The Democrat Thread

[bmags]

This is a strong early contender for "craziest s*** you could possibly say about a terrible tragedy," it'll be hard to top

 

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/12/18/2...ewtown-carnage/

 

And, I bet that dude owns a lot of guns.

 

America.

[StrangeSox]

The comments are even crazier. Israeli Jews are, literally, the Nazis. I don't even

[StrangeSox]

Disappointed to hear that Zero Dark Thirty perpetuates the awful lie that torture was critical to finding Bin Laden.

 

Some strong and well-reasoned pushback against Glenn Greenwald's criticisms:

 

http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_ca...e-anti-art.html

 

But wait. Greenwald continues: “The brave crusaders slay the Evil Villains, and everyone cheers.” (I’m surprised he didn’t capitalize the “c” in “Crusaders:” his complaint goes back a LONG way.) And that is the lie. Of course his rhetoric is such that some may argue that I stretch in calling it a lie, but a lie is what I call it. The movie moment that his slaying-evil-villain-and-audience-cheering assertion conjures up for the “standard” viewer would be something like Hans Gruber’s fall from the near-top of Nakatomi Plaza in Die Hard, or Aziz being blown up by his own missile at the climax of True Lies or Terry Molloy getting the s*** kicked out of him at the end of On The Waterfront oh wait…scratch that last one. You get the idea. Now, those who have not seen the film may want to just stop reading around here if they’d like, but… I don’t believe that it represents a “spoiler” to reveal that the raid on the place where bin Laden is living, that is, the movie’s climax, represents anything even resembling a “evil villains slain” cinematic crescendo. Save for Alexander Desplat’s musical score, which is moody and ominous and very low-key rather than building-to-the-triumphalist moment, this is the scene in which the movie affects to purport its most “realistic” perspective. Much of it is depicted in forbiddingly lowlight, there’s a lot of stuff through night-vision goggles. The dominant sense is of organized activity that creates chaos that is then reigned in, so to speak, via slaughter. With the exception of one or two armed resisters, the “Evil Villains” who get shot down don’t even have a chance. Unless the viewer himself has a higher than average understanding of the details of how the raid unfolded, the viewer doesn’t even know which of the men shot down was bin Laden until the SEALS reconvene on the ground floor of the compound and put two and two together and fetch the body bag. In the meantime the viewer has been treated to depictions of fearful women and cowering children being herded about by shouting Americans. Where anyone can pull “everyone cheers” out of this mess is beyond me, but maybe if I see it with a paying audience I will find out. (I do not know what kind of audience Greenwald watched it with.)

 

although, as one commentor notes, they could have made a better point by showing:

 

when Khalid Sheik Mohammed was being waterboarded, he was asked about a certain courier. KSM said – under torture – that the courier was a nobody, with no connections to anyone important, and the Bush-era CIA dropped that lead. Later, when the Obama administration reopened the CIA’s bin Laden unit, they decided to go back and look at him again, and it was by following him that that they ultimately discovered the Abbottobad compound.

[StrangeSox]

This is a strong early contender for "craziest s*** you could possibly say about a terrible tragedy," it'll be hard to top

 

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/12/18/2...ewtown-carnage/

 

 

And, I bet that dude owns a lot of guns.

 

America.

 

 

The comments are even crazier. Israeli Jews are, literally, the Nazis. I don't even

 

so apparently PressTV is an english-language subsidiary of the Iranian government, which explains the nutty anti-semitism. Weird seeing a bunch of English and Americans presenting it, though.

[StrangeSox]

The conservative blogosphere is in all sorts of ginned-up OUTRAGE!!!! over Erik Loomis's tweet that he would like Wayne Lapierre's "head on a stick." It started with Glenn Reynolds taking this statement literally and lambasting Loomis, despite having called for "heads to roll" himself over Benghazi. This eventually reached Michelle Malkin and her twitter machine Twitchy, and then exploded.

 

Loomis has had the State Police come to his house after someone reported that he made death threats. He had to have meetings with his dean. The President at the University of Rhode Island, where Loomis teaches, issued a cowardly letter that did not stand behind Loomis.

 

Crooked Timber has an excellent post up on what a sham this whole situation is and urging people to, respectfully, contact the URI administration and urge them to support Loomis against these absurd attacks:

 

Erik Loomis is no stranger to this blog. A gifted young scholar of US labor and environmental history, Loomis is also a blogger at Lawyers, Guns and Money. Many of us have tussled and tangled with him, most recently over whether leftists should vote for Obama. We have often disagreed with Loomis, not always pleasantly or politely, and he has certainly given as good as he has got.

