I am a fictional construct originally conceived as a pen name for articles in the Los Angeles FREE PRESS at the 2000 Democratic Convention. The plume relating to the nom in question rests in the left hand of Hart Williams, about whom, the less said, the better. Officially "SMEARED" by the Howie Rich Gang . GIT'CHER ZUG SWAG HERE!
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Who The F*** Is Hart Williams?
The title of this entry comes from a blog comment on News Hounds ("We watch FOX so you don't have to.")
who the fuck is hart williams??See? Just when you had forgotten where Kansas even is, Aunty Em is there with some plainspoken Midwestern wisdom. (Toto? I think we're back in Kansas!)
whatisay | 07.10.07 - 3:06 pm | #
Exactly!!! [No offense, Hart.]
But Scammity and Bozo drag this nearly anonymous blogger out and try to compare his influence with that of mAnn Coulter.
If it weren't so sad, it would ALMOST be amusing.
With all my love,
Here is the segment transcript of Thursday night's Faux Nooz™ show, Hannity & Colmes, that relates to this blog.
Video Headline: Targeting Ted?Click HERE to watch the video
Web note: this is an .swf file and not an .flv. IE users can find the .swf file in their cache; Firefox users, find the 30,272K file, copy and rename it with an .swf extension and it will play just fine. Your "Firefox" cache should be located in the path:And here is the transcript of the segment that contains this exchange:
\Local Settings\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\***.default\Cache
COLMES: ... you said, for your own purpose (ph), it makes you feel important that some guy wants to assassinate you. He doesn't want to assassinate you. You don't really believe that, do you?Ted Nugent Targeted for Assassination?
NUGENT: Yes, I do. My family takes it very seriously. They're very concerned about it. And I think just the use of the word assassination. And the hate speech that this guy spews is of great concern.
Friday, July 13, 2007
This is a partial transcript from "Hannity & Colmes," July 12, 2007, that has been edited for clarity.
ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Conservatives are outraged tonight, outraged, I tell you, by the writing of one liberal blogger who appears to be or claims he's endorsing the assassination of both Rush Limbaugh and conservative rocker Ted Nugent.
Hart Williams, a former writer for Larry Flynt's Hustler magazine, wrote the following controversial comments on the liberal Web site the Democratic Daily. He said:
"I've got dibs on Rush, as soon as it's legal and lawful to shoot him. Whoever wants Ted Nugent is welcome to him."
Joining us now to response, the artist behind the new CD, "Love Grenade," rock legend Ted Nugent.
Let me just — first of all, before that he wrote, "When they manage to inevitably push their litany of hate speak and actual bloodletting and full-blown civil war, there is no other place that the hatred of American against American will go." Then, he said, "I've got dibs on Rush when it's legal and lawful. And Ted Nugent is up for grabs. You're welcome to him."
Are you really offended by that?
TED NUGENT, MUSICIAN: Well, Alan, I've been dealing with these new jobs all my life, since the 1960s. The animal rights and the anti- hunters have been threatening to kill my family and kill me.
COLMES: We don't want him to kill you here, Ted.
NUGENT: They've threatened to kill me. We got the files with law enforcement. This guy is obviously a nut case. But he is actually making a statement to assassinate fellow Americans.
COLMES: No, he's not, Ted.
NUGENT: If you really want to fight — if you really want to fight hate, Alan, you'll find these lunatic fringers are all about hate. And all I can say to him is good luck.
COLMES: Actually, Ted, he's not threatening to assassinate you. He's talking about the hate on the right.
NUGENT: So let me get — Alan, what you're talking about...
COLMES: You're ignoring how he set it up, and you're ignoring the hyperbole.
NUGENT: ... make the statement. He used the word assassinate, didn't he?
[NOTE: No. He didn't. The word is not present in either article. The first use of "assassinate" or "assassination" came from Faux Nooz in their July 10 Hannity & Colmes show with Brent Bozell. -- HW]
COLMES: Well, you're taking it totally out of context. He — you can't believe he plans to assassinate you. He said...
NUGENT: Alan, you are such a pushover.
COLMES: No, no, no, no.
NUGENT: You just — you got this denial thing.
COLMES: ... you said, for your own purpose (ph), it makes you feel important that some guy wants to assassinate you. He doesn't want to assassinate you. You don't really believe that, do you?
NUGENT: Yes, I do. My family takes it very seriously. They're very concerned about it. And I think just the use of the word assassination. And the hate speech that this guy spews is of great concern.
COLMES: Well, he didn't say the word assassinate, by the way. That was not the words that he used. And he said that when they've managed to push hatred so far that there's bloodletting in this country.
NUGENT: You can try to rationalize it all you want, Alan. We have our guard up. And we're prepared for these kind of kooks, because we've been dealing with them for a while. Because I'm so happy it really pisses the idiots off.
