YouTube Photo of Ron Polarik
Ron Polland (aka Ron Polarik) has been interviewed over at the Post & Email blog. It was a real love fest between him and interviewer Sharon Rondeau with her feeding him juicy questions and not asking any of the obvious tough follow-up questions, and Polland pontificating about how clever he is.
Polland’s image analysis has been discredited, and there’s no value in my plowing that field again. Anyone that believed Polland/Polarik the first time around isn’t going to be convinced by a rational argument anyway. For the original debunking, visit Bad Science: How Not To Do Image Analysis Part II.
No, what I want to try to focus on is what Polland reveals about himself in the piece. I was struck by this one very interesting statement (although not intentionally said about himself):
A person whose sole motive is to discredit someone else is a person who will lie, cheat, and steal to accomplish it…
Polland sees himself at the center of things and the victim of those “whose sole motive is to discredit him” as though he were that important.
Polland comes from the Israel right-wing side of the birther movement, and that perhaps explains his original pseudonymous entry into the disinformation campaign. However, the Polarik character grew, becoming a cult figure among the birthers, with his long Internet rants peppered with high-resolution scans of birth certificates and YouTube videos. Finally, after his identity was revealed, he had no choice but to continue or lose face.
I get the impression that Ron Polland has a narcissistic personality, one that is fed by the fawning praise of the birthers. Let’s see how well this fits. To be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder, one must have 5 of the following:
- Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
- Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
- Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
- Requires excessive admiration
- Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
- Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
- Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
- Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
- Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.
I don’t have enough information about Polland to know whether he fits 5 of these. Obviously the first and last fit him like a glove. Clearly Polland believes that he is smarter than others and that others resent him for it, and thereby attack him scurrilously (see the Collins / Eddy section). I do know that it’s easy for a lay person to lay a diagnosis on someone, inserting their own lay understanding of technical terms, and inserting their own bias for objective observation. So I will leave the reader without a conclusion from me.
There is one substantive matter that I do want to comment on, and that is this remark from Polland:
DR. POLLAND: … Dr. Neal Krawetz [i]s the “image analysis expert” I mentioned above. He has a PhD in Computer Science but his expertise is in computer security, according to the credentials he posted on his website. What he does not have listed in those credentials is the word, “image,” or the word, “forgery,” or the phrase, “image analysis.” He proclaimed himself an image analysis expert, and is worshipped by liberals as the Image god who can lay waste to all those terrible “Birthers.” The irony of that is if Krawetz had used the same criteria on his own credentials as he used on mine; that is, looking for keywords, he would have to call himself a fraud!
When I first came across the Krawetz critique of Polarik, I did a little poking around. He is the real deal. He has authored software for image analysis and has done some remarkable work on images released by terrorists. He was an expert before the birth certificate. I had a brief exchange of correspondence with Krawetz over the Sun Yat-Sen Certificate of Hawaiian Birth and his technical analysis was accurate, and did not go beyond what he could reasonably infer. He makes Polland look like a clown. For some Krawetz image analysis, visit his web site.
There is a cute little online tool at the Krawetz web site that guesses the gender of a writer. I fed in the Sharon Rondeau article from the beginning through “Dr. Polland’s biographical statement is as follows:” and it said “MALE.” I wouldn’t be surprised of Polland wrote more of the article than it attributed to him.
I don’t pretend to be an expert in the labyrinthine Israeli politics, but it has always been my understanding that far-right racist elements there (the ones who had Beghin assassinated) have always wanted to bring down those in the US Government deemed insufficiently fanatical in favor of Israel. Plus a lot of them are anti-American to begin with.
The assassination was Yitzhak Rabin. He was shot by a Jewish fanatic, because he dared shake hands with Arafat. People like Orly and Berg are doing this because they believe Obama is bad for Israel, and so they believe they can drive him from office if they make enough noise.
Bibi and Likud have given so much power and influence to Shas and their crowd, to consolidate their grip. The reason evangelicals go along with it and finance them, is because they believe this will hasten the return of their lord.
I would add that Israelis regard evangelicals as useful idiots.
I too have found that the difference in quality between a pretender and an expert in technical or scientific fields is generally pretty obvious.
Sorry, slip of the finger. I stand corrected.
Regarding Krawetz, the page on his website that I think Polland most desperately wants to pretend doesn’t exist is the one describing his Presentations: http://hackerfactor.com/presentations.php
The first category listed is “Image Analysis,” with a presentation titled “A Picture’s Worth: Digital Image Analysis and Photo Forensics.”
Krawetz has given the presentation at the US Department of Defense Cyber Crime Conference 2010 and two Black Hat conferences, among other locales.
Yet according to Polland, Krawetz has no expertise in image analysis.
Berg should know better, but I wonder if Dr. Orly somehow thinks that an American President can be driven from office the same way a Prime Minister can. She’s wrong, of course, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
She thinks a president can be driven from office like a PM – remember, she also says there should be a new election. Wrong country and system. I met their crowd in Israel. Refuseniks spend their day licking their wounds.
“Krawetz had a field day with Techdude’s final report given how many things in the report were obviously false or near impossible, or was simply a bunch of baloney. Krawetz had a lot of company, however, from other TechDude critics with far fewer credentials and fanfare.
Krawetz thought he could do to me what he did to TechDude, but he was in for a rude awakening as I totally destroyed his “analysis” of my final report – which he never read – nor have any of my other critics. The second time around, he did read some of it, but he still interpreted it all wrong. I mean, you don’t have to know anything about graphics to know this is not right: he made a scan of black and white text on a magazine page and presented it as being comparable to a scan of laser-printed text on green-patterned, security paper. It’s like comparing apples to tennis balls. His entire knowledge of the birth certificate controversy is Politifact, Factcheck, and Hawaii, Chapter and Verse. The liberal double-standard extends to this realm as well.
Krawetz began his screed by stating that “true researchers should show all of their work to the public and have it peer-reviewed.” However, all that Krawetz provided in his analysis of the Daily Kos image were his opinions, not facts or any physical evidence. In his critique of my research, Krawetz offered this highly scientific conclusion: “What can I say except that Polarik is wrong.” I knew that PhD of his would come in handy. It took months of prodding by people on his forum for him to reveal the output of his black-box analyses – you know, you run an image through a software program and it spits out the results. Been there, done that.
There is something definitely different in the way liberals process information versus conservatives, and discovering what those differences are proved fruitful in my analyses of Politifact and Factcheck.”
That is the essence of your argument a cheap attempt to make everything seem as a difference off political opinion. To bad for you that you are just trying to smear another person just to increase your importance on an issue you attempt to distort. Better luck next time.
James…There is something definitely different in the way liberals process information versus conservatives, and discovering what those differences are proved fruitful in my analyses of Politifact and Factcheck.”
.
That’s true, just wander over to conservapedia.com and check it out, but don’t hold coffee or you may destroy your keyboard. It overs strong evedence that conservatives are allergic to science and most knowledge. (as do James’ posts)
Pat over at BadFiction has an awesome summary of the crap that Polland was feeding the Post and Fail….
http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/2010/07/dispatches-from-birtherstan-for-22-july-2010.html#more
Some comments from Polland’s so called interview…These people, like James shows us that there are some people out there that are beyond help….
Pete says:
Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 9:46 PM
I asked an independent expert in digital photography (whom has provided expert testimony in a court of law) as a personal favor to do an analysis of the online COLB, shortly after Ron Pollard said it was a fake. He came to the same conclusion, but had further insight. He noticed that the lettering (as Ron Pollard) noted was crisp, so crisp that there was no background noise in the digital signal. Apparently, you can do a statistical analysis on the background noise for various edges of any scanned document. You get background’ noise in any scanned image, but the lettering was without such noise. That means, in his opinion, that the lettering was NOT SCANNED, but typed and added to a previously scanned digital image. That made the online COLB a composite’ or at least altered’, not a valid document in his opinion.
I still believe that Dr. Ron Polland was correct, the original online posted COLB was a forgery, or at best represents a digitally altered document. The person whom provided me with the analysis has declined to be made public, in part because of what has happened to Dr. Ron Polland, but also for significant ongoing health issues.
Much like the Gulf of Tonkin, someday the truth will be known.
