administrators and decision-makers, but purely in civil matters – where to go to hunt, when to move camp, trade with other tribes and the like.

    When it came to war, all the men had an equal say – although the elders’ opinions usually (though by no means always) held sway because of their perceived experience and wisdom. The problem was almost exactly analagous to the predicament of the French in 1939: outmoded tactics. The older men tended to think in terms of their experience of war with other tribes; the younger men, who actually had to do the fighting, knew that the white man did not play by the same rules. But the older, ‘wiser’ heads generally prevailed.

    So, contrary to the Hollywood depiction, the young hothead warrior usually did not get his way – and perhaps that was a large part of the problem.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Stan,

    I can wholly understand your feelings and fears. I have 2 sons, neither of whom have served in the military. At the height of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, I was concerned that a gung-ho Congress in response to flagging enlistments would see fit to re-establish a military draft. There was some talk about it a few years back. Both of my sons would have been ripe targets for it being in their mid-20s at the time. My oldest – the singer – is now 30 and the younger one is 28 possibly beyond the normal draft age which usually tops out at around 26 if memory serves.

    That must have been different back in the day, though. In doing some family geneology I came upon a draft registration for my grandfather in 1918. He was 40 years old at the time. He had already served briefly in the Spanish/American War AND for a slightly longer stint during the Phillipine Insurrection back in 1898. ( I don’t recall which came first.)

    Anyhow, neither of my boys had any inclination to do the military. They both occasionally spoke of the Peace Corps, but, to date, nothing has come of that. I am not in the least disappointed that neither of them have served in the military.

    B

  • STM

    “But shouldn’t we be talking about the Irish today? :-)”

    St Patrick’s Day is over. I’m in the future, remember. That was yesterday. It’s now Wednesday March 18.

  • STM

    Btone: “Anyhow, neither of my boys had any inclination to do the military”.

    That’s good mate. Let’s hope my young fella gets it out of his head pretty quick too. He hasn’t spoken about it for a while, which is a relief – although you never know with him … one day he’s just as likely to turn up on the doorstep out of the blue in shiny shoes and khaki.

    Right now, though, having been to an all-boys’ school, he seems to be quite stricken by all the university girls. Let’s hope that part of the testosterone drive wins out.

  • STM

    Or as he described it: “Dad, it’s wall-to-wall skirt!”

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    What does “error: 46 banned word” mean?

  • Cindy

    B,

    It probably means your post contains a word that is used by spammers, and so is banned. (like cialis)

    I usually remove lines or paragraphs in preview to find which word is the problem.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I encountered the same problem, B-man. And for the life of me, there wasn’t one cuss word in the text. I think I lost the whole comment.

  • Clavos

    Cindy,

    Hay = “there is.” Or, depending on context, “is there?”

    Es = “It is.” And again, in context, “is it?”

    Keyboard charts are available for printing on the MS website.

    A lot of accents, etc. are found on the number keys and the symbol/bracket keys on the righ side of the board.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Note to self (as a comments editor): Apparently ‘cialis’ is no longer a banned word…

  • Cindy

    Hay…yes, now I remember…there is the colon!

    Hay los dos puntos.

    Es correcto?

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Like a kid in a candy store!

    I clearly remember the few days after I got out of basic training. It had been about 11 weeks of nothing but guys, barely ever glimpsing any of the fairer sex.

    They all looked great! No v-agra needed, thank you very much. (Not that it existed back then.)

    Apparently, the banned word was the V word above. Hell, I’ve used virtually every swear word, and obscenity there is (in English, at any rate) with no problem. So, I guess I can’t use a brand name for what it takes to “bone up” on my sex life. Whoda thunk it?

    Congrats to Cindy. She located her colon! :%}

    B

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    It’s not the cussing that’s the problem, B-tone, it’s the spam.

  • Clavos

    The banned words are usually spammer’s words, not “offensive” ones.

    You can usually use them anyway by altering the spacing, thus:

    V i a g r a.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Viking chorus, Clav?

    All together now…

    ‘Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam…”

  • Clavos

    We have to stop meeting like this, Doc.

    People are beginning to talk.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Shut up, adjust your hornéd helmet and sing.

  • Clavos

    [sings, fingers in ears] La la la la la la la la…

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    [gives Clavos an atomic wedgie, runs away]

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Okay, Cindy, about comment 102, I looked – it did take a while to notice. So, now my question. After “.php”, it reads “#comment-842964″. How does relate to comment 102? And more to the point, what did you do to isolate the comment as a specific element for the computer to go to? I’d love to just send folks to my comments without having to cut and paste….

  • Jordan Richardson

    Holy hell, this thread just made me dizzy.

  • Cindy

    Ruvy,

    I used Dan(Miller)’s blog search site wasalive.com.

    You put the poster’s name followed by a bit of the post. It’s not foolproof, as sometimes it’s ‘spider’ misses comments. Your comment #213, that you were linking to above, was missed, for example.

  • http://www.marksaleski.com MarkSaleski

    useful (i think) webnerd info: to get at the information necessary to link to a particular comment, you need the name of the comment’s “anchor”. in firefox, do a view->page source. then search for the comment in the window that pops up. let’s use 132 as an example. searching for “#132″ shows an anchor tag with the name “comment-843582″.

    so the url that will get you to that anchor is the page url with that bit of stuff appended with a pound sign in between:

    http://blogcritics.org/archives/2009/03/16/015834.php#comment-843582

    so, here’s a link to comment 132 on this insane thread.

  • Cindy

    MarkSaleski,

    That is so cool! Thanks!

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Thanks Cindy. Thanks Mark. I’ll try both solutions and see what happens.

    Cheers!