Submitted By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
The wrath from the right has been scortching ever since VP Joe Biden commented that certain freshman tea party congressmen were acting “like terrorists” in negotiations to raise the debt ceiling. There was equally no love lost when John McClain commented that the tea party freshman were acting as “deceivers” and their ideas were “bizarro.”
Now Tea Party freshman Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) (No, not the one with the Maserati that goes 185) has produced his own video decrying the incivility and telling us that “Vice President Biden, I’m not a terrorist. Terrorists target and kill people.” You can watch the lament here.
While the language employed by the VP was quite over the top, and especially so given Biden’s challenge to introduce more civility into public discourse, our freshman congressman fails to see the irony of his words. No one suggests the Tea Partiers are calling for mass extinction of liberals or undocumented aliens, or gays or the poor. But what do they want?
Here’s Nevada GOP Senate Tea Party candidate Sharon Angle on the frustration of her comrades:
“I hope that’s not where we’re going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”
Some Tea Party candidates are a tad less discrete in their call for violence. Here’s Texas Tea Party candidate Stephen Broden, “Our nation was founded on violence. The option is on the table. I don’t think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms.”
Alaska Tea Party candidate Joe Miller found a lot to like in East Germany’s “checkpoint Charlie” system of stemming the tide of freedom-seekers “immigrating” to West Berlin during the Cold War:
“The first thing that has to be done is secure the border … East Germany was very, very able to reduce the flow. Now, obviously, other things were involved. We have the capacity to, as a great nation, secure the border. If East Germany could, we could.”
And the Tea Party has a thing or two to say to liberals about the notion of any separation between church and state:
“Do you know, where does this phrase ‘separation of church and state’ come from? It was not in Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. … The exact phrase ‘separation of Church and State’ came out of Adolph Hitler’s mouth, that’s where it comes from. So the next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State, ask them why they’re Nazis.” —Glen Urquhart, the Tea Party-backed Republican nominee for the Delaware House seat. You can even watch him here.
And then there’s that “witchy woman,” Delaware’s own Christine O’Donnell, who, when questioned about whether the Constitution calls for separation of church and state during a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School delightfully noted, “You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?” Ahems were heard around the world on that one.
New York Tea Party darling Carl Paladino had this suggestion for the poor:
“Instead of handing out the welfare checks, we’ll teach people how to earn their check. We’ll teach them personal hygiene … the personal things they don’t get when they come from dysfunctional homes. These (prisons) are beautiful properties with basketball courts, bathroom facilities, toilet facilities. Many young people would love to get the hell out of cities. You have to teach them basic things — taking care of themselves, physical fitness. In their dysfunctional environment, they never learned these things.”
Then there’s the First Lady of the Tea Party, Michele Bachmann, sharing all the inside dope on what it really means to be gay (no husband jokes, please):
“If you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement.” — then Minn. state senator Michele Bachmann
There’s scores more and they deal with all manner of insensitivity to the poor, immigrants, the 45000 Americans who die every year from inadequate health care, and just about everyone else the right likes to pillory.
Now most of these quotes were from losers in their electoral races and maybe they represent only the most extreme dunces the Tea Party has produced, but that’s not really the point is it? The point is that while the far-out Right might be justly indignant for the rhetorical excesses of the Left, they can’t seem to find the words to decry the excesses of their own camp.
There’s a word for that.
Source: Huffington Post
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
puzzling,
It’s crap like you write that is not worth my time to answer… For instance, you said:
I can’t recall anyone here saying that they were unconcerned with President Obama’s disturbing similarities to President Bush – just that several of us (including me) feel that, because of our deeply held principles, we need to support President Obama in order to obtain what good we can from a second term of his presidency and to avoid the abomination that would be a Republican presidency in 2010. Your arguments look good until one gets close enough to see the straw men…
Blouise,
Hi!
Great point – it’s hard to argue with empirical evidence.
For the record – I provided absolutely no information which was not obtained from Professor Turley’s server with a request just like anyone else’s and I was the only source of information that we used. I’m certain that I can, if necessary, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I obtained the information by completely legal methods of my own design.
