In his column in this Sunday's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Jack Kelly tries to argue that the real source of violent rhetoric in the United States today is the liberal movement. He tries to link just about every major shooting or terror incident of the past two years to liberal ideology.
My Gut Reaction: According to the website SourceWatch, Kelly makes much of the fact that he served in the Marines and the Special Forces in his official biography. Just goes to show why they're paid to fight, not to think.
Analysis: It's difficult to know where to begin mocking Kelly's article, as it is strewn with statements of varying levels of stupidity. Perhaps we should start with his comments about the program Democracy Now!, which he characterizes as an obscure radio show. As even a cursory look at Democracy Now's website will reveal, it is both a television show and a radio show that plays on 900 stations across the country, making it one of the largest independent media operations in the United States. Not bad for an "obscure left wing radio program."
Things start to get funny when Kelly paints Jared Lee Loughner as a leftist largely based on the fact that he smoked pot and owned a book by Karl Marx. He conveniently omits the fact that Loughner had at least tenuous connections to the group American Renaissance, a white supremacist organization whose founder at one point spoke at Loughner's college. This linkage has been documented by such radical sources as the Department of Homeland Security and the Christian Science Monitor. He also listed Hitler's Mein Kampf as one of his favorite books, another sign of his liberal credentials.
Kelly descends even deeper into comic territory when he attempts to attribute just about every major act of political violence over the past two years to liberalism. The most laugh inducing paragraph in this section is when he depicts James von Brunn, the lunatic who attacked the National Holocaust Museum, as an enemy of conservatism. Never mind the fact that von Brunn was an avowed white supremacist who claimed that President Obama was not an American. Or the fact that he posted on the conservative website Free Republic, which quietly deleted his writings after the shooting. Very liberal guy, Mr. von Brunn.
Kelly then proceeds to shoot his argument in the foot. Having argued against the possibility that violent right wing rhetoric could produce killings, he then claims that criticism of Sarah Palin by figures such as Scott Simon of NPR has resulted in an increase of death threats against Sarah Palin. So violent right wing ranting, complete with gun imagery, is perfectly fine, but even moderate criticism of Republicans by left wingers is an incendiary act.
Just how fucking stupid do you think your readers are, Mr. Kelly?
What Mr. Kelly's argument represents is a thinly veiled concern among right wingers that their own violent calls to action could be turned against them. Even though it is highly unlikely that President Obama or any of the cowards who make up the Democratic leadership would be willing to take a truly hard line with the conservatives over this issue, there is nothing to stop the left wing netroots from adopting the right's rhetorical tactics. What's good for the goose may also be good for the gander.
Showing posts with label Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Show all posts
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Monday, July 06, 2009
The Schenley Park Tea Party
Yesterday, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on a July 4th "tea party" (herefore to be known as Hickapalooza) held in Schenley Park, near Carnegie Mellon University. The party was meant to protest all forms of government intervention, ranging from taxes on cigarettes to health care reform. Above all, the "party" sought to condemn the policies of President Obama, with at least one sign calling his election the "suicide" of America.
My Gut Reaction: If they think the country is on such a wrong course, why don't they f---ing leave? It's not like they'd be particularly missed.
Analysis: The article about Hickapalooza is a case study in right wing hysteria. Especially galling is the statement from one woman, a Czech immigrant who lived under Communism, that universal health care would turn the United States into a Communist country. Having experienced a Communist regime, the woman should have realized that if America had actually become a communist country, she and her comrades would never have been allowed to mount a protest. They would all have been rounded up by the secret police.
These people do not seem to recognize any viable role for the state, other than fighting wars and making certain they get to keep their guns. One actually wonders whether they would feel more comfortable in a country where government has effectively ceased to exist, such as Somalia.
If this is the best the conservatives have to offer, I think we can look forward to a full eight years of liberal rule.
My Gut Reaction: If they think the country is on such a wrong course, why don't they f---ing leave? It's not like they'd be particularly missed.
Analysis: The article about Hickapalooza is a case study in right wing hysteria. Especially galling is the statement from one woman, a Czech immigrant who lived under Communism, that universal health care would turn the United States into a Communist country. Having experienced a Communist regime, the woman should have realized that if America had actually become a communist country, she and her comrades would never have been allowed to mount a protest. They would all have been rounded up by the secret police.
These people do not seem to recognize any viable role for the state, other than fighting wars and making certain they get to keep their guns. One actually wonders whether they would feel more comfortable in a country where government has effectively ceased to exist, such as Somalia.