COLMES: And by the way, you — in your Wall Street Journal speech, about which he speaks, you say "other than the civil-rights movement, the decade of the '60s, which is what spurred on this — this piece by this blogger. You know, you talk about the civil rights movement being the only thing that came out of the '60s.
And you know, you're forgetting about the Great Society. Medicare, Medicaid. The movement to end the Vietnam War. Helping the poor. All of that came out of the '60s. Conveniently ignored.
NUGENT: I didn't forget that stuff. I didn't forget that stuff. A bigger bureaucracy — a bigger and more wasteful bureaucracy, you put that in the asset column of America, Alan.
COLMES: Yes. Absolutely.
SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: Ted, good to see you, my friend. Welcome back.
NUGENT: Greetings, Sean. Happy summertime '07.
That's it. I report. You decide.
HANNITY: Happy summertime '07.
Let's go back to the words here so we can — we can help Alan out. "I've got dibs on Rush, as soon as it's legal and lawful to shoot him. Whoever wants Ted Nugent is welcome to him."
Now, that's a threat. That's a threat against you and your family. And it's pretty — it's a pretty sick mindset.
But Ted, I've got to tell you something. I've been through this. Every outspoken conservative I know gets the same type of hate speech and the same type of threats on a fairly regular basis. I'm sure this is — you know, happen to you a number of times.
NUGENT: I wrote a piece for the Waco Tribune recently that was run around a little bit on the web sites. And I was identified as a — as a conservative.
I don't want to force anybody to have a gun. But they want to force me to disarm. I don't want to force anybody to go hunting, but they want to ban my hunting. I don't want to force anybody to eat meat, but they want to ban meat.
These are lunatic fringers, Sean, that really are dangerous. And I had to actually apprehend and take into custody an animal rights person in San Francisco a few years ago who threatened to kill my family to my face.
Now, that was not a veiled threat. I knew the context. I saw the hate in his eyes. I literally had to put him in the hands of the San Francisco Police Department. That threat was real. And we take it seriously.
HANNITY: I take it seriously, too. And I've had people that, you know, based on specific threats, that have been arrested because of what they have said and the specific threats that they have made over the years.
NUGENT: They're loony.
HANNITY: The only thing — the only thing in your case, you're the last person they should threaten. You're too good a shot. And you could do more with a bow and arrow, probably.
But you've got your family to worry about. I mean, that's where this gets — why can't they just disagree with us and fight in the arena of ideas?
NUGENT: The arena of ideas, I like that. That's where we like to have our dialogue.
You know, I'm an American. I love all Americans. And I would help any American pursue their dreams and their pursuit of happiness.
But you find that the left, there's a lunatic fringe on the left that literally are trying to force us to comply to their outline of life. And I find it just reprehensible that they would recommend violence, not to mention murder and shooting people and assassinating people. This is bizarre.
HANNITY: All right, last question. Should they all be arrested? And do you take it seriously enough that you will press charges in every case?
NUGENT: Yes to both points. I think they should be arrested when someone references the word "shoot" Rush Limbaugh and someone else...
COLMES: When Ann Coulter says about Lincoln Chafee versus Abe Lincoln, they shot the wrong Lincoln, should she be arrested?
NUGENT: ... in reference to a particular person. Talk about taking it out of context, Alan. You're the one taking it out of context.
Watch "Hannity & Colmes" weeknights at 9 p.m. ET!
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Just To Clarify
What I wrote, about Limbaugh and "the Nuge," in full context, was a "Hell Freezes Over" argument.
As in, "I believe that Faux Nooz™ will treat me fairly when Hell Freezes Over."
My side isn't the one trying to install the refrigeration units, Hannity.
That's my official answer.
[*This tag began in memorium -- for what was done to Dan Rather.]
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
The Persecution and Assassination of Ted Nugent*
I did Alan Colmes an extreme disservice yesterday. I was wrong, and, since misery loves company, you may want to stop reading here. The lens of the confessional might inadvertently point backwards, so, fair warning.
A long time ago, in fact, I can still remember it precisely and exactly, I met a famous writer. This normally would have been a coincidence, except that it was my intention to meet a famous writer, and I had attended a science fiction convention to meet that writer, except that the writer I met wasn't the writer I was looking for.
I can tell you exactly what he told me, and exactly when. "Get inside your characters' skins. Look at the world through their eyes. There is an old [? American Indian tribe] saying that 'you never truly know a man until you've walked a mile in his moccassins.'"
I didn't walk a mile in Colmes' moccassins, I realized yesterday, as I rather self-centeredly drowned in a sea of hatemail, and bemoaned what I thought was small defense by the left. Indeed, I petulantly and self-importantly stated: "
And my comrades "on the left" will probably offer me the same support and solidarity that Alan Colmes did. Alas, he IS, in too many ways, a typical modern liberal. Me, on the other hand? I say that now’s the time to shout these bastards down. They’ve had 21 years without being challenged. Right Rush?