Pete
Albert W. L. Moore, Jr. says:
Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 11:00 PM
Probably overwrought & wrong. My operating assumption is that there is a COLB that is genuine, official, and truthful as far as it goes. But it is an abstract. And it does not disclose whether the information abstracted is from an original birth certificate showing the true birth parents or an amended birth certificate showing adoptive parents. So even if, as I assume for the sake of analysis, the COLB is genuine, it is ambiguous. If the putative parents in the COLB are birth parents, then Mr. Obama (not President Obama until he proves eligibility) could not be a natural born U.S. citizen, for the father named was an alien. I suspect his real birth parents were Stanley Armour Dunham and a predominantly Polynesian wahine (hence his warm mahogany complexion – aloha!).
We can’t know for sure who Mr. Obama’s birth parents were until his DNA and birth records are produced. I strongly suspect that he refuses to allow this because their disclosure would prove he’s not black; his whole political career has been based on a big lie, that he was born of a Luo tribesman and has kith & kin in Africa. (I can imagine Robert Gibbs: “But his mother was a person of color!”)
While Mr. Obama was very possibly a natural born U.S. citizen at birth, he probably lost U.S. citizenship altogether later in life and, incredible as it might seem, is an illegal alien. If he can explain away the many possibilities of a loss of citizenship, we can take comfort in not being duped into electing an ineligible lying communist despot, but rather duped into electing an eligible lying communist despot.
The states appoint presidential electors. Their investigation of the constitutional eligibility of Mr. Obama is long overdue. Official investigations should uncover the relevant scientific and documentary evidence that has been inaccessible to private individuals, even as litigants.
I know a lot of liberals who will agree with this statement — calling themselves the “reality-based community” — but I think that’s unfair to conservatives. What we have seen is the GOP effectively taken over by people who are content to fabricate a reality that supports the conclusions they want to reach, which saves them from having to actually think. And GOP elected officials, who should know better, are pandering for all they’re worth to this base. What won the election for Obama was the votes of thinking conservatives who preferred the liberalness of Obama to the brainlessness of the GOP.
But I have no doubt that the thinking conservatives are still there, and when the GOP fields a reasonable candidate, their votes will return to the GOP.
So the statement about liberals and conservative processing information differently is not really fair. What is true, is that people who think and people who don’t think process information differently.
Nicely stated, I think. 😎
James wouldn’t know a true conservative if he were hit up the side of the head by one. If you want an example of a true conservative, I’d mention Bob Inglis of SC. He was interviewed on Hardball a week or so ago and stated something that is so true about true conservatives. And he’s the first Republican to say that he doesn’t agree with Rush Limbaugh. He reminds me of me in respect to the way he spoke about how is dad is. My dad was just like his dad when it came to being a conservative. He bought automobiles that conserved gasoline and I was taught to coast in to the driveway and if you see a red light to slow down so you don’t use the brakes a lot and possibly you still have forward enough forward motion by the time the light turns green that you don’t need to use as much gas to get going again.
People like James like to put labels on people without even knowing them. How can you be for sure that anyone posting here is a ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’? You surely don’t know my ideology. I don’t think I can state the ideology of any person that posts comments here other than perhaps your, James. You really appear to be a racist and ready to jump on board with people you agree with even when they’ve been proven to be liars as Pollarik has.
By the way, Doc, I ran your article through the ‘cute’ little gender analysis on Hacker Factor and it came back female. Maybe you shouldn’t have included the word cute?
Just so there’s no further confusion, James didn’t write any of the above comment he posted. As evidenced by the quotation marks. All four paragraphs are cut-and-pasted straight from the interview.
“James didn’t write any of the above comment he posted. ”
Thats pretty much all James does nowadays is paste something here. His purpose? I have no idea since it is clearly not dialogue.
I remember Lakin’s Lawyer stating that Obama’s COLB only presents the presumption of birth in Hawaii. However, it is known that long-form BC does exist neither Obama nor the State of Hawaii are willing to release the underlying documentation in which the Obama’s COLB. I think this would provide more than enough challenge to prima facie evidence of Obama’s COLB unless Obama could provide a sound and reasonable legal explanation on why the long-form BC can’t and should not be released. And of course, with all the circumstancial available that points to a birth outside of Hawaii, I find no valid reason on why Obama would not release the long-form BC. Addition, Dr. Fukino has also stated that Obama’s orginal vital record prove he was born in Hawaii, but neither she nor Obama will content release of such vital records. Such refusal unless supported with sound legal reasons would be enough to challenge the prima facie evidence of the existing COLB.
The copy and paste birther posting here is strange. Probably just thinks it’s amusing. I’ve seen many of the same birther handles on blogs and small to large news threads posting the same drivel over and over hoping a) no one will challenge the nonsense and/or b) if they repeat lies often enough it will seem like the truth and c) to recruit newbies.
“Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows.”
– Trinculo, Act II, Scene 2, The Tempest, William Shakespeare
“Such refusal unless supported with sound legal reasons would be enough to challenge the prima facie evidence of the existing COLB.”
Not in reality.
Actually, in reality HIPPA regulations constitute a sound legal reason.
Even children in Kenya know Obama was born there:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/07/23/british-school-project-declares-obama-born-in-kenya/
http://www.plan-uk.org/involved/schools/obamaelection/
“More than 50 schools in Kisumu, Kenya, about 30 miles from where Obama was born and where his grandmother still lives in the village of Kogelo, have linked to British partners as part of the scheme.”
So Obama Sr. Grandmother is still alive? She must 200 years old.
Do you mean HIPAA? And I was actually questioning James credibility and legal reasoning especially if, as I suspect, he’s offering legal opinions without a law degree or a license to practice.
But don’t tell James that…He thinks he is funny by repasting the same nonsense over and over and never engaging in meaningful dialogue…at least mental midgits like BZ attempted to defend their innane positions…James just reposts banal drivel and attempts to score some cheap points. We all know that he is an agent of Lucas Smith and is job is to attempt to try and confuse people who may not know all of the facts yet. Deep down I don’t even think he believes in his own nonsense…He just hates the President and that is why he is repeating the birther poo….
And President Obama’s grandmother is not alive either. Unless you mean his step-grandmother. But if they got that fact wrong, I wonder what else they got incorrect. However in the mind of James this is consider evidence while the stated certified COLB and the statement by Dr. Fukino is open to dispute….Hating Obama does cause brain damage….
It’s probably a mistranslation.
“about 30 miles from where Obama was born and where his grandmother still lives in the village of Kogelo”
Barack Obama, Sr. is a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya Colony.
Also you have to question the reading comprehension of the birther nation….An excerpt from the article from the Post and Fail…
“An African newspaper reported that Obama’s father was born in Kogelo Village, but also stated that “According to Luo customs, a child belongs to the father, hence the strong bonds of kinship to the American president-elect in Western Kenya.”
Another article refers to Obama as Kenya’s “son.”
The “Plan” operates “development programmes in 49 of the world’s poorest countries,” including the United States.
A website about the Kisumu region of Kenya states:
Congratulations to Barack Obama,son of Kisumu, for getting elected to the highest and most powerful office in the world,The President of United States of America. Obama’s father was born in Kisumu, Kenya. It is a pride for Kisumu and whole of Africa.”
If you note not once does the article from the African newspaper claim that Obama was BORN in Kenya….They state that his father was born there and he is consider a “son of Kenya”, but nowhere does it state that he was born there. The birthers lack of basic reading comprehension would be laughable if it was not so pathetic….
PS…From the comments a birther that actually has a clue…maybe James can take some lessons from this guy….
“Tony says:
Friday, July 23, 2010 at 11:54 AM
While that further adds to the circumstantial evidence of Obama’s true origin, it unfortunately is still irrelevant to his supporters here in the US and to the courts. Nothing short of an official, certified copy of his original birth certificate issued by the Kenyan government and validated by their embassy here will convince the courts and the media that he wasn’t born in the US even though we have yet to see official proof of that too from the Hawaiian government.
James: “More than 50 schools in Kisumu, Kenya, about 30 miles from where Obama was born and where his grandmother still lives in the village of Kogelo, have linked to British partners as part of the scheme.”
So all this stuff about Obama being born in Mombasa is fake? The Lucas Smith birth certificate is a fraud? Kisumu is on the west side of Kenya and Mombasa is on the east.
Doc, you know that James won’t respond. Because he would either have to throw his buddy Lucas under the bus or look bad for linking to an incorrect article. So he will do what all birthers do when questioned with evidence, run and hide or ignore your request. James will ignore.
Nice catch.