{W(t)=^..^ | t <= now } and Mikey,
I respect you both, but I don't think that productive conversation can survive acts of bad faith – it's a form of asymmetric warfare that I've tired of playing. I'm interested in discussing ideas solely on their merits – and then putting them into practice. Just as you wouldn't perform molecular biology experiments outside the lab, what I'm doing needs to be kept in an isolated environment away from the public. You can both take a look in my greenhouse when I'm ready and decide for yourself if I have a room of fertilizer or exotic orchids – but it will cost your anonymity (at least to me – I wont let you in without knowing a real email address). Call it a gesture of trust.
Byron,
Good to hear from you – I'm busy today, but will send you a reply sometime this weekend.
No Way,
The rational assumption is that Gene H has access to the site – I wouldn't expect Professor Turley to have figured out how to give anyone partial access – which means the information to which you refer was easily available to him and he had been given permission to see it by the professor. So what exactly are you on about? I've known birthers that were more coherent and truthers who had more straightforward reasoning…
The “What Makes a Good Law” thread published by Gene on July 16 has 1,031 comments and growing. Lots of free speech going on there … our guest bloggers are doing just fine.
Roco – you’re right.
I would say that although a few interested in JT’s early blog work came from his early acceptance in libertarian circles, most of his the blog traffic was probably driven by his academic work and appearances on MSNBC. Many in those groups who came to the blog were what many would call far left. To be clear some number of them were principled people, and I respect that.
Back in the earliest days of the blog while Bush was in office there was agreement between a left-inclined group and the more libertarian-minded on the wars, torture, drug policy, a burgeoning police and surveillance state and the rampant corporatism being practiced by the government. There was widespread agreement on social issues like gay marriage too, although methods sometimes differed.
My approach was to emphasize the common policy ground between these two principled groups while introducing other ideas, often in economics or in calling out dangerous behavior by the State (civil rights, warmongering) that the left began to ignore under Obama.
To the credit of some here – Jill comes to mind first – many on the left remained very true to their principles. Many others, however, sought only to continue to play on opposition to Republican politics from the Bush years. This group remains caught up in a false debate, and this effect is now exaggerated by amplifying many of these voices in their role as guest bloggers.
I think it is regrettable that some number from this group have agreed to start banning commenters. While I have not read them all I can understand why some of the comments by kderosa may have been seen as a distraction to the message the guest bloggers were trying to relay. His comments were quick and many quite clever. In comparison to the name calling and venom of exchanges over the years I found kderosa’s comments well within the bounds of what has historically been tolerated here.
I would hope the ban is reversed.
“You did not refer to kderosa as Kenny in order to make him feel younger. You did it to talk down to him. I have seen you do that many times. It’s wrong to do and you know it.”
NoWay,
You still neglected to respond to whether his calling me “Spinwell” was also a diminution and lack of respect.
“You’re conflating what is currently taking place with kderosa and something that took place years ago.
I was merely expressing my reluctance to ban anybody, despite what had happened in the past and I think I expressed that clearly.
“You’re no saint Mike. Your self awareness is no better than that of any others. I think you’re a sharp guy with plenty of valuable wisdom to share, but I don’t hold you in any higher esteem than that of any other intelligent blogger who disagrees with you.”
When have I claimed “sainthood?’ When have I asked you or anyone else to hold me in high esteem? Why would you hold me in high esteem if you disagree strongly with me.
“Any one of us who thinks themselves better than the others is a fool whose own ego has clouded their judgment.”
When have I proclaimed myself better than anyone? You are knocking down straw men.
NoWay,
Actually I had a tabbed browser window open for other purposes (I was working on the story I posted today). WordPress has advanced indexing functions for comments. All it took was telling WordPress to search for “Buddha Is Laughing” and comparing the IP and e-mail address information. If that would have taken more than 3 minutes with the panel already open, then I would have been using the computer improperly or simply incapable of reading. Indexing is something computers do very well. If you smell anything it’s neither manure nor rocket fuel as this isn’t rocket science.
puzzling:
I think most here are far left, so what do you expect. Nothing wrong with that of course but lets at least admit to blogging about left wing talking points.
Although Mike did post that excellent article on the child killed by the car and his mother being thrown in jail.
“The other thing implied, but not explained by this thread is it seems someone posted using the BIL pseudonym and icon that was not BIL.”
Can we at least pretend to be intelligent rational beings?