I still believe that last part. But it struck me: How had I offered Alan Colmes any support? And, to be fair, most good debaters would instantly distance themselves from my purposely inflammatory rhetoric. (Worked, you might note.) We are, after all, talking about NOT going down the let's all shoot somebody! road. No matter how glorious shooting the "enemy" may seem going in -- ask the troops -- it isn't so glorious coming back out.
Thank goodness I hadn't called anybody "little Eichmanns," like that awful Ward Churchill fellow did -- whom I also haven't given much support to, despite my highfalutin' words on the subject yesterday, quoting my "Unreasonable Men" book column 14 years ago:
"No room is left for moderation. And, in a nation in which public policy is, increasingly, determined by talk-radio debate, the lack of courtesy, the absence of reason and reasonableness, and the monkey-throwing-feces brand of humor is a dangerous indicator of the future. Although we should fight to the death for these gentlemen’s right to speak so hideously, we should also be able to reasonably disagree--reasonably and intelligibly."
We have moved into governance by swift=boating. And, as each of us is, in turn, swift-boated in that old Scientology technique of "dead agenting," we fail to band together.
What Benjamin Franklin said either 231 years ago, of just in the movie of the musical, "If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately.
[Speaking of which, the first political cartoon was another Franklin creation "Join or Die" with the 13 colonies being 13 pieces of a snake. Speaking of which, the great political cartoonist Doug Marlette, who also drew the daily cartoon strip "Kudzu," passed away. He had the bad luck to die on the same day as Lady Bird Johnson, but he deserves special mention for his many years of nonpartisan wit. Franklin would no doubt have been proud of him.]
Not hanging together is exactly what I did by not backing up Alan Colmes. On "Hannity & Colmes" yesterday, Colmes simply put the (mis)quote in context. By adding that context, any reasonable person could see in a heartbeat that I was not advocating, in the words of one blog's headline yesterday: "Liberal Trash Writer Threatens Assassination and Civil War."
That was enough. Look: Colmes has to sit among the alpha-bits in the maelstrom of Faux Nooz's crazy soup every goddamned day. Without backup. Without cover. And he gets ALL the rightie hate mail, and a lot of leftie hate mail, too.
Who the hell was I to think that my little annoyance with that toxic brew that they spew through their smokestacks each and every day, 24/7 on the radio, and on TeeVee, and in print was any kind of discomfort compared to what Colmes endures on a constant basis?
But he stands there, Horatius at the bridge, so that at least ONE 'liberal' voice gets our talking points out there. Alas, we're not unified enough to HAVE talking points, so he does the best he can.
When I went into the Democratic party as a meeting-attending member in 1996, it was because I felt that we had to "Fight the Right" in the words of a mailing I received at the time. When I officially resigned my precinct committeeman's (elective) position the day after the 2004 election, it was to return to writing (I had given up many kinds of writing while I was a partisan, as a matter of professional integrity).
But I had to explain it a lot, and the short answer I gave was that it was to return to fighting Republicans. For the time I was in the party, all we did was fight Democrats! Never did the PARTY address the GOP. If I'd have wanted to fight Democrats, I'd have been a Republican precinct committeeman.
At least there, I would have been praised for it.
Now, we stupidly turn up our liberal noses at Larry Flynt and HUSTLER*, because, even though we agree with what they're doing to the "moral" hypocrites who stole a year of OUR government's time to prosecute a blowjob, we can't offer Flynt any support. Which is precisely the rightie tactic for shutting him up and shutting him down: divide and conquer. Since the people have the votes, those who would control them have to continually "divide and conquer" with tactics designed to keep us from backing one another.
[*The Senator from Louisiana with the hooker problem and the hyperventilating "FAMILY VALUES!" platform, in the news today.]
People who don't give a DAMN about pollution OR global warming criticize Al Gore for his electric bill, and rock musicians at Live Earth for anything MORE than arriving at the concert on roller skates, their equipment strapped to their backs. (And, even then, they'd note that the musicians were breathing hard, therefore MAKING MORE CARBON DIOXIDE!! etc.)
During the Clinton impeachment, Republicans who held women in CONTEMPT, tried to convince feminists that Clinton had 'abused' Lewinsky, and they should want him impeached for reasons THEY UTTERLY DESPISED. That one didn't fly any higher than a lead balloon.
Or, they accused me, last summer, of being a pornographer, as I was writing about a multistate petition-gathering scam (nothing remotely sexy about it). Our local-yokel right-wing mouthpiece provocated thusly:
Oh, on a slightly different note. Is there no comment about [Hart Williams'] involvement in pornography? I mean isn't that the exploitation of women? Especially women who drop out of high school? Oh I understand that women of legal age have the right to engage in such exploits. Hey it happens and there is a market for it.