James why bother reading the Post and eMail, they don’t even allow dissenting comments. They referred to an old discredited article, and make false conclusions. Yeah a real reliable sources of information. You are more interested in searching the internet for any word that supports your argument, and then make false conclusions.
Much has gone into confirming Obama’s American birth, and that was only 2 years ago. Nothing much has changed since that, that includes your baseless comments.
To bad the world knows Obama was born in America (Hawaii), and believe that America is really a place for opportunities.
That is the problem with spreading misinformation, the main point is misinformation and not consistency.
Why do you think that? Can you cite some cases? Seems very strange concept to me.
I’ll put him into moderation and delete the non-human remarks.
No. This misunderstands the meaning of prima facie. It means that the case is sufficiently proven absent contrary evidence. Not supposition, not imaginings, certainly not inadmissible typos in Kenyan newspapers.
That’s not the result I got when I tried it.
I wouldn’t listen to a lawyer who is using his client as a political pawn in a game where his client will end up in jail, and tarnish a stellar military career.
Such refusal unless supported with sound legal reasons would be enough to challenge sound legal facts. Honestly James, please learn some logical reasoning.
“I’ll put him into moderation and delete the non-human remarks”
Thank you Doc. I really am all for dialogue, but James posts seem intended to distribute misinformation- how anyone could a) rely upon the Post and Email for anything(Heck I wouldn’t quote this blog as a source either) confounds me and b) the content clearly doesn’t say that Obama Jr. was born in Kenya.
At a certain point is it reading comprehension or is it just re-posting lies?
😉
Well, I think the public statement by Dr. Fukino opens a can of worms for Obama. Obama can declare his COLB prima facie evidence of his birth in Hawaii but Dr. Fukino has stated that his original Vital records (Not the COLB) also state he was born in Hawaii. Certainly someone suspect of COLB might insist that Obama release his original vital records and Obama could no legal justification to withhold it. Addition, With Dr. Fukino making such a public statement, that would certainly open her up to cross examination to effectively prove the statement which would open up a whole other can of worms.
We have remember Obama has yet his COLB; images and pictures don’t count.
I am writing this very, very slowly in hopes that James will be able to understand. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a birth certificate is a self-authenticating document.
“A self-authenticating document is any document that can be admitted into evidence at a trial without proof being submitted to support the claim that the document is what it appears to be. Several categories of documents are deemed to be self-authenticating:
Certified copy of public or business records; (Birth certificates go in this column)
Official publications of government agencies;
Newspaper articles;
Trade inscriptions, such as labels on products;
Acknowledged documents (wherein the signer also gets a paper notarized); and
Commercial paper under the Uniform Commercial Code.
Although most U.S. states have evidentiary rules similar to the Federal Rules of Evidence, the California Evidence Code diverges significantly from the FRE in that it does not treat trade inscriptions as self-authenticating. This means that if a defendant does not stipulate to the authenticity and accuracy of a trade inscription, the plaintiff must use expert testimony to establish the authenticity of the inscription and to get around the obvious hearsay issue (to establish, based on common practice within the trade, that the product is what the inscription says it is).”–Wikipedia
Therefore, if any Obama eligibility lawsuit should ever come to an actual trial, a state of Hawaii released Certification of Live Birth with a notarized authentification letter from Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Health Department or from Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, Registrar of Vital Records will be all that is needed to verify Obama’s place of birth in a court of law.
There will be no use of a factcheck.org copy, a politifact.org copy, a DailyKoz copy or a Fight the Smears copy of Obama’s COLB. There will be a COLB released directly from the state of Hawaii with Obama’s permission and accompanied by a notarized letter of authentification.
That would probably be true. But, the State of Hawaii also has the long-form BC as well which contains more conclusive information. However, Obama and State of Hawaii would know about the long-form BC (Again with more conclusive information) but would be refusing to release it. There is no doubt that great argument would be made on why Obama and DOH are refusing to release to Long-Form BC; To Date I can find no reason that Obama could give to allow to withhold the Long-Form BC. In a court proceeding, the party could no doubt insist that long-Form BC be furnished if in fact the Hawaii DOH and Obama know it to exist, DOH has it in their possession but have offered no valid reason why the COLB is being released instead of the long-Form BC (I suppose the DOH could say that law provides that COLB be given to a registar but Obama could offer no reason why his vital records to include the Long-Form BC could not be inspected.) It is the fact that long-form BC exists that would allow a challenge to COLB.
Your can is empty.
I didn’t think anything of it. Finding holes in demonstrably false information is usually pretty simple.
Birthers insist this all the time, and I’m still wondering why. What important thing do you hope to learn from a copy of the original birth record that you don’t already know from the COLB? I hear birthers talk about which hospital and which doctor — why is this interesting?
I enjoyed seeing the contradiction between James’ worship of Lucas and the forged Mombasa BC with his crowing of the Kisumu nonsense. That’s probably why ardent birthers move the goalposts around so often.
More cognitive dissonance at its finest.
It has absolutely nothing to do nbc verification. It has everything to do with desperate attempts to find any information that can be spun into half-truths and outright lies to discredit and disparage the President. Witness WND and the P&E.
Wrong. It only contains more information, not more conclusive information. The information which is contained in the COLB is also in the long-form birth certificate. The COLB says that Obama was born in Hawaii, so that it what the long-form birth certificate says. Any other information in the long-form is irrelevant for establishing natural-born citizenship.
To Date I can find no reason that Obama could give to allow to withhold the Long-Form BC.
Obama doesn’t have to give a reason, which may explain why you can’t find it.
In a court proceeding, the party could no doubt insist that long-Form BC be furnished if in fact the Hawaii DOH and Obama know it to exist,
Have you ever been in a court proceeding, James? Insisting doesn’t get you anywhere unless you also have a legal right to that which you are demanding.,
It is the fact that long-form BC exists that would allow a challenge to COLB.
Wrong again. The only way to challenge a COLB is to present admissible evidence that it is fraudulent.
We’ve seen almost the exact same illustration of cognitive dissonance before from Birthers. They point to the McRae interview as evidence that he was born in Mombasa, but they also cite an interview where she referred to Obama as a “son of this village.”
And “this village” was obviously not Mombasa, as the two are on opposite sides of the country, but the fact that the two claims are inherently contradictory isn’t enough to stop them from believing both.
I submitted a piece of fiction that I wrote and it came back as male. I think the whole thing is amusing but not really valid.
If this is James writing his own thoughts, I think I have an inkling of why he likes to cut-and-paste.
You won’t get an answer, I asked the late and unlamented Yguy this regularly and the Barfers won’t answer as there IS NO answer……
They also hate being reminded that a “long” form is functionally and legally no different to a “short” form. Both are limited extracts of the entire record set.
And when did you discover this?
And when did you discover this?
.
during the early sixties when conservatives were fighting California on smog issue plus fighting the banning of cadmium, in addtion fighting any bans on smoking (it can’t harm you)
And when did you discover this?
when consevarives were trying to prevent the banning of asbestos (my brother almost died from asbestos)
James two questions for you- well actually 3, but you only need to answer 2-
1) If Obama was born in Hawaii is he a natural born citizen?
2a) if you say no, then him providing any additional birth certificates is not relevant is it?
2b) If you say yes, what relevant information could be on the ‘long’ form that would contradict him being born in Hawaii, given that the DOH has confirmed he was born in Hawaii?
Huh … They are both birth certificate. The “long-form” might have more information on that the COLB, but all the information on the COLB is on the “long-form.” Both documents are issued by the same agency, using the same information. Trust me the DOH doesn’t have to answer to a random person on the internet.
Ya know, I really can’t stand generalized stereotyping. You really do yourself a disservice when you do so.
Look, there are many rational people out there, who both like science and knowledge and are fairly intelligent who consider themselves to be conservatives.
Just because sites like this and other “causes” only bring out the crazy extreme ones to troll on does not mean that all conservatives should be viewed or painted with such an unfair broad brush.
On any issue, particularly online, you tend to only hear from those with extreme motivation to bother to comment.
Agreed. Well said.
OK, show me one conservative who is not actively opposed to stem cell research. Show me one conservative who believes in complete reproductive freedom. Show me one conservative who was not opposed to Obama’s health care reform. Show me one conservative who does not engage in class warfare – such as raising the minimum wage, or supports a minimum wage per se.
Show me one conservative who actively opposes affirmative action for the wealthy, with the same vehemence as affirmative action for the ordinary.