The only one who would know for certain that it was not BIL who posted that comment would have been BIL. (BIL is allegedly taking a leave of absense. On vacation?) Given that Gene H. responded with such confidence in just 3 minutes, I think that does well to support kderosa’s claim. If Gene H. and BIL are the same person, I would have little doubt that Gene H. would immediately know that it was not BIL who posted the comment.
bdaman pointed it out. To which Gene responded “I have a tabbed browser”.
A tabbed browser looking back at an old BIL posting? BIL couldn’t be posting from another location? Forgive me, but the response wreaks of manure.
Mike,
I do appreciate such a thoughtful response to my concerns. You raise several fair points that I can’t address in this single reply, but let me provide more background on the core disagreement.
In my view the aggregate tone and topic choice of the guest bloggers is a marked departure from the approach JT has taken. It may be JT’s intention to enrich this blog in that way. However, I think the concentration of political content is alienating some of the audience while also eliciting a dialogue that is leaving discussion of law and legal principles behind. That said, a fair number of the guest posts remain on the mark in my view.
I had to go back to May 4th to find a “Tea Party” posting from JT, but the guest bloggers produced many politically-driven topics/headlines that could be lifted right from Think Progress in the same period:
Why the Tea Party is Dangerous
Republican Plan Will End Medicare
The Right’s Nutty Reaction to Obama’s Middle East Speech
The Right’s War on Women Continues…at the State Level
Tea Party: “We Are Not Terrorists!”
Bachmann-Tea Party Overdrive
Sean Hannity, Bill Donohue, & The War on Easter
The New Debt Deal May Cost Up To 1.8 Million Jobs!
Tea Party and the Myth of a Grassroots Movement
What’s Up, Wisconsin?: Is the Koch-Funded Americans …
Rep. Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity (For the Wealthy)
The GOP And Voter Disenfranchisement
Rush Limbaugh Runs Hot and Cold on Weather Indices
Rush Limbaugh and Some Other Heartless Americans Make Light …
There’s No Conserve In Conservative
Does the Anti-Abortion Movement Hate Women’s Sexuality?
Vouchercare – When Truth is Demagoguery
The Palin Chronicles
The Bells Are Ringing: Sarah Palin and the Revised Story of Paul …
Mission Accomplished: Bush Takes In $15M In Speaker’s Fees Despite …
Time to Apologize, Rush
I went over to TP a minute ago. The top headline is
EXPOSED: The Corporations Funding The Annual Meeting Of The Powerful Right-Wing Front Group ALEC
And here it didn’t take long to find the same:
Smart ALEC: The Organization That May Be Helping Corporations Write Legislation for Your State by Elaine M.
I recognize that this blog is not run just to satisfy me. I would submit, however, that the drift in focus away from topics that originally attracted such an intelligent and principled core audience may lessen the standing of the blog as a meaningful (and often fun) place to explore how the law intersects with society.
Mike,
You did not refer to kderosa as Kenny in order to make him feel younger. You did it to talk down to him. I have seen you do that many times. It’s wrong to do and you know it.
You’re conflating what is currently taking place with kderosa and something that took place years ago. Can you tie kderosa to that past event?
I think these are the two threads that will interest both you and Nal:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/13/attorney-orly-taitz-fined-20000-for-frivolous-birther-litigation/
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/17/federal-judge-called-obama-birther-challenge-frivolous-and-warns-orly-taitz-not-to-file-another-such-lawsuit/
In the first one, word search for “GPS”.
In the second, word search for “CriminalSearches.com”
Anyone reading them will see that there are plenty of unfounded accusations to go around. In the first, I can see where “bdaman” used a fake GPS to make you think he knew your location. In the second, “Birther” made an unfounded accusation. I know that bdaman still posts here and it would appear that you tow have learned to get along. I don’t know if “Birther” still posts here. I don’t recall that name, but it could be that he or she still does under a new name.
You’re no saint Mike. Your self awareness is no better than that of any others. I think you’re a sharp guy with plenty of valuable wisdom to share, but I don’t hold you in any higher esteem than that of any other intelligent blogger who disagrees with you. Any one of us who thinks themselves better than the others is a fool whose own ego has clouded their judgment. We have all benefited from our individual life experiences. Just because neither of us can relate to that of the others (having not walked in their shoes) should not make what they share of any less value.