However, call me uninformed, I have always had this picture of the stereotypical porn director/producer as being a pretty self-centered male who really has no personal concern for the women (girls?) he hires.
So, when everybody sniffs (like TIME) about Flynt, as though he were a leper, it has a resonance for me: because I'm not giving Flynt any cover, either. (Not, perhaps, that he wants it. He's used to going it alone.)
If we want to stop this small group of out of control mutant three-year-olds (the 3-year-old motto shared by the current 'leadership' and the Limbaugher Cheesers of the Right: "Mine! Mine! Mine!"), THEN WE HAVE GOT TO BACK ONE ANOTHER UP.
We've got to see beyond our three year old selves, and consider who is on our 'side.' If you're 'agin George Bush, you are NOT a member of Al Qaeda -- although many members of the latter are clearly in that camp, BUT I believe their leadership is wildly enthusiastic about Dubya, based on their stated goals and his demonstrated results.
So accept my sincere apologies, Mr. Colmes. I understand what you are doing, as we've discussed privately. You backed me up a lot more than I've backed you. That's going to change. And to you, who find all of us distasteful: me, Larry Flynt, and Alan Colmes, well, consider whether you find Sean Hannity's form of character assassination LESS distasteful. And remember that we're all in this together. Sink or swim. Now, let's dismantle this culture of personal destruction, of linguistic petulance (P.C.) and run the country that we ALL have, seemingly, run into the ground with our intramural squabbling.
Ask not for whom the right wing smear merchant is coming, chilluns. He is coming for THEE. Now, I HAVE been backed up beautifully, and to Voice of Reason, whoever you are, you get the last word (from the aforementioned "Civil War" post):
Voice of Reason:
You are really confused, dude. Mr. Williams was expressing his concern about people like Rush and Ted Nugent fomenting hatred that would inevitably result in civil war, not threatening civil war himself. Learn to read, and maybe a good place to start would be reading some of Ann Coulter's hateful writing and public appearances where she many times has said liberals should be killed. Why don't you compare her to the Muslim extremists? Is it because she is a Republican so it doesn't matter what she says? Instead of ratcheting up the hate here why don't you use this as an opportunity to tell everyone to cool off and start getting along, not just the Democrats.
NOTE: I am being deluged with 2000+ emails a day, so there is no point in my giving out my email address. People can contact me via comments sections. To those who have it: The 'unlisted' address works fine.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
UPDATE: 1:50 PM PDT
PREEMPTIVE KARMA: Dancing With The Devil
MEDIA MATTERS: Despite past discussion on his show, Hannity claimed he had “never heard” Coulter call for Clinton assassination
The MM link is their front page, so it may move.
NEWS HOUNDS: Hannity And Bozell Paint Ann Coulter As Liberal Media Victim
Doctor Torquemada, I Presume?
Hannity™: Hart Williams is a liberal blogger who went from porn to politics, and is now threatening some of our good friends because he doesn't like what Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent have said about him and his quote friends and peers, Williams said unquote.
[CUT TO GRAPHIC]: (sic, since we're 'unquote') "Now I've got dibs on
Rush, as soon as it's legal and lawful to shoot him. Whoever wants Ted Nugent is welcome to him, but I would prefer that you would call it now ...
[Next screen]Just so's you can see the context, here's MY full quote (the dénouement of the 5th of July column, part 2 of 2 from the 4th of July column):
so as to conserve on ammunition. We will need to manage it prudently."
I will only reiterate what I've said before: WHEN they manage to inevitably push their litany of hatespeak into actual bloodletting, and full-blown civil war (for there is no other place that this hatred of American against American can go), well ...
I've got dibs on Rush, as soon as it's legal and lawful to shoot him.
Whoever wants Ted Nugent is welcome to him, but I would prefer that you would call it now, so as to conserve on ammunition. We will need to manage it prudently.
But when the day comes that they have finally set brother against brother, and sister against sister in the name of their pocketbooks, I won't approach exterminating them with anything approaching remorse. They've already told me what they think of me, of my friends and of my peers.
Now, I'm returning the favor.
Put that in your pipe and have the WSJ editorial staff show you how to smoke it, Nugent.
Courage.Gee, cherrypicking from Fair and Balanced™ Faux Nooz™? Who'd a thunk?
But, without bothering to answer the charges Bozell and Hannity (Should he be arrested? Should he be investigated? Should he be silenced?), it strikes me that people need to understand that I've been utterly consistent in my j'accuse! of Rush's reflexive hatred and its consequences for ten years. A position that's now being satanically spun BACK at me: that I'm the hatespeaking, I'm the hatemeister, I'm the hatecriminal. Suddenly I feel I'm trapped in a bad Hollywood movie. Or a Kafka short story. ("In the Penal Colony"?)