Andrew Breitbart, who is Jewish unfortunately, set out to ruin someone’s career and torpedo Obama’s presidency. Show me one progressive who is the equivalent of Roy Cohn. Cohn, another shonde, made a career out of ruining the careers of others.
Show me, and I’ll shut up.
Labels are cheap and easy. I have a bad habit of generalizing about birthers.
Yeah, that they’re schmucks.
The problem is with the definition of “conservative:.
Under Eisenhower, scientists with horned rimmed glasses, short sleeved shirts with pencil holders and slide rules wearing were all “conservatives”. The late great Robert Heinlein was a conservative, with libertarian leanings.
Those were conservatives one could admire, and certainly respect.
Since then, the label has been usurped by venal Nehemiah Scudders (to continue with Robert Heinlein) who have used religion, racism and ignorance to enrich themselves and manipulate a variety of folks, mostly white and older, some poor and uneducated, but many well off and educated, into becoming not true conservatives but “reactionaries”.
Those are the ones misha and richcares are rightly targeting. There may be some real “conservatives” left in America, but I don’t know where they are; certainly not being represented in the media.
Misha, I know you’ve been through a number of horrible experiences, which obviously affect how you view others. I know you’ve lived in some very conservative areas (such as Alaska) and I believe you mentioned that now you live in Philly, which to my understanding, is a fairly liberal part of that state.
I live in Northeastern Ohio. When people say we are a “purple” state, that is very true. There are all sorts of opinions everywhere – from extreme liberal to extreme conservative. However, there are also lots of very moderate folks living side by side in the communities. Compared to the rest of the state, Northeastern Ohio is one of the most “built up” areas. People think Cleveland or Akron or Canton or Youngstown when they think Northeast Ohio – and those cities themselves are extremely concentrated democratic bases. However, the suburbs, which feel like endless extensions of these cities are very mixed – with some being very solid GOP strongholds (often based on issues of wealth or religion) and some very democratic and many quite mixed themselves. These suburbs stretch almost endlessly at many points connecting all of these areas, with some rural regions in-between and around them. Now the rural areas (which I live closer to) are much more conservative, as it seems rural areas seem to be in general these days.
What I’m trying to get at by establishing this background is that in such a location, many folks have to interact with many who are different than them on a fairly regular basis and I think that is what helps to moderate a lot of them.
So yes, let’s take examples within my own family to answer your question, – I have an aunt & uncle who still live in the city I grew up in. They have always considered themselves to be “conservatives” and have almost always voted Republican, as have their oldest 2 children. (The third, the youngest has gone to an extreme liberal direction). Their views on issues, which we’ve discussed before and which I’ll be sharing here are somewhat common in certain areas around these parts. All of them are very intelligent and well educated.
On social positions, their Roman Catholic faith has driven many of their views. However, as loyal as their are to “The Pope” as “good Catholics”, all of them have supported/used birth control and things like premarital sex (they just feel guilty about it afterward) and they probably just confess or do penance afterward (that aspect is private and none of my business, but I’m assuming that is how they “reconcile” such things for themselves).
They all support and want stem-cell research to proceed as well, as they feel strongly that illnesses which both my grandparents on that side succumbed to could eventually be cured through stem-cell research. As they are “Reagan fans”, they like to point out that Nancy Reagan supports stem-cell research.
None of them personally supports abortion and a few of them have called themselves “Pro-life”, however, they all apply this to their own life and consider what other people do their own “personal choice and issue to take up with God” and none of their business. They do not feel they should condemn/judge others that might need to have an abortion nor ask why. They also don’t take the extreme position of being against abortion in situations such as rape/incest/possible death of the mother. These seem like very reasonable moral exceptions to them. I’ve told them that their views sound very much like “pro-choice” views to me, but they insist that they view themselves and their positions as I’ve listed as “pro-life”, because that is what their church says.
They want their taxes to be as low as can be and their government to be “small”, but they understand the general need for taxes and government. They just focus on being concerned that there is a lot of government waste and abuses and often tend to support local taxes more than they do state or federal ones (they always support and will vote for every local school, fire, police levy, etc). They don’t like welfare abuses nor corporate bailouts, but they do agree that the government should provide social services to those in need – just that it is broken and needs to be fixed.
Although that Aunt is the only one of her sisters who is not a nurse, that whole family all wanted health reform – but had some concerns about the time that was spent focusing on the bill instead of jobs in the economy and are skeptical of CBO cost projections. They also have different opinions on where the bill is too weak or left stuff out (“tort reform” is one they really wanted in there), but in general, they aren’t against it at all – just that they don’t think it will accomplish much or help reduce costs that much in the end. All of them were happy to see pre-existing condition exclusions removed and none of them believed any of the “death panel” nonsense. So, while they are not necessarily “fans” of the HCR that passed, they are definitely not opposed to it and they think politicians pandering to overturn it are stupid. I think their general reaction would best be summed up as “meh” and that some day, Congress needs to get around to really addressing all the holes in what was passed. I’m sure their view of what those “holes” are might differ in many places from where liberals see it, but bottom line, they are for reform in general.
So, I hope this personal example from my family helps you understand that yes, there are rational, intelligent, non-extreme folks out there who still consider themselves both Conservative and Republicans. Trust me, we have plenty of the more extreme types too, but there are also many around here who are just like my Aunt and her family. Or to put it in Ohio terms, these type of folks want Voinovich style republicans, not Ken Blackwell style republicans.
Let us remember that it was under the misplaced banner of “conservatism” that some campaigned against repairing the Hubble space telescope a few years ago because its determination of the age of the universe went against the Bible’s.
If “liberals” campaigned as energetically for… I don’t know… say, the forced collectivization of farms in the Midwest, I certainly would agree that “liberals” were crazy communists.
“Conaervatism” has to live with that goes on under its name, to the extent that it’s doing nothing to stop it.
Thank you for sharing that.
And I am jealous that you are minutes away from Cedar Point in Sandusky and the world’s best roller coasters.
Yes, we do have the best rollerc oasters there! Although NE Ohio is a pretty big area. From where I currently live, it takes me close to an hour and a half to get there. I have friends who live in that city as well, who Lupin would be pleased to know are professional comic book artists.
The problem is, they’re not being represented, and they’re not being vocal either, so in the end they are at best tarred with the brush or at worst complicit.
As i said, if the Democrats of the “Liberals” began advocating forced collectivization or any such ridiculous far-left policy, you’d be sure to see massive public disagreement and exodus of voters.
I want to see your Republican family on CNN, not Ann Coulter.
I’m a cartoonist but I’m sadly hours away from the BLUE STREAK ! ! ! !
When I was trying to settle in Anchorage, because my asthma was 90% improved there, the worst came from Palin’s crowd. A minister in Palin’s church: “Auschwitz was divine retribution because you people have refused to accept god’s only son.” From the woman with him: Jewish people “deserve to suffer.” From the assistant manager at work: “I haven’t met many Jews before.” A B&B on my Iditarod tour was run by people who belonged to Focus On The Family. They were outright anti-semites. I lasted 3 months there, and actually called my former employer, to ask for my job back, which she graciously did.
Philly is an extremely liberal city, 75% registered Democrats. The city does not prosecute personal marijuana use. On First Friday, there are people passing joints in the galleries, and my wife and I see people on the street lighting up. It is the resting place of Haim Solomon, who financed the Revolution, and one of the three oldest synagogues is here.
http://www.visitphilly.com/events/philadelphia/first-friday/
Wilson Goode was the first black mayor, followed by Ed Rendell who is Jewish and now governor. Philly is 43% black, and all mayors since Rendell have been black. Michael Nutter is doing a job with high public approval. I live in Chinatown, the most fascinating neighborhood. To my wife it is commonplace; to me, it is like living in Disneyland.
At one time the city comptroller was Hillel Levinson. Run for office with that name in the South, and see what happens. Pennsylvania has high minimum wage: $8/hr, which was Rendell’s doing.
When I worked in an optical shop in Leesburgh, VA I actually had a co-worker say “what’s Rosh Hashana?” I told him we dance naked around a fire. I had a terrible asthma episode in an Arlington, VA hotel lobby. Someone came up to me and actually told me I had asthma because I wasn’t a Christian. And a nurses aide said the same thing. Gotta love the South.
I was at Cedar Point, when the Jumbo Jet was first built. For those who don’t know, at the time it was the world’s fastest.
Professional cartoonist or just hobby? Do you ever go to the comic conventions?