Madonna used this story in one of her childrens books…I think it is appropriate for adults as well;
This old Jewish parable is about a man who went about town slandering his rabbi. One day, realizing that many of the things he had said were unfair, he went to the rabbi’s home and begged for forgiveness. The rabbi told the man that he would forgive him on one condition: that he go home, take a feather pillow from his house, cut it up and scatter the feathers to the wind. After he had done so, he should then return to the rabbi’s house.
Though puzzled by the rabbi’s strange request, the man was happy to be let off with so easy a penance. He quickly cut up the pillow, scattered the feathers, and returned to the rabbi.
“Am I now forgiven?” he asked.
“Just one more thing,” the rabbi said. “Go now and gather up all the feathers.”
“But that’s impossible. The wind has already scattered them.”
“Precisely,” the rabbi answered. “And though you truly wish to correct the evil you have done, it is as impossible to repair the damage done by your words, as it is to recover the feathers.”
This was a poorly organized attempt to get rid of the guest bloggers through disruption and twisted definitions of free speech. It failed … .
“Mike:
While he may have done that, he went beyond and made inferential threats to my family by naming its members.
Please provide a link. That kind of behavior crosses the line and would cause me to rethink my previous disagreement. Thanks.”
Nal,
I don’t have the link and honestly don’t know how to retrieve it since I don’t even remember the thread. AY remembers the incident, so would other of the regulars who posted here. As for my position on KD’s moderation, I am still not certain where I stand and to be honest this thread does not really supply the details and I was watching TV when this all went down. I do know that KD, has served the same role as an “agent provocateur” since his arrival. The question resolves around how do we maintain the integrity and accessibility of this site, while remaining true to our basic principles of fairness and free speech? The other thing implied, but not explained by this thread is it seems someone posted using the BIL pseudonym and icon that was not BIL. In the past this was similar to what was done to Patty C., as
Mespo remembered far above. If that occurred he that should be a cause for banning.
Now I’ll be the first to admit about myself that I have been uncivil at times, my only saving grace being either my unequivocal apology to the person, or
my admission of my incivility. That doesn’t excuse me and I try hard to refrain and have mostly been successful. Usually though, the targets of incivility here have struck first, though in their mind for instance calling someone a “libtard”, collectivist, etc. is merely descriptive. I would beg to differ with that characterization and am constantly bemused how a certain area of political belief has denizens who are so willing to attack viciously, but whine when their fire is returned.
“Their trust in JT, given his position, and his previous posts concerning anonymity, led them to believe that they could post commentary without fear of personal or business retaliation. That initial trust relationship no longer exists.”
NoWay,
You can’t have it both ways, though you certainly can try. You just explained that via Google you you discovered information on various anonymous bloggers, then you conflate this with JT violating anonymity. The information gathered by this website has never been used to violate anyone’s anonymity, nor expose them in any way. As he invited, I simply put in kderosa on Google and got this result top of the page.
Blogger: User Profile: KDeRosa
http://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091 – CachedKDeRosa. Gender: Male; Astrological Sign: Aquarius; Industry: Law; Occupation: Patent Attorney; Location: Swarthmore : PA …
Now what people put into comments on this blog ranges far and wide. Are you suggesting that this blog censor, such information as you have found in your investigation (To what innocent purpose may I ask?), if you chose to post it in a comment? At what point then does the censorship end?
Further, you as a sophisticated internet user know very well that there is no anonymity on the internet, unless you’re a good enough hacker or super-encrypter. I would guess everyone who comments here or anywhere else knows that too.
“If Mike mentioned his wife or family on this blog, does the same line of reasoning not apply?”
The incident that occurred with me perhaps 2 1/2 years ago as AY reckons it came prior to my saying anything about my family at all and was couched as an implicit threat. Since names were named involving my family, in what was my business, but more especially because of the ominous tone, I took exception to it. I didn’t request, to my memory and that was at a point my health was failing, that the person be banned.
I think your demanding of JT on his blog, a guarantee that is impossible for any blog, is perhaps a tad disingenuous, because you know better.
Nal,
If I play internet detective and find information about those who post here, should I post it here? Would you welcome it and support my decision to share it with everyone? Or would you think the fact that someone is posting under an alias is deserving of mutual respect?
To make my point perfectly clear; If I have found information about someone who posts here regularly under the guise of anonymity, and I have successfully “Googled” and tied that information to a real person, should I now post that information here, or should I leave it for others to do their own Googling?
Please answer those questions.