So, here's the links to Bozell's Media Busters ("Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias") who enthusiastically chronicled their boss' spray-on tan. Below it is what I wrote about Rush and someone equally far to the "left" and the consequences of the rhetoric of hate that was then (January 9, 1994) taking over our political stage, seemingly for good. Witness Hannity's KNOWING smear.
And thanks to Alan Colmes who read (albeit haltingly) the portion of the quote that Hannity suppressed (3:36 of the Newsbusters video: "heyuh Brent, I wanna go back to what this uh ... what this blogger said ...)
WHEN they manage to inevitably push their litany of hatespeak into actual bloodletting, and full-blown civil war (for there is no other place that this hatred of American against American can go), well ...
Of course, Colmes, literally reflexively added "I don't support that; I don't agree with what he said ..." which makes media sense (everything is distorted and turned into bat guano by the sound bite nature of TV and radio, ESPECIALLY writing and long thoughts), but is just an additional kind of smear. If you read the pieces in question, you know what I said. They need no further defense from me. They can defend themselves just fine, thank you.
Seemingly, the REASON for all of this was to "counterbalance" me against Ann Coulter and her vile spewings (The classic: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.") I found myself conflated weirdly with Katie Couric slapping a subordinate, and other weird stuff having nothing to do with why I am, in the words of their kreepy Faux Nooz™ Box headline:
BLOGGER WANTS TO SHOOT RUSH
ALSO CALLS FOR TED NUGENT'S ASSASSINATION
Now I begin to feel like a character in an Orwell novel.
Well, here's what I thought in 1993, (published on Jan 9. 1994) and here's the links to News Busters' media of the show in question. Seanny clearly can't read. But the question is, because he's an idiot or because he's willfully and diabolically lying to give Ann Coulter cover, smear liberals, and, as usual, make Alan Colmes look like the squirrely "liberal" that, well, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes purchased his soul to get. (Colmes' radio show is syndicated by SURPRISE! Fox News Radio.)
Note: This piece originally appeared Sunday, January 9, 1994 in the Eugene (Ore.) Register-Guard. John Stoltenberg was the late Andrea Dworkin's roommate.
© 1993 Hart Williams
See, I Told You So, by Rush Limbaugh.
Pocket Books. 364 pp., $24.
The End of Manhood, by John Stoltenberg.
Dutton. 311 pp., $21.
While reasonable men may disagree reasonably, unreasonable men may, evidently, only manage to be disagreeable. Neither Limbaugh nor Stoltenberg would be pleased to see his tome laid beside the other's, but the similarities of approach are far greater than the polarities of viewpoint presented.
Stoltenberg is a "radical profeminist" whose book comes with words of praise from Gloria Steinem, Naomi Wolf and the editor-in-chief of Ms. Magazine. Stoltenberg promises--self-reviewing himself in the prologue-- "Structured like a sequenced meditation, 'The End of Manhood' [sic] comprises diverse voices (from erudite to earthy) and types of text (by turns antic and analytic), but always practical, here and now. I had fun writing it, and I decided to let the fun show."
Be that as it may, Stoltenberg's writing is disjointed and tenuously connected, as he constructs fallacious proofs that being a "man" is incompatible with being a human being, or, as he puts it a "Man of Conscience." Obsessed with rebutting the "men's movement," Stoltenberg fashions logical bear traps that "prove" "manhood" to be incompatible with humanity. Elsewhere, he has "fun" with such eloquent "satire" as": "Ten Ways You Can Fake It If You Fear Your Manhood Act Is Shaky".
The sorrow and the pity is that, in preaching to the converted, Stoltenberg carefully defines the "enemy," ascribes hateful qualities to him, and, by turns, moves to the eventual conclusion that ANYONE who disagrees with him is the stereotype he's generated. The term for what's being done has yet to be invented, but it is precisely "racism." He's' just moved the defining characteristics from melanin content to gender and political outlook. This, Stoltenberg implies, makes him a martyr, like all women everywhere at all times.
Rush Limbaugh does exactly the same thing. His enemy, however, is not "manhood," but "liberals." Limbaugh does have the advantage on Stoltenberg of occasionally making sense, and he's somewhat funnier. But, like Stoltenberg, he reserves his humor as a weapon to be used against his enemies, the evil "liberals." To classify either gentleman's humor as "satire" would do a disservice to the word. "See, I Told You So," comes with words of praise from William F. Buckley, Jr., Fortune Magazine, and Malcolm Forbes, Jr. in Forbes magazine.