 

But now we must stand by Loomis’s side and speak up and out on his behalf, for he has become the target of a witch hunt, and as an untenured professor at the University of Rhode Island, he is vulnerable. Loomis needs our solidarity and support, and we must give it to him.

 

This past Friday, in the wake of the tremendous grief and outrage millions of people felt over the Newtown mass shooting, Loomis tweeted the following:

I was heartbroken in the first 20 mass murders. Now I want Wayne LaPierre’s head on a stick.

 

Wayne LaPierre is the head of the National Rifle Association.

 

It seems obvious to us that when Loomis called for LaPierre’s head on a stick, he had in mind something like this from the Urban Dictionary:

 

A metaphor describing retaliation or punishment for another’s wrongdoing, or public outrage against an individual or group for the same reason.

After the BP Oil Spill; many Americans would like to see Tony Hayward’s head on a stick, myself included.

 

 

Ever since putting someone’s head on a stick ceased to be a routine form of public punishment—indeed, the last instance of it we can think of is fictional (Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities, though it references an actual event from the French Revolution)—calling for someone’s head has been a fairly conventional way to express one’s outrage or criticism. Two months ago, for example, right-wing blogger Glenn Reynolds voiced his anger over the State Department’s lax provision of security in Benghazi by demanding, “Can we see some heads roll?”

 

Yet that very same Glenn Reynolds is now accusing Loomis of using “eliminationist rhetoric.”

 

Other conservative voices have joined in. The Daily Caller says Loomis “unleashed a flurry of profanity-ridden tweets demanding death for National Rifle Association executive Wayne LaPierre.” Townhall put Loomis’s tweets in the context of NRA members and leaders getting death threats. And just this morning, Michelle Malkin wrote at National Review Online:

What’s most disturbing is that the incitements are coming from purportedly respectable, prominent, and influential public figures.

Consider the rhetoric of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis….

 

Unfortunately, Loomis is not alone….

 

So, it’s come to this: Advocating beheadings, beatings, and the mass murder of peaceful Americans to pay for the sins of a soulless madman. But because the advocates of violence fashion themselves champions of nonviolence and because they inhabit the hallowed worlds of Hollywood, academia, and the Democratic party, it’s acceptable?

 

Blood-lusting hate speech must not get a pass just because it comes out of the mouths of the protected anti-gun class.

 

This campaign has now brought Loomis into the crosshairs of the state and his employer.

 

Loomis has already been questioned by the Rhode Island State Police, who told him that someone had informed the FBI that Loomis had threatened LaPierre’s life. Loomis also has been hauled into a meeting with his dean. And now the president of the University of Rhode Island, where Loomis teaches, has issued the following statement:

 

The University of Rhode Island does not condone acts or threats of violence. These remarks do not reflect the views of the institution and Erik Loomis does not speak on behalf of the University. The University is committed to fostering a safe, inclusive and equitable culture that aspires to promote positive change.

 

We do not expect any better of the orchestrators of this campaign—this is what they have done for many years, and doubtless will be doing for years to come. We do expect better of university administrators. Rather than standing behind a member of their faculty, the administration has sought to distance the university from Loomis.

Even to suggest that Loomis’s tweet constitutes a “threat of violence” is an offense against the English language. We are dismayed that the university president completely fails to acknowledge the importance of academic freedom and of scholars’ freedom independently to express views (even intemperate ones) on topics of public importance. This statement—unless it is swiftly corrected— should give alarm to scholars at the University of Rhode Island, to scholars who might one day consider associating themselves with this institution, and to academic and professional associations that value academic freedom.

 

However, this is not merely a question of academic freedom. It also speaks to a broader set of rights to speak freely without the fear of being fired for controversial views that many of us have been flagging for years. Everyone should be clear what is going on. As a blogger at Atrios has pointed out, what the witch hunters want is for Loomis to be fired. Indeed, the calls have already begun (see comment thread here). Though Loomis has a union, his lack of tenure makes him vulnerable.

 

We insist that the University of Rhode Island take a strong stand for the values of academic freedom and freedom of speech, that it not be intimidated by an artificially whipped-up media frenzy, that it affirm that the protections of the First Amendment require our collective enforcement, and that all employers—particularly, in this kind of case, university employers—have a special obligation to see that freedom of speech become a reality of everyday life.