Yes, I always love the classic Blue Streak…and the Gemini! Something about the jarring bumps that old wood roller coasters give that to me are even more thrilling than some of the bigger, faster, newer ones.
Not a peep from George Will, denouncing Coulter, or Limbaugh, or Beck.
J’accuse.
I’m the grandson of orthodox Polish and Lithuanian Jews with relatives who were murdered by Nazis.
Yes. Bigotry is bad.
It taught me that generalizing is illogical and unfair even in the face of emotion.
Sorry, I get carried away. Russian and Jewish is a volitile combination. You should have listened to my grandfather. Mention the WCTU or the Salvation Army to him, and it was like throwing a match into a can of gasoline.
I remember in jr. high school, coming back from a date. My grandfather walked into the kitchen, and my mother pointed at me and shouted in Yiddish, “he is going with a SHIKSA!!”
Believe me, I could write a play.
Misha,
Thanks as always for sharing. I feel terrible for some of the experiences you’ve suffered through and the awful things ignorant and mean folks have said to you.
We actually have a very healthy Jewish population around here, particularly in the east-side suburbs. I’m one of two VPs in my company. The other is a nice older Jewish lady, who’ve I’ve been friends with and known long before I worked with her. (She used to work at the college I went to). We’ve got several Jewish business clients, including cities. The first teacher I considered a mentor was my Jr. High art teacher, who was Jewish and who also led our Computer Club. Also, my prom date was a beautiful Jewish girl and her and I were in a lot of AP/Honors classes and some clubs together back in high school. Unfortunately, things sort of ended between us shortly after high-school, partly because she got a lot of peer-pressure flack from her east-side Jewish friends for dating a non-Jew, like me. (Her mom was always nice to me) But we’ve been on good terms ever since we ran into each other again way back years ago at my 5 year reunion and got to reflect and laugh about it and I sometimes still get to chat with her online. So I’ve had a lot of really wonderful personal experiences with the Jewish people I’ve met.
I have to admit the Jumbo Jet reference at Cedar Point is not ringing any bells for me. Might have been before my time.
Amateur programmer. Perhaps like Mario is an amateur lawyer. j/k
Right now I’m learning Objective C.
I’ve been a cartoonist almost all of my life. I think it’s good stuff. A few of my heroes are Bill Watterson, Charles Addams, Sam Gross, B. Kliban.
But to honestly answer your question, it’s a hobby for now. But I’ll get there.
Why can’t birthers be honest?
Well, then they wouldn’t be able to remain birthers, would they? 😉
It was built around 1972. At the time, it was the world’s fastest. I couldn’t get enough of it. I can’t anymore, because I have a shunt in my skull from the stroke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumbo_Jet_(Cedar_Point)
Love to eat them mousies
Mousies what I love to eat
Bite they little heads off
Nibble on they tiny feet.
Addams: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2632/3765120149_c563060f6e.jpg
Think for a moment about what you said. Here’s the dictionary definition of conclusive:
1. (of evidence or argument) Serving to prove a case
If something is proven, how can it be “more proven?” It can be proven in a different way, but once proven, it is proven. This is why the the photocopy of Obama’s original birth certificate is redundant.
I do not think any letter is necessary. The Certification of Live Birth is already a “certified copy” and it is already signed and sealed. An accompanying letter would be the very additional “proof” that the Rule says is not needed.
You nailed it. Mousies is poetry, pure and simple.
Brought to you by Genghis and Sylvia Khan.
Addams’ humor was also a nice trip into the dreams of a genius.
http://cartoonist.name/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Charles-Addams-1-8-1979.gif
You’re right of course that it isn’t “necessary” to provide a notarized letter with the certified copy of the vital record but judges often will look kindly upon advocates who go the extra mile and you get a “two-fer” because it also makes your opponent look like they haven’t done as much due diligence.
Think a plaintiff’s attorney like Orly Taitz requesting to have a handwritting analysis “expert” confirm Justice Thomas’ signature! 😉
And it can be sung to the “Ode to Joy” by Beethoven.
Try it.
AWESOME! Thanks! And now I have to get Die Hard out of my head.
Having nothing that disproves a certificated document makes the opponent look “like they haven’t done any due diligence.”
Congrats, Dr. C. You proved his point like 5,000%.
I looked at Post & Fail and I noticed that you can make a comment but you must select the PayPal button in order to do so. Reminds me of this:
Kreep, director [1] of the United States Justice Foundation, is behind a birther infomercial [2] and has filed lawsuits demanding an original copy of Obama’s birth certificate. For viewers who donate $30, Kreep will send a fax in their name to the 50 state attorneys general and Attorney General Eric Holder that demands that Obama produce his “real” birth certificate.
$30.00 to send a FAX?
You’re not very good at math are you?
G, take a peek at http://www.conservapedia.com
then check the conservative view on evolution,
read Ann Coulters book , the one that describes evolution and her 6000 year old earth.
any student accepting Ann’s view on science would fail USC’s entrance exam.
the current conservative is anti-science!
as when they said smoking is not harmful.
as when they said asbestos can’t hut you
Oh, I’ve seen their make-believe revisionist definitions of stuff over at “conservapedia”.
Trust me, I view those types of conservatives that either buy into or need that type of bunk as a sad joke and hold them in contempt.
However, please understand that those types of conservatives that fit any of your examples still only represent segments of the conservative population (which I define as those that consider or call themselves “conservatives”). Like many such monikers, the term “conservative” is flippantly cast about, even by those who call themselves such; but often means different things to different people…and the meanings and usage has also changed over time. There are really a number of different types & flavors of such – some of which even contradict or don’t “gel well” with others. I’ve had quite a few conversations with different people who use that term to describe themselves that were unable to even tell me what they meant by that when I asked them – the whole notion of explaining a “definition” to it seemed alien to them and something they admitted that they really hadn’t thought about before.
I agree that we’ve seen an unfortunate upwards trend towards more and more extreme and fundamentalist versions of conservative over the past few years (and indeed past few decades). The examples you’ve provided I would all place in those types of categories.
However, as I’ve said before, you paint too broad of a brush if you think all “conservatives” think this way or believe that stuff. We simply don’t live in a binary world, regardless of how much some people (on both sides of the spectrum) seem to try to characterize things. So, if you truly believe that everyone who views themselves as a “conservative” buys into the bunk that gets entered into places such as “conservapedia”, then you too are guilty of believing in a fictional version of the world instead of the real one.
If you want to distinguish, I think you should use more descriptive terms such as fundamentalist conservatives or something to that effect. That would be more accurate in describing the types you are implying and how they behave/think.
There is a huge influence of fundamentalist Christians in the conservative movement. The have been a push by some of these groups to write a Conservative bible by removing “liberal” passages. To exclude people from American history lessons because their values are inconsistent with theirs. However, there are many conservative which I disagree only on policy.
G and AnotherBird: I read George Will with interest. Has he written against Coulter, Beck and the rest of that crowd?
Beck is a latter day Father Coughlin, and with a few exceptions, they are rabble rousers.
Coulter: “We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee,” Coulter said. “That’s just a joke, for you in the media.”
– Yeah, let some college professor say that, and see what happens.
“No, we just want Jews to be perfected…That’s what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express…That is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews.”
– Hey Ann: FU
“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.”
“Of course I regret it. I should have added ‘after everyone had left the building except the editors and the reporters.'”
“I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East, and sending liberals to Guantanamo.”
“Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.”
– Except Timothy McVeigh, the KKK…
“It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 – except Goldwater in ’64 – the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.”
“I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote.”
“Like the Democrats, Playboy just wants to liberate women to behave like pigs, have sex without consequences, prance about naked, and abort children.”
“Our book is Genesis. Their book is Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, the original environmental hoax.”
“I wouldn’t kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn’t want to impose my moral values on others.”
“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”
McVeigh – Christian Identiy
Hilter – Roman Catholic
Mussolini – Roman Catholic
Goebbels – Roman Catholic
Eichmann – Lutheran
Father Coughin – Catholic priest
KKK – Christian is a membership requirement
“I’m a Christian first, and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don’t you ever forget it.”
– And an anti-semite.
Here are more gems from Coulter:
“God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.'”
“I would like evolution to join the roster of other discredited religions, like the Cargo Cult of the South Pacific… in defense of the Cargo Cult, they did not wait as long for evidence supporting their theory as the Darwinists have waited for evidence supporting theirs.”