Self-reviewing HIS book in his introduction--is this a trend?--Limbaugh crows: "prepare your mind to be challenged as it has never been challenged before. Don't be surprised if your brain is stimulated to the point that genuine human thought takes place. This is normal for nonliberals. You are making progress."
This reviewer's mind was not vaguely challenged, except, perhaps, by Limbaugh's continual self- congratulatory assertions of protean intellect. It is tempting to go further, but that is not the point.
"See, I Told You So," is a book that reads like Limbaugh's radio show. The use of language is close enough to the show, in fact, that it is likely it was dictated, transcribed and edited. A series of chapters on various themes--"Punishing Achievement," "Algore: The Technology Czar" (sic), "The Case For Less Government" -the book relies on a tried and true method of logical subversion that has become commonplace in public debate: begin by finding the most outrageous positions of the opposition, use fact and reason to rebut, break at any point for tirades, claim that you are being "common sense" and logical, and then ask weighted rhetorical questions that lead to inescapable conclusions, such as "With such a great start (founding America), why did we allow liberalism, moral relativism and secular humanism to poison our nation's soul?"
Limbaugh alternates between telling the reader how smart he is and how humble he is; between how God, mom and apple pie works great, and how "Modern-day liberalism is like a disease or an addiction that literally has the power to destroy the character of the person who falls under its spell."
This the frightening banner under which BOTH authors wage their battles. Both characterize themselves as victims of a homogenous opposition. Both use the appearance of logic to make emotional and self-serving points. Both create semantic monsters--Stoltenberg's "manhood," Limbaugh's "liberals"--that they invoke at every opportunity, for any purpose. If you don't precisely agree with either, you're a monster. If they have been oppressed, it was by monsters. If either is unable to make his point, he launches into scathing mud-slinging (which both call "humor") about their monsters.
And this is the true monstrousness of these books: Both may have valid positions. But that is not important to them. What IS important is to pursue the opposition with witch hunt tactics; to smear and revile all who disagree; and to imply that their radical positions are the only positions that may be taken.
No room is left for moderation. And, in a nation in which public policy is, increasingly, determined by talk-radio debate, the lack of courtesy, the absence of reason and reasonableness, and the monkey-throwing-feces brand of humor is a dangerous indicator of the future. Although we should fight to the death for these gentlemen's right to speak so hideously, we should also be able to reasonably disagree--reasonably and intelligibly.
-- Sunday, January 9, 1994
Here's the NewsBusters writeup on their boss' smearing of l'il ol' me:
MRC/NB's Bozell on Hannity & Colmes Re Blogger Advocating Killing Rush*; Couric's Slap[*GEE! Isn't there some BIAS in that little distortion?]
Posted by Brent Baker on July 9, 2007 - 21:58.
Brent Bozell, President of the Media Research Center which publishes NewsBusters, appeared Monday night on the Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes. Topics: The liberal blogger who wants Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent killed*, a posting reported by WorldNetDaily; and the New York magazine profile of CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric which reported that, frustrated with her low ratings, she had "slapped" a colleague: "Couric got angry with news editor Jerry Cipriano for using a word she detested -- 'sputum' -- and the staff grew tense when she began slapping him 'over and over and over again' on the arm..." On the blogger, Bozell pointed out how the media and liberals pounced on Ann Coulter, distorting her comment about John Edwards into how she advocated assassinating him when she said no such thing. NB's Coulter items. MRC CyberAlert on NBC's distortion. MRC's June 28 press release.
Video clip (5:25): Real (4.1 MB) or Windows Media (3.4 MB), plus MP3 audio (1.9 MB).So, who's now physically endangered by all of this?
The irresponsibility of Rupert Murdoch's tabloid news style (see "sex teacher shockers!" on The Hannity™ & Colmes website. which perhaps explains why they soft-pedaled the 'porn' aspect of the story) now endangers my family.
I never "advocated killing Rush." But some wingnut with a gun who watches Faux Nooz™ will never know that. (Which is, perhaps, what Joseph Farah intended, his little feelings being hurt and all when he ego-googled himself and found my Ted Nugent articles. To this day, I wonder WHO wrote the no byline WorldNetDaily piece that started this auto-da-fé.)
And my comrades "on the left" will probably offer me the same support and solidarity that Alan Colmes did. Alas, he IS, in too many ways, a typical modern liberal. Me, on the other hand? I say that now's the time to shout these bastards down. They've had 21 years without being challenged. Right Rush?
I say it's time for this bullshit to stop.
Fuck you, Hannity. And I mean that without physical threat of any sort, because I know that you'll cry yourself to sleep and wet the bed if I don't assure you that you're safe.
But now I go to sleep tortured by the Kreepy Kwisling Kwestion: AM I the 'Ann Coulter' of the Left?
Naw. My adam's apple isn't big enough.