If this is the best the conservatives have to offer, I think we can look forward to a full eight years of liberal rule.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
An Insult to the First Amendment
Pittsburgh-area U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan has done it again, trampling on other people's freedoms to advance her own moral agenda. As the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports, Rob Zicari and Janet Romano, the heads of the now defunct Extreme Associates, a pornography production company, have both been sentenced to a year in prison after being prosecuted for five years by Buchanan.
Their company produced highly graphic, sadomasochistic pornography, known as "horror porn" which the U.S. Government under President George W. Bush deemed obscene. As an episode of the PBS television show Frontline documented, their videos could include subject matter such as rape.
My Gut Reaction: U.S. Attorney Buchanan is a Puritan throwback who should not have anywhere near the power she now has.
Analysis: In my opinion, the prosecution of Extreme Associates by Buchanan violates the spirit, if not necessarily the wording, of the First Amendment. Over a period of five years, spending who knows how much taxpayer money, she wore down Zicari and Romano, who are married, driving them out of their careers and ultimately their home for making films with consenting adults. When their resources ran out, they had no real choice other than to plead guilty.
That's right. No snuff films. No actual rape took place. No children were involved. All this for a fictional movie. This is unacceptable.
As an article published by the Pittsburgh City Paper demonstrates, Buchanan has a habit of pursuing cases that revolve around morality rather than the public safety. For instance, she pursued a drug paraphenalia case against Tommy Chong, and another obscenity case against an internet author whose work focused on child molestation.
Is this really the kind of person we want enforcing our laws? Someone whose main interest appears to be forcing her ideas of morality on the rest of the world. Is this what we think American justice should be like?
Some may point out that the majority of people would find the work of Extreme Associates disgusting and offensive. They would probably be right. I would probably find their videos difficult if not impossible to watch, as I personally find it uncomfortable to watch a female get hurt, even if I know it is simulated. But that is not the point.
Others may point out that Extreme Associates and its owners to a certain extent courted government prosecution by going on Frontline. Furthermore, after the charges were filed, Extreme Associates continued to sell the videos being targeted, labeling them as the "Federal Five." But that is also not the point.
The point is that the government should not be regulating the type of films people can produce when they involve consenting adults, and government officials certainly should not be pursuing filmmakers for periods of over half a decade. This is an abuse of government power, and sets a precedent that threatens the liberty of all.
What particularly makes this prosecution galling is that Extreme Associates, Zicari, and Romano were all based in California. Buchanan had a government agent based in Pennsylvania order a copy of one of the company's videos so that she could prosecute them herself. This is a practice known as forum shopping.
We need to stand up to such prosecutions, and label them as what they are-abuses of government power, and infringements on American liberty and the freedom of speech.
Their company produced highly graphic, sadomasochistic pornography, known as "horror porn" which the U.S. Government under President George W. Bush deemed obscene. As an episode of the PBS television show Frontline documented, their videos could include subject matter such as rape.
My Gut Reaction: U.S. Attorney Buchanan is a Puritan throwback who should not have anywhere near the power she now has.
Analysis: In my opinion, the prosecution of Extreme Associates by Buchanan violates the spirit, if not necessarily the wording, of the First Amendment. Over a period of five years, spending who knows how much taxpayer money, she wore down Zicari and Romano, who are married, driving them out of their careers and ultimately their home for making films with consenting adults. When their resources ran out, they had no real choice other than to plead guilty.
That's right. No snuff films. No actual rape took place. No children were involved. All this for a fictional movie. This is unacceptable.
As an article published by the Pittsburgh City Paper demonstrates, Buchanan has a habit of pursuing cases that revolve around morality rather than the public safety. For instance, she pursued a drug paraphenalia case against Tommy Chong, and another obscenity case against an internet author whose work focused on child molestation.
Is this really the kind of person we want enforcing our laws? Someone whose main interest appears to be forcing her ideas of morality on the rest of the world. Is this what we think American justice should be like?
Some may point out that the majority of people would find the work of Extreme Associates disgusting and offensive. They would probably be right. I would probably find their videos difficult if not impossible to watch, as I personally find it uncomfortable to watch a female get hurt, even if I know it is simulated. But that is not the point.
Others may point out that Extreme Associates and its owners to a certain extent courted government prosecution by going on Frontline. Furthermore, after the charges were filed, Extreme Associates continued to sell the videos being targeted, labeling them as the "Federal Five." But that is also not the point.
The point is that the government should not be regulating the type of films people can produce when they involve consenting adults, and government officials certainly should not be pursuing filmmakers for periods of over half a decade. This is an abuse of government power, and sets a precedent that threatens the liberty of all.