“They’re [Democrats] always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let’s do it. Let’s repress them. Frankly, I’m not a big fan of the First Amendment.”
“Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.”
– All clinic violence has been done by Christians. Every one has cited Christianity as their inspiration.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_abortion.htm
“Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.”
Hey Ann, try this: “the “militant anti-abortion movement is driven by three different but overlapping theologies that motivate violence: Christian Reconstructionism, Christian Identity and apocalyptic Catholicism.” Salvi was motivated by apocalyptic Catholicism. It is likely that Roeder was influenced by either Christian Reconstructionism, Christian Identity or some syncretic hybrid of these theological views that have spread throughout the right-wing militant milieu.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-berlet/anti-abortion-violence-th_b_210368.html
Paul Hill “tried to be the model Christian.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/abortviolence/stories/hill.htm
Don’t forget Dr. Slepian, murdered by James Kopp, who cited his Catholic faith as his inspiration. I knew Slepian, from the same synagogue.
Beck: “Jesus would have come back from the dead and made the Jews pay for what they did.”
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/07/did-glenn-beck-rape-and-murder-girl-in.html
Exactly who is “they”?
Well to be fair, I did rather do a number on Polland. If I had taken the time and the trouble, I could have provided a more evidentiary-based attack but I’m not motivated to put the work in. I just wonder why he does it. If I were caught in a really big lie, as he was early on, I think I would want to fade into the woodwork, not compound my failure.
I would guess math is the least of this poster’s problems.
As Black Lion mentioned, Badfiction has an excellent rundown of the Polland “interview,” IMO. An excerpt:
“Is the image posted on the Daily Kos a genuine scan of a genuine, paper Hawaiian COLB?” His immediate response was, “No, this is not a genuine scan.”
And he has never presented any credible or factual evidence to back this claim up.
“Proving that, however, turned into a Herculean task”
As all available credible evidence and real experts continued to undermine his ever shrinking credibility.
“Both of my parents were professional graphic artists. My father started his own graphic design studio, and for over 35 years, he created hundreds of new typefaces, many of which are still used in computers today.”
That’s nice, so where’s your training and credentials in forensic science and forensic document examination?
“Long before I got into digital imaging, I acquired a lot of experience in the world of analog imaging. My father gave me his Roliflex camera to use when I was eight. The Roli was a professional, dual-lens reflex camera that was pretty advanced for its day. I started taking pictures at eight years old and never stopped.”
That’s nice, so where’s your training and credentials in forensic science and forensic document examination?
“In 1970, I received a BA in Psychology. Back then, there were no jobs for psychologists with only a Bachelor’s degree, so I decided to return to college in the fall quarter and get a Master’s Degree in Psychology. The problem was that a lot of people had already applied to the program and I would have to put my name on a waiting list. I did not want to wait, and after doing some searching, I learned about a new, joint program between the Department of Psychology in the College of Arts and Sciences and the Department of Educational Research, Design, and Testing in the College of Education. This was a straight-through program in which I could earn a PhD in Educational Psychology. They had just started the program in the fall quarter. I applied and was admitted for the winter quarter, January 1971, marking only the second person to ever be enrolled in this program.”
That’s nice, so where’s your training and credentials in forensic science and forensic document examination?
“I spent the next four quarters taking the Psychology core curriculum, as all Psychology majors program were required to do”
Wait a minute. Core curriculum is usually for undergrad and masters students. Ph.D / Ed.D is usually self-study. If he had a BA and MA in Psychology, he should have already TAKEN core curriculum classes.
http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/2010/07/dispatches-from-birtherstan-for-22-july-2010.html#more
misha: Beck is a latter day Father Coughlin, and with a few exceptions, they are rabble rousers.
Limbaugh, Beck, Hagee, Falwell, Robertson, Drake, Coulter, Breibart, Savage, Faux News, WND, Orly…and the beat goes on.
The loudest rabble rouser is Sarah Palin. Anyone who elevates her beyond this is either naive, or diabolical.
When I bash conservatives, I am not stereotyping – I am using real life examples. The ONLY exception I can find are George Will and William Buckley. Not bad – two out of several hundred.
And just to show you I am not bigoted, I have no use for neoconservatives. See Breibart, Kristol and Krauthammer.
Sherrod is going to say to everyone in private, ‘a Jew did this to me.’
Thanks, Andrew.
G
Recently during a discussion of global warming with a group of conservatives I mentioned some peer reviewed scientific research. One response was “my peers are as good as your peers”, another “those are liberal peers”, and on and on. So tell me where are those conservatives that know and appreciate science? I didn’t come from no monkey!
To Misha & richCares –
One point I will grant you is that it does seem that at least publicly, the non-crazy conservatives usually just stay silent and never denounce the nonsense that happens on their side.
A few do speak up here and there, but they are quickly “kicked out” or “purged” from the movement. (see David Frum, Scott McClellan).
Other rational ones just voluntarily stop calling themselves Republicans or conservatives and become “independents” for the moment. (see LittleGreenFootballs as an example. In politics, see Arlen Specter and Charlie Crist). The nomination of Sarah P. on the GOP ticket last time did lead to somewhat of an exodus of thinking conservative moderates in certain portions of their voter ranks).
Any others that try are treated as RINOs by the fundamentalist wings of the conservative movement (Colin Powell is a perfect example).
So the biggest problem is that the fundamentalists are definitely ascendant and calling the shots on the right side of the spectrum. No doubt about that.
In many ways, the situation is similar to Americans being upset at the Muslim community for not denouncing those with extremist views or ties to terrorism within their own ranks. So, the argument there is the same and I can empathize with both of you on that aspect.
However, there ARE many folks who just live their lives here in America, who focus and care about other stuff in their lives much more than politics who STILL call themselves “conservatives” but don’t hold nor share many of the fundamentalist views.
I have given you both examples of such, yet you continue on with your single-minded attack branding everyone different than you with your broad brush. In that way, you are no better than they are, just from the left-side instead of the right, as you seem to condemn anyone different than yourselves.
If anything, you both just fall into the stereotype of “liberals” that their side always uses to claim that the left is inflexible and intolerant and incapable of achieving dialog with them. Your own attitudes and actions just help reinforce that notion and drive more of the “sane” conservatives away from the table and is part of the problem as well.
The question will be in the fall whether the “sane” conservatives just continue to “protect their own” and still show up to vote for extreme right candidates or not. We’ll know better in November. You must also remember that they have huge brainwashing propaganda reinforcement machines on their side – FOX News, right wing radio, and yes, even the sermons and peer pressure at many conservative places of worship. There is both a dangerous echo-chamber of their sides bias driving more of them to extreme thinking as well as strong peer-pressure to keep quiet and go along with it if they don’t wish to be “purged”.
All I’m asking is that you stop helping them achieve that agenda.
In the fifties and sixties the conservative movement was led by highly educated intellectuals who had to be taken seriously regardless of whether you agreed with them. Pick up a copy of Buckley’s National Review from the sixties and you will see articles written by Russell Kirk, James Burnham, Willmoore Kendall, and Gary Wills (I doubt that Sarah Palin has ever read anything written by any of them). They were anti-communist and proponents of free market economics. Wills, of course, later rejected conservatism and has been a prominent liberal for decades.
The two events which are mostly responsible for re-shaping conservatism and the Republican party are the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Roe v. Wade. The Civil Rights Act brought segregationists such as Strom Thurmond into the Republican party, and Roe v. Wade led to fundamentalist Christians getting involved in politics. Add to that mix the neocons, and you have a pretty good idea of what conservatism looks like today.
G & Rickey: Buckley once said he spent a lifetime getting rid of the kooks. Well, they’re back and here to stay. Not once has George Will denounced them. I’m asking for one sentence, but I doubt I’ll see it.
Speaking of conservatives, let’s have a look at Jesse Helms:
USA Today (8/22/01) described Helms’ views as “unabashed and outspoken conservatism.” To the Washington Post (8/22/01), Helms is one of the Senate’s “most ardent champions of conservative causes.”
So what did he have to say?
“White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races.”
The University of North Carolina was “the University of Negroes and Communists.”
“Crime rates and irresponsibility among Negroes are a fact of life which must be faced.”
Over the years Helms has declared homosexuality “degenerate,” and homosexuals “weak, morally sick wretches” (Newsweek, 12/5/94). “There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy.”