Monday, July 9, 2007
UPDATE: On The Bunching of Panties
UPDATE: 5:01 PM PDT
Memeorandum has it as a hot item:
Democrat blogger wants to shoot Rush Limbaugh — Also calls for volunteer to assassinate Ted Nugent — A Democratic Party blogger says he wants to shoot Rush Limbaugh and is calling for volunteers to assassinate rock star Ted Nugent, who champions the Second Amendment.
Link Search: Google, Ask, Technorati, Sphere, and IceRocket
Discussion: The Jawa Report, Liberal Values, The Democratic Daily and Preemptive Karma
Howie / The Jawa Report: Liberal Blogger/Porn Editor Wants Uncle Ted Dead
Ron Chusid / Liberal Values: World Net Daily Attacks The Democratic Daily Over Violence and Porn-What Irony
Hart Williams / The Democratic Daily: The RightWing Smear Machine’s Panties In A Bunch
Becky / Preemptive Karma*: Stop the Presses! Hart Wants to Shoot Rush!
[*SPECIAL THANKS to Becky and the crew at PK, who have been steadfast supporters for a long time now. The post was their idea entirely, BTW.]
There are many more under the radar, including the ongoing auto-da-fé at FreeRepublic dot dum*. Alas, of the 108 posts (so far) mostly cribbed from All Star Wrestling verbal sparring, there is a singular paucity of wit, thought, and imagination. Geez: If you’re gonna “slam” me, at least show some wit. To paraphrase somebody, “wrapping yourself in the jockstrap is the last refuge of the cretin.” (Who knew you could post to the internet using crayons?)
[*Responded to some of their crap, and even registered to do so, but they’re kind of gutless when it comes to disagreement. Sorta like Rush. I remove trolls here, but only after they’ve well and truly earned the distinction.]
This blogger is certainly gratified that he could lure both the drooling wingnuts AND the barking moonbats out of the septic tank. Thus far, here is the Clueless Slam of the Day:
July 9th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
They’re not hypocrits(sic) or inconsistent at Democratic Daily when they attack you. The explanation is clear. They are anti-semites. This fully explains why they attack you but embrace others who really do advocate violence and perhaps porn. I haven’t seen Hustler to know if it qualifies as porn but there is no question that it is closer to porn than anything you have ever posted. The real question is Why does Hart write of shootings and hangings. I’d expect him to be making Voodoo dolls.
There is some actual thinking in the post (crazy, but not cliché, at least) and MOST of the words are spelled correctly. I don’t RECALL attacking Jews, but perhaps my memory is faulty. It’s been a frenetic day of being the poster boy for satanic”libural” values, after all.
Honorable Mention goes to this post on my website:
Ed, you represent the worst of political discourse today. How is it that “liberals” can’t see themselves? Such a lot of hate and venom. But it’s all the other guy’s fault, I guess.
While the sentiment expressed is similar to 108 (at least) other posts, ALL of the words are spelled correctly. The most popular rhetorical device is to either:
a) challenge me to some sort of imaginary macho forest duel, or
b) vicariously pant about how “The Nuge” would “kick my ass” in various imaginary forest duels.
“Manliness” and “manly virtues” have seldom been at such a low ebb.
WND Defends Chuck Norris and Ted Nugent From Me, In Case They Cry
No, not you, Gentle Readers. It seems that my second commentary on Ted Nugent's lovely slur of an entire generation offended the delicate sensibilities of Joseph Farah over at World Nut Daily, and they felt compelled to respond:
Dem blogger wants to shoot Rush Limbaugh
Also calls for volunteer to assassinate Ted Nugent
Posted: July 8, 2007
9:51 p.m. Eastern
A Democratic Party blogger says he wants to shoot Rush Limbaugh and is calling for volunteers to assassinate rock star Ted Nugent, who champions the Second Amendment
Hart Williams, a former writer for porn magazine Hustler and who now toils for the Democratic Daily, was waxing incoherent about a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by Nugent, complaining that it was likely ghost-written...
Hopefully, we didn't make them cry. (Not that couth or politesse could ever be construed as WND's hallmark.)
And we made Little Green Nutballs, too!
We've pulled off the BIFECTA! Or, if you prefer, the mathematically challenged's version of the Hat Trick.
Sure as hell glad they didn't notice my comment that Bush should be hung on the Washington Mall at high noon ... here and here:
‘Pragmatism’ can be a form of obfuscation, too. While one should not be principled to a fault, neither should one default on all one’s principles. Values DO matter, the GOP misuse of the term notwithstanding.
I’m very pragmatic about wanting to see Bush hung by the neck until dead — as we hung the defendants at Nuremberg, for many of the same crimes — at high noon on the Washington Mall.
Sure hope that they can handle it.
Of course, having attempted dialogue with Righties for a couple of decades now, and noting that they're not INTERESTED in dialogue or "playing nice," it doesn't really matter if it makes them cry.