 

We urge all of you to contact the following three administrators at the University of Rhode Island:

Dean Winnie Brownell: [email protected]

Provost Donald DeHays: [email protected]

President David Dooley: [email protected]

 

Be polite, be civil, be firm.

We also call upon all academic and other bloggers to stand in support of Loomis. We invite others who wish to associate themselves with this statement to say so in the comments section to this post, and to republish this statement elsewhere.

 

 

 

Chris Bertram, University of Bristol

 

Michael Bérubé, The Pennsylvania State University

 

Henry Farrell, George Washington University

 

Kieran Healy, Duke University

 

Jon Mandle, SUNY Albany

 

John Quiggin, University of Queensland

 

Corey Robin, Brooklyn College

 

Brian Weatherson, University of Michigan

[StrangeSox]

Robert Bork died the other day.

 

I think Toobin's take is accurate and fair:

 

“Robert Bork, who died Wednesday, was an unrepentant reactionary who was on the wrong side of every major legal controversy of the twentieth century.”

 

[kapkomet]

did not know that.

 

Still, the F-35 is a giant waste of money.

 

 

I'm glad you know so much about it.

[StrangeSox]

I'm glad you know so much about it.

 

It's pretty easy to find any number of reputable sources reporting on how big of a boondoggle that plane is.

[kapkomet]

It's pretty easy to find any number of reputable sources reporting on how big of a boondoggle that plane is.

 

 

Yep. There's also a lot that people don't know about that program... but don't let those facts get in the way of a massive "boondoggle"... I know, it's like shooting 3 foot bass in a 1 inch barrel for you.

[Balta1701]

Yep. There's also a lot that people don't know about that program... but don't let those facts get in the way of a massive "boondoggle"... I know, it's like shooting 3 foot bass in a 1 inch barrel for you.

Ah, the guy who yells "Stop spending!" at every possible chance coming in here to tell us how vital of a program the F-35 is.

[StrangeSox]

Yep. There's also a lot that people don't know about that program... but don't let those facts get in the way of a massive "boondoggle"... I know, it's like shooting 3 foot bass in a 1 inch barrel for you.

 

Ok...?

[kapkomet]

Ah, the guy who yells "Stop spending!" at every possible chance coming in here to tell us how vital of a program the F-35 is.

 

 

Of course, coming from the one who can't read a cost curve on the real effect of BarackustheGreatCare.

[Balta1701]

Of course, coming from the one who can't read a cost curve on the real effect of BarackustheGreatCare.

Keeping people alive? Deficits are terrible! A trillion dollar airplane when we haven't had an air to air combat situation in 20+ years? Defense spending doesn't count.

[kapkomet]

Keeping people alive? Deficits are terrible! A trillion dollar airplane when we haven't had an air to air combat situation in 20+ years? Defense spending doesn't count.

 

 

It doesn't? But you tell me it does. You're so confused.

[Balta1701]

It doesn't? But you tell me it does. You're so confused.

I am confused. I can't figure how you could think spending on things like mental health care are so terrible because deficits and taxes are evil and there's no problem with getting rid of those wastes, and then at the same time defend the F-35.

[BigSqwert]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

[mr_genius]

What are ur guys thoughts on the David Gregory assault weapon scandal?

 

How many years in jail should he get?

 

10? 20? 30?

[Cknolls]

What are ur guys thoughts on the David Gregory assault weapon scandal?

 

How many years in jail should he get?

 

10? 20? 30?

 

 

 

Life.

[BigSqwert]

What are ur guys thoughts on the David Gregory assault weapon scandal?

 

How many years in jail should he get?

 

10? 20? 30?

He should become the new president of the NRA.

[mr_genius]

He should become the new president of the NRA.

 

A famous gun criminal needs to be made example of so other people won't mess with the gun ban. Locking up David Gregory would be a perfect message to send.

[StrangeSox]

Taxes on the importing of tea: Throw the tea into the harbor! Water the Tree of Liberty with the blood of tyrants!

Slavery: Now lets all calm down and discuss this like reasonable men.

[mr_genius]

Taxes on the importing of tea: Throw the tea into the harbor! Water the Tree of Liberty with the blood of tyrants!

Slavery: Now lets all calm down and discuss this like reasonable men.

 

internet. learn.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

[StrangeSox]

It took them a few decades to get around to that, and even with 1/3 of the most pro-slavery members leaving they had a hell of a time abolishing slavery.

[mr_genius]

doing the right thing isn't always easy, StrangeSox.

[Balta1701]

Hillary Clinton admitted to NY hospital with a blood clot.