The man ABC News describes as a “conservative icon” (8/22/01) in 1993 sang “Dixie” in an elevator to Carol Moseley-Braun, the first African-American woman elected to the Senate, bragging: “I’m going to make her cry. I’m going to sing ‘Dixie’ until she cries.”
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1871
He also was an anti-semite, and said diplomatic relations with Israel should be broken.
“She’s a damn lesbian. I am not going to put a lesbian in a position like that. If you want to call me a bigot, fine.”
http://www.bettybowers.com/helms.html
Bravo! And remember that when the moonbats on the loonie left (like the truthers) come out, liberals should be the first to denounce them.
And I do. I got into a terrible argument with someone in my photo workshop when he said “it was an inside job.” And I got into an argument with a well educated photo editor.
I do agree that the extremists are controlling the agenda and communications on the right at the moment and that they have been increasingly ascendant over the past few decades, increasingly and alarmingly so in the last few years.
The sane on the conservative side have either been silenced or chose to remain silent…or have left / been “kicked out” of the current conservative “movement” as RINOs. But many of them still consider themselves to be conservatives. Whether, in the end, they will end up supporting what they feel is their larger “tribe” and still vote for the nutbags remains to be seen.
You really don’t need to keep giving us examples of the RW nuts and their deplorable words & tactics. We’ve all seen and heard plenty of it. You are just preaching to the choir.
I just wish you would acknowledge that not everyone who considers themselves to be a “conservative” deserves your ire and contempt and there are many out there who don’t act in the manner you are always railing on against.
As I’ve mentioned many times before, I feel terrible for the horrible experiences you’ve had. You have every right to be angry against those who directly harmed or maligned you or who have said/done any of the things you’ve described.
However, to paint such a broad brush as to lump all conservatives as being that way is just plain bigotry in and of itself. You of all people, who has been a target of such unwarranted bigotry in the past, should know better that to just act like a simple bigot yourself.
It isn’t denouncing them that is important, but to understand that their arguments are just nonsense and avoid engaging with them. However, that is easier said that done.
Too many of those people attempt to muddy the distinction between conjecture, opinion and facts.
What is seen with the birthers are people on both the left and right, even the center supporting their arguments, or giving them a platform to speak unchallenged. There are many nuts on the right, the left, and the center of the political spectrum.
Agreed. I don’t have any respect for the loony left either and think truthers are nuts and the Code Pink ladies (while I sympathized with their motivation and plight) were in the end nothing but a bunch of unhelpful, disruptive clowns who only made themselves look bad.
From the right, I always hear the meme pop up about the left/liberals and linking them en masse to such things as the Truther movement and to that shameful “Petraeus Betray Us” ad that Moveon.org published.
Here is why I consider that to be a false meme on both accounts and hate when such analogies are made: Just about every liberal I know (and I know a lot) consider the Turthers to be nuts and have no problems denouncing them. Similarly, when that Moveon.org ad came out, many of my liberal friends – even those that are heavily against the war and several who contribute regularly to Moveon.org were against that ad and ashamed by it and had no problem decrying it outloud. I really didn’t see that many democratic politicians come to that ad’s defense either, nor do I recall politicians backing the Truthers.
Furthermore, although it is clear that there are some Truthers on the left, I don’t think the Truther movement was ever as big as anyone claimed it to be and a lot of the polls were poorly done – they usually asked the question in a way that could simply be interpreted as asking if the government should have known about the attacks in advance, which to many can simply refer to the NIE briefing on Al-Quaeda planning an imminent attack, which Bush’s administration was given in August 2001 and simply ignored.
THAT is a simple true fact of what happened and has nothing to do with what the crazy Truther’s believe. Truthers are a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists who believe that 9/11 was an “inside job”. Therefore, they are saying are government had a direct hand in what happened to some extent – a big difference from anyone who simply feels that our government displayed some incompetence in detecting and preventing it from happening in the first place.
Finally, people must understand that is what Truthers and Birthers are – crazy conspiracy theorists. The biggest motivation of Truthers seems to be more of an “anti-government” worldview and susceptibility to paranoid conspiracy stuff.
To paint it as a “liberal” conspiracy, just because there are some liberals who are crazy Truthers seems to miss the bigger picture of what really is the primary ideological drive behind these folks – plain and simple, this is a movement primarily of the “black helicopter crowd” and it has its followers in all four directions of the political spectrum.
As I’ve mentioned before, most of the Truthers I’ve actually spoken to turned out to be Libertarians (and even a few “Greens” and Constitutionalists) or simply “anti-government” folk who don’t subscribe to any political party – many of which intentionally never vote at all (they don’t want the govt to know who they are, don’t want to serve “jury duty”, etc).
If you look at the Birther movement – you will find several Birthers who are also Truthers (take a look at Berg). If you look at the TeaParty movement – although certain TeaParty groups expressly are against Truthers, there are a number of “Tea Party” folks who are Truthers as well. In my opinion, this is mostly coming from the Libertarian & general “anti-government” or “anti-tax” types who’ve been attracted to the “Tea Party” movement and not so much from its more purely Conservative or neo-conservative wings.
I think what gets lost in the dialogue is terminology. At times it is more important to try to understand what a person is attempting to say. From reading misha comments there was no mention of “all conservative” just example of specific individuals or specific ideas by those who call them conservatives. Yes, it is unfortunate that misha didn’t include “conservatives” who have ideals that they support. However, I can’t come to the same conclusion.
I don’t understand where the comment about a bigot came from. A person demonstrates their lack of support of a particular political group by presenting examples doesn’t translate into them being a bigot.
However, this is all about open dialogue now isn’t it.
AnotherBird,
Bigotry in basic terms is simply an Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion. My statement about Misha goes not to just one post, but to the broad set of posts that Misha has continuously made, which appear (at least to me) to paint a broad brush against conservatives – period.
When I’ve questioned the broad characterization, Misha has sometimes responded with statements asking me to “show any examples” where a conservative didn’t think X or believe Y. Such statements were basically made in the sense of saying “prove” that all conservatives aren’t like his preconceptions. I have responded at length and with specific personal experience examples, including from conservative members of my own family.
Misha’s only response to that was not to acknowledge what I wrote, but to only provide more and more examples of “bad” conservatives saying or doing “bad” things to him…which just comes across to me as trying to dismiss the idea of “non-bad” conservatives with endless examples of those that are “bad”.
So yes, in taking a look at the bigger picture of the general conversation as a whole and how someone has responded, I feel that Misha does display bigotry against conservatives as a whole.
All Misha has to do to clear up that, if it is a misconception of mine, is to respond and address the issue, without just going on with yet more and more “conservatives were bad to me” examples. I get that part loud and clear, as that is all I ever seem to hear from Misha on the topic.
My point exactly.
Can you imagine it if the liberal movement was dominated by the Symbionese liberation Front or the Black Panthers?
I’m afraid I’m with Misha on this one.
Your argument boils down to: Yes, but there are some sane/good conservatives.
That is undoubtedly true. There are always good people everywhere. Even in the darkest day of the Nazi era, there were people who hid the Jews and helped them escape.
In fact, in any hateful movement, the truly evil people are usually a minority; the majority is silent, followers, what we’ve come to call “good Germans”.
I would object to tarring ALL Germans with the brush of Naziism, but this is not the case here: we’re tarring a movement, not a people.
Calling all Nazis Nazis (be they Germans of French Vichy supporters) is not bigoted; it is a fact.
Conservatism is a movement; it has a strong vocal minority who is everything Misha denounces — and more. Then there is a majority of oblivious on complicit “good Germans” — and yes, there are a few good people.
The movement itself brags about its ideology, They chose to define themselves; they publish official party platform that are racist and offensive; we don’t define them, they do.
http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/FINAL_2010_STATE_REPUBLICAN_PARTY_PLATFORM.pdf
It is not up to us to change THEIR label, but up to those few good people to leave their evil movement and renounce its ideology.
Agreed. From my perspective, the liberals in general denounce the crazy or extreme elements linked to their side and have no problems doing so publicly.
Sadly, very little of this seems to occur on the right side of the spectrum. It is important to point out that there ARE examples of those that do, just that they are fairly few in number.
Misha is correct that the “intellectual leadership” of the right that used to be the leading factor to contain their crazy has pretty much been muzzled, purged or collapsed in recent years. In general, the red-meat demagogues are currently controlling the messaging, although the “business-wing” (and to some extent the neo-cons) still primarily control both the purse-strings and key portions of the right’s strategic & tactical agenda.