What particularly makes this prosecution galling is that Extreme Associates, Zicari, and Romano were all based in California. Buchanan had a government agent based in Pennsylvania order a copy of one of the company's videos so that she could prosecute them herself. This is a practice known as forum shopping.
We need to stand up to such prosecutions, and label them as what they are-abuses of government power, and infringements on American liberty and the freedom of speech.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Letter in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
I had a letter published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today attacking a recent article by the paper's religious columnist, Ann Rodgers. The article was a poorly thought out critique of the new movie Angels and Demons, accusing it of bigotary against Catholics. Rodgers haplessly attempts to portray the Catholic Church as benevolent and undeserving of suspicion.
Really, Ms. Rodgers, were you asleep during history class and, for that matter, the past ten years? Did you just happen to ignore the revelations of cover ups by the Church hierarchy of wide spread sexual abuse within Catholic-run schools? For that matter, did you know about the collaboration between the Catholic Church and Fascists such as Francisco Franco and Benito Mussolini during the early twentieth century? Hell, when I was attending Northeast Catholic High School in the year 2001, the teachers were still trying to whitewash Franco.
With all that in mind, it's not really difficult to see why the Catholic hierarchy might be viewed as an object of suspicion.
Really, Ms. Rodgers, were you asleep during history class and, for that matter, the past ten years? Did you just happen to ignore the revelations of cover ups by the Church hierarchy of wide spread sexual abuse within Catholic-run schools? For that matter, did you know about the collaboration between the Catholic Church and Fascists such as Francisco Franco and Benito Mussolini during the early twentieth century? Hell, when I was attending Northeast Catholic High School in the year 2001, the teachers were still trying to whitewash Franco.
With all that in mind, it's not really difficult to see why the Catholic hierarchy might be viewed as an object of suspicion.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Hillary for SecState?
The NPR program Day to Day has reported that President-elect Barack Hussein Obama is considering Sen. Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State. Although I can see the political reasons he would have for doing so, I do not think she is the best choice. As the primaries revealed, she does not have much foreign policy experience. She would be far better off as Attorney General or a Supreme Court justice.
I think a far better choice would be former Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson. As Pittsburgh Post-Gazette columnist Dan Simpson notes, Richardson has foreign policy experience, having served as Ambassador to the UN. Furthermore, he is tough enough to stand up to any foreign opponent.
I think a far better choice would be former Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson. As Pittsburgh Post-Gazette columnist Dan Simpson notes, Richardson has foreign policy experience, having served as Ambassador to the UN. Furthermore, he is tough enough to stand up to any foreign opponent.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Ruthie, Ruthie, Ruthie...
Attn: Ruth Ann Dailey, Columnist, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Dear Ms. Dailey,
The column you published yesterday on the supposed use of white liberal guilt to rally support for Obama has to be one of the most comical attempts at a right wing polemic I have ever seen. Never mind not living up to the standards of William F. Buckley or George Will; you aren't even in the same arena with Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin.
First, the evidence you back your assertion with is at best weak. You cite the remarks of only three figures to support your claim. (Really only two when you consider that one at the end of the column, Colin Powell, seems to have been shoe-horned in at the last minute when his support for Obama was made public on Sunday.) Three people-Powell, Rep. John Murtha, and Gov. Ed Rendell-can hardly be said to represent the overall trend of Democratic rhetoric.
What is especially amusing is that one figure you quote was not supporting Sen. Obama, while you blatantly misrepresent another. As you admit in your column, Gov. Rendell was arguing for Sen. Hillary Clinton when he warned that many white Pennsylvanian voters would not support a black candidate. Although you try to portray this as liberal elitism, you have to wonder whether Gov. Rendell knows a bit more about Pennsylvania politics than you do, given that he has won two state-wide elections here. Furthermore, your own newspaper recently published an article featuring interviews with a number of these voters. Your co-workers are cutting you off at the knees.
Particularly galling is your misrepresentation of Powell's remarks. You make reference to a short passage in his interview with Meet the Press in which he referred to the election of Sen. Obama as offering a chance at a generational change. You treat this as the entirety of his remarks, when anyone who reads about them can see is not true. Powell cites a number of reasons for backing Sen. Obama, including his position on the economy and the inexperience of Gov. Palin. The latter issue has also been noted by a number of conservatives, including Peggy Noonan hardly people one would expect to associate with liberal guilt.