I know people who have posted here in the past. They used their real email address, and did so from a static ip address associated with their business. Their trust in JT, given his position, and his previous posts concerning anonymity, led them to believe that they could post commentary without fear of personal or business retaliation. That initial trust relationship no longer exists. When JT decided to open his books to his guest bloggers, those judges, lawyers, and other professionals were not given the opportunity to have their information redacted.
As I was posting this I came upon your recent comment. Isn’t anything that can be Goggled considered to be public? If someone finds out information about a person and their family via Google, where is the expectation of privacy? I don’t see any. It is only mutual respect that would persuade me to keep it to myself.
I ask that you review this recent article and the reasoning used for inclusing one’s personal life. If Mike mentioned his wife or family on this blog, does the same line of reasoning not apply?
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/08/01/excerpt-from-the-hypocrite-files-tea-party-rep-joe-walsh-of-illinois-debt-ceiling-darling-deadbeat-dad/
Nal,
If I recall it was in the spring of 09….But then again, I might be wrong….
Mike:
Please provide a link. That kind of behavior crosses the line and would cause me to rethink my previous disagreement. Thanks.
thank you Nal!
“Mikey, (I assume that you consider that to be the most respectful way to address you, as demonstrated by your usage of “Kenny”.”
NoWay,
Actually I like being called Mikey, it lets me think I’m younger. I suppose then you think “Spinwell” is also a respectful way to address me, or doesn’t that count?
“Can you show us where kderosa invited you to post what you found on this blog? The answer is no. You took what you found and decided that you would use it. That wasn’t nice and it was vengeful.”
I would say vengeful is an apt characterization of what I did. By inviting us all to get his information he opened himself up to that. Now to differentiate that from what happened to me. The commenter in question accused me of having a criminal record, to which I gave him a Site that shows criminal convictions throughout the country and invited him to check if I had a criminal record. While he may have done that, he went beyond and made inferential threats to my family by naming its members. There were boasts of being quite skilled with the Net and computers. The implication was I can clearly “get you” at any time. Have I ever threatened Kenny with harm in any way, or even wished him harm? If you disagree please provide a link.
“Did kderosa have a reasonable expectation that the unpublished information left at this blog every time he posted a comment would be limited to the eyes of JT? I think so. I think his outrage is justified, not only because of his reasonable expectation that the information would not be published, but that the information would be shared would not be shared with those who had the same expectation.”
The unpublished information he left at this blog was not published. It was Googled by me at his invitation. As I stated before I only write guest blogs and I’m not interested in, nor familiar with, how to find guest information.
“History demonstrates how those expressing opposition have been silenced because their expression of what was taking place was considered to be disruptive.”
I don’t disagree, but it begs the question, because that has never been the case here and here is what we discuss. Have you even been censored here, or threatened with being blocked? Let me put it to you this way:
We know for a fact, because it’s been admitted to, that dirty tricks have been played from Donald Segretti, to Lee Atwater, to Grover Norquist to Karl Rove. That is not to say that this hasn’t been done to as great a degree by Democrats. Part of those dirty tricks have been disinformation and also posing as various people, to discredit others. We have a blog here that has occasionally been attacked by tricksters whose main focus is to disrupt, rather than discuss or debate. It has also been attacked by people assuming other people’s identity. What is a site under such attack to do?
I have no way of knowing whether this is Kenny’s purpose here, or indeed whether this is a job for him? I do know the pattern of his writing here and it has always been to disrupt, rather than to discuss or debate. Beyond that his use of various techniques such as answering questions with questions; The mistake I have made with him and that others have made, is that once he identified his purpose here through his comments, I and we should have merely ignored him. that was done at one point only to see him step up the vitriol of his attacks. A further proof of this is his Buddha website, what is that about?
“Maybe the guest bloggers efforts at censorship will show him how poor a decision he has made”.
Perhaps JT may feel that way. Perhaps you will get your way, which it seems is to ban us from commenting, if that’s the case I can deal with it. However, none of us has done anything to violate the confidentiality of material gathered at this site. Now as far as Gene’s moderation goes, I didn’t get on until this morning. I have no idea what went down last night but I will find out. I do resent your blanket condemnation of all guest bloggers for censorship since it is obvious from the comments on this thread that it wasn’t a participatory thing. Secondly, putting comments in moderation is not banning them, merely waiting for JT’s decision.