What remains to be seen is how many of roughly 40 percent who self-identify themselves as “conservative” in this country will react in November, when many of these red-meat style candidates are on a general ballot. There are actually various different types of ideologies in place that are lumped under that general term and they don’t all subscribe to the same things. For example, there are a lot of folks who use that term who fall in the category of primarily being “fiscal conservatives” and are not necessarily as driven by the various religious, war or fear aspects of the “movement”. There are plenty of sane folks who just want to be rich and think they can keep more of their money and strongly value what they call “personal responsibility” that don’t go off the deep end and take it to extremes of thinking all taxes are bad or that all poor people are lazy, etc. I run into these types all the time. Some are very religious as well, some are not. Quite a few don’t pay any attention to politics at all until its time to vote. I personally know quite a few that still call themselves Republican, but openly admit that they didn’t vote for McCain and claim that they are unhappy enough with with the direction and actions of the GOP over the past 2 years to not blindly vote GOP in Nov. However, until we get to actually having that election, I won’t be able to tell whether these types “return to the fold”, simply stay home or seriously vote based on candidate instead of party.
But that is what I’m trying to get at. Although there currently is a strong association of Conservative as a political philosophy to either the GOP as a political party or to the Tea Party movement as a whole, there is not a one-to-one correlation of those things.
The Tea Party seems to be a movement that generally doesn’t think the current extreme GOP is right-wing extreme enough for them. Despite the overblown amount of coverage these loud Tea Party groups get in the media, any polls or attempts to gauge their actual support, even amongst Republicans or Conservatives as a broader whole shows them to be a minority position. (And Birthers are a much smaller minority than that)
Could that change? Yes, but for now, there are as many signs that point to their “movement” already being “past its peak” as there are to those that claim it is growing and will overtake the GOP.
Even the ever-rightward shift of the GOP and its base is in no small part due to both intentional flight of some moderates AND conservatives from the party in recent years (as well as those that feel that they’ve been “purged”). Around where I live, many of these folks still call themselves Conservatives and some of them still consider themselves to be “loyal Republicans” who think this is a “phase” and that the GOP will return to sanity at some point in the future. In the meantime, they are not like the “red meat” folks and are willing to vote for “person” instead of “party”. I know a number of Republicans and self-identified Conservatives that voted for Obama. I live in Ohio. I know a number of these folks that voted to get Governor Strickland elected (and some that even campaigned to do so) back in 2004, instead of Ken Blackwell, because they considered Blackwell to be too “extreme” or simply viewed Strickland as a better candidate. I know a number of these types of folks who also crossed the aisle to vote for our Democratic senator Sherrod Brown for similar reasons. Sherrod Brown is considered quite “liberal”, but he’s from this area and a number of Conservatives here still like him and would openly admit to be willing to reelect him again to this day.
That is why I keep saying that it comes down to the numbers and this fall will really be the ultimate test. The 40% of Americans who call themselves conservatives has been a fairly consistent percentage for years – within +/- 5% generally. The number that self-identify as liberal is usually much smaller – in some polls, little more than half of that.
So, if more extreme behavior is really due to one party continuing to shrink and continuing to shed those that do not share their extreme views then we *DO* have direct evidence of what you’ve asked for – people leaving that movement and to some extent, renouncing (or at least not supporting) its ideology. These folks still view themselves as Conservative…that hasn’t changed. Their percent of the US population hasn’t changed. So yes, if this is what is happening, then the GOP & Tea-Parties and bad behavior is only representative of the more extreme elements that remain and not those Conservatives that either already have or may still continue to flee what they view as a sinking ship, or at least one that no longer represents what they view “Conservatism” to be about.
Thank you. I would add that historically, the left always reforms itself; the right never does.
We had to invade Germany and force them to reform. The Russians reformed themselves. China is trying to figure out how.
Show me one progressive who says anything on the level of Ann Coulter, or Beck, or Limbaugh. Bill Maher, whose father was Jewish, does not engage in character assassination. There is no progressive equivalent of Andrew Breitbart, or Roy Cohn. The strongest I have heard was from Al Franken on Letterman, when he called Limbaugh “a vile demagogue.” And that was the truth, not some rant. Ferguson called Limbaugh “a junkie.” Again, the truth and not an accusation made from whole cloth like Limbaugh’s stock in trade.
I rest my case.
OK everyone: read this
http://gawker.com/5595885/florida-church-to-host-international-burn-a-koran-day-on-911
I agree with your latest post, and I pray you’re correct., because let’s face it: if the reasonable conservatives do not manage to reclaim their legitimate movement from the crazier extremes, it means that the USA has de facto become a one-party country, the generally pro-business oligarchy represented by the moderate Republicans and Blue Dogs Democrats.
This means you no longer have a reasonable political choice in your country and democracy is dead in the US of A.
So IMHO there is A LOT at stake in encouraging reasonable conservatives to become vocal and start marginalizing their (sizable) lunatic fringe.
But i’m not hopeful.
The conservatives will never be a viable alternative until the repudiate the extremes in their party. As long as Boss Limbaugh and others if his ilk control the message, the more moderate of the party like David Frum and Colin Powell are powerless to stop them. And since FOX News is in bed with these folks, the extremist message for the right is the only one we will get a chance to see. So even though one does not like to speak in generalities, unfortunately right now the GOP message is being filtered through FOX and being delivered by the likes of Palin and Huckabee.
For example look at today’s Boss Limbaugh’s comedy hour….
Limbaugh claims “zero mistakes,” gets Lockerbie bomber story completely wrong
Published Mon, Jul 26, 2010 4:00pm ET
By Oliver Willis
Rush Limbaugh didn’t let the fact that the Obama administration didn’t support the release of the Lockerbie bomber get in the way of spending a lot of time explaining his theory for why they did support the release. According to Limbaugh, the administration “backed the release” because they wanted to “make nice with the Muslim world.”
So lets look at that. Even though there is stark evidence to the contrary, the message the GOP led by Limbaugh wants people to think is that somehow because Obama is “Muslim” and the Lockerbie bomber is Muslim he must have approved of the release. And of course the FOX followers will believe that nonsense without doing any research to discover the entire story is a Limbaugh fabrication….Limbaugh is just like Brietbart….except that his followers will support him no matter what….
http://mediamatters.org/limbaughwire/2010/07/26#0046
And just in case we wondered about the FOX news site, see the following article….Again there are probably good and decent people on the right that are Conservatives, but they are always overshadowed by people at FOX….
Racism Runs Rampant On Shirley Sherrod Thread At Fox Nation
Reported by Ellen – July 24, 2010 – Comments (14)
The Shirley Sherrod video may have been completely discredited in the rest of the news but the readers at Fox Nation don’t seem to care much. They’ve used a thread about the “Behind the Scenes,” from the Washington Post, as a launch pad for a spate of vile, racist comments. And the moderators either haven’t noticed or don’t care.
http://www.newshounds.us/2010/07/24/racism_runs_rampant_on_shirley_sherrod_thread_at_fox_nation.php#more
Interesting alert from FOX news on Friday…Not sure if they are serious or not….With FOX you can never tell….
http://www.newshounds.us/2010/07/23/foxnewscom_headline_fail.php#more
An upstanding member of the Obama administration received a promotion today, according to foxnews.com.
Interesting typographical error.
Dr Polland writes that McKinnon (1) “claimed responsibility for making the forgeries” and later (2) admitted that he “had lied about making the forgery”.
Does Dr Polland have URLs to back up either of these claims? I’d love to read his references for those statements… because I’m sure they’re a really interesting fairytale. They’re completely bogus, of course. Utterly fictitious, fanciful and probably defamatory. Ironically, Polland explains the situation well himself:
//He claimed I was a liar and a fraud on the basis of what someone else told him, but passed it off as being his own discovery. A person whose sole motive is to discredit someone else is a person who will lie, cheat, and steal to accomplish it – especially when that someone thinks he is way smarter than I am. Those on the Left who wish I were a fraud have resorted to fabricating images and claiming I made them, to misinterpreting my research, to pulling my words out of context and attaching their own spin on them, to attributing words and deeds to me that were never said or done. (Dr. Polland) has done all of those things and also crossed the line into hate speech, character assassination, and outright fraud.//
@opendna:
For more on Jay McKinnon and opendna, see this 2008 article from the Daily KOS.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/5/15947/95667/125/547039