Face it, Ruthie, your candidate is unable to fight it out on the issues, so he and minions like you are trying to distract everyone with irrelevant side issues.
Dear Ms. Dailey,
The column you published yesterday on the supposed use of white liberal guilt to rally support for Obama has to be one of the most comical attempts at a right wing polemic I have ever seen. Never mind not living up to the standards of William F. Buckley or George Will; you aren't even in the same arena with Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin.
First, the evidence you back your assertion with is at best weak. You cite the remarks of only three figures to support your claim. (Really only two when you consider that one at the end of the column, Colin Powell, seems to have been shoe-horned in at the last minute when his support for Obama was made public on Sunday.) Three people-Powell, Rep. John Murtha, and Gov. Ed Rendell-can hardly be said to represent the overall trend of Democratic rhetoric.
What is especially amusing is that one figure you quote was not supporting Sen. Obama, while you blatantly misrepresent another. As you admit in your column, Gov. Rendell was arguing for Sen. Hillary Clinton when he warned that many white Pennsylvanian voters would not support a black candidate. Although you try to portray this as liberal elitism, you have to wonder whether Gov. Rendell knows a bit more about Pennsylvania politics than you do, given that he has won two state-wide elections here. Furthermore, your own newspaper recently published an article featuring interviews with a number of these voters. Your co-workers are cutting you off at the knees.
Particularly galling is your misrepresentation of Powell's remarks. You make reference to a short passage in his interview with Meet the Press in which he referred to the election of Sen. Obama as offering a chance at a generational change. You treat this as the entirety of his remarks, when anyone who reads about them can see is not true. Powell cites a number of reasons for backing Sen. Obama, including his position on the economy and the inexperience of Gov. Palin. The latter issue has also been noted by a number of conservatives, including Peggy Noonan hardly people one would expect to associate with liberal guilt.
Face it, Ruthie, your candidate is unable to fight it out on the issues, so he and minions like you are trying to distract everyone with irrelevant side issues.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Eagles Fans vs. Steelers Fans
An article in today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette contemplates the potential effect new NFL regulations will have on Pittsburgh Steelers fans, including concerns that the regulations could affect fans' ability to celebrate. Frankly, I doubt the city's sports fans have anything to worry about.
Coming from Philadelphia, I know that Pittsburgh's fans are relative gentlemen. Unlike the fans of the Philadelphia Eagles, they have never pelted Santa Claus with snowballs on national television. They have not cheered as a critically injured opposing player was taken off the field in a stretcher. Although I am certain Steelers fans include their share of rowdies, they do not compare to their east coast rivals in Philly.
Coming from Philadelphia, I know that Pittsburgh's fans are relative gentlemen. Unlike the fans of the Philadelphia Eagles, they have never pelted Santa Claus with snowballs on national television. They have not cheered as a critically injured opposing player was taken off the field in a stretcher. Although I am certain Steelers fans include their share of rowdies, they do not compare to their east coast rivals in Philly.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
A Wise Decision
Recently, the Allegheny County Board of Elections barred two referendum questions regarding the drink tax in the Pittsburgh area because they did not meet the proper legal criteria. One question asked whether voters wanted to repeal a 10% tax on alcohol that was opposed by the restaurant and bar industry, while the other wanted to examine alternative means of raising revenue such as the property tax, as reported by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
At least the politicians in this city have some priorities straight. A rise in property taxes would make it more difficult for low income and elderly people to afford their homes. You can choose whether or not to drink, whereas you have to live somewhere.
Naturally, some people were in favor of the drink tax. An article in the Pittsburgh City Paper several weeks ago by Frances Sansig Monahan argues that old people should move out of their houses, even if they've lived in them their entire lives, just so people can pay a bit less for a drink.
Sorry, Frannie, unacceptable. These are low income, elderly people who may not have a place to go. They could easily be my parents, or my grandmother. If the drink tax is cutting too deeply into the pockets of you and your boozer friends, start ordering water.
At least the politicians in this city have some priorities straight. A rise in property taxes would make it more difficult for low income and elderly people to afford their homes. You can choose whether or not to drink, whereas you have to live somewhere.
Naturally, some people were in favor of the drink tax. An article in the Pittsburgh City Paper several weeks ago by Frances Sansig Monahan argues that old people should move out of their houses, even if they've lived in them their entire lives, just so people can pay a bit less for a drink.
Sorry, Frannie, unacceptable. These are low income, elderly people who may not have a place to go. They could easily be my parents, or my grandmother. If the drink tax is cutting too deeply into the pockets of you and your boozer friends, start ordering water.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