They'll just have to buy hankies. (Or use their sleeves.)
UPDATE: 4:01 AM PDT:
The TRIFECTA! I been FREEEPED! Talk about your "witty" analyses! Woo!
Sunday, July 8, 2007
What I WANTED to write about was a little thing called "mercury stationary," which is what's happening right now.
Mercury has been retrograde, which means, literally, from Earth's perspective, Mercury was moving "backwards" in the sky. Easy to explain when you know you live in a heliocentric solar system (redundant, I know, but it works), circling a black hole at the center of our galaxy in the local group, which seems, like everything else, to be speeding spherically away from some long-ago central event ( possibly a "Big Bang" lasting considerably less than Seven Daze, and longer ago than 6,000 years.)
Now, I find astrology interesting because I understand how it works.
Most astrologers don't. Worse, most of their critics have an even worse understanding, so I will help you over the roadblock.
In one word, 'causality.'
The question is, "How can the stars make me do things?" (That's crazy) or, crazier still, "How does what I do move the stars?" (Equally crazy, but for some reason no one ever argues with this proposition, other than snorting and making faces.)
The point of all the 'mantic' arts is contained in that old magical dictum: As above, so below.
In other words, things behave according to the same principles at all levels. It's an old formulation, and not a very precise one, but you immediately can perceive that it DOESN'T revolve around what CAUSES what. That's called a "non-causal" relationship.
I prefer: "The Universe is holographic."
In a hologram, all parts are contained in the whole, and vice versa. Cut up a big hologram and you don't get pieces. You get smaller, complete holograms. In kabbalism this concept was partially contained in "Adam Kadmon," and in Christianity, the "Corpus Christi" the idea that in a more than metaphorical sense, in some real sense, the individual members of the church formed, as a gestalt, the collective forming the "body of Christ" which is what "Corpus Christi" means, when it's not busy being a town in Texas, about a hundred miles due East of Laredo.
In other words, the Universe is a reflection of whatever it is that I am, and I am a reflection of it, whatever it is that It is.
That's somewhere East of science but definitely West of religion.
Beyond that, it is the first science, an empirical science, and if, like Ptolemy's epicycles, gives the best predictive results, it's worth a look.
Now, astrologically, a retrograde Mercury is a bad time for communications, business deals, treaties, etcetera. It seems to screw up the 'communicative' function, and misunderstandings, systems crashes, and dumb pronouncements like "the Vice President isn't a part of the Executive Branch" are the norm.
This is based on observation, and, yes, subjective observation (Subjectivity is a topic best left for another time).
But, many swear by the prudence of being very careful about doing computer maintenance (all my major systems crashes have happened during Mercury retrogrades), engaging in delicate negotiations (the current Teamsters' strike here in town happened during this retrograde, that started on June 15th); comedians' timing is particularly affected by these retrogrades, and debates seem to misfire, can't quite gel, get to the point, etc. etc. etc.
You'll have to observe it or not. I can't read for you, and I can't determine whether you might find it a useful survival tool, or Quality of life-enhancement tool.
There is nothing illogical or irrational about noticing that there is an 'invisible' weather, and paying attention until you notice that there are some days when EVERYBODY is happy, and others when everybody is having "one of those days," and that would indicate that your subjective emotional state isn't ENTIRELY your own, private, discrete universe. You ain't an island.
So, if astrology is the Astral Weather Report, and it works as often as the "real" Weather Forecast, then it's at least as useful. Que sera sera.
But I wanted you to understand all of that because today, as Mercury concludes its retrograde (it actually moves forward Monday, July 9th, beginning at 10:15 pm EDT — 7:15 pm PDT) it appears to "stand still" in the sky. That's because our orbit has exactly synchronized with its orbit, and even though both planets are moving, we seem to be motionless with regard to each other.
It isn't "scientific" of course, ellipses, Kepler's law, etc. but it is our perceived reality, which is, after all, what reality actually is (sorry philosophy majors).
Here's a date that you might remember, election day, 2000, Mercury was stationary after a retrograde that had begun about three weeks earlier. You might remember the bizarre confusion that reigned on that day, and in the weeks that followed. All under the signature of that Mercury retrograde.
All right. If today feels kind of befuddled like that election day of 2000, that's a possible reason. But then, if you weren't watching, you probably wouldn't have noticed.
OK. Take it as merely a working hypothesis to observe. Here's some Mercury Retrograde fun facts for the next month or so:
The retrograde ends on Monday the 9th
Began June 15, 2007
- 7:40 pm EDT
- 3:40 pm PDT
Ends July 9, 2007
- 10:15 pm EDT
- 7:15 pm PDT
There’s a nice “map” here.
Bush’s commutation of Libby took place at
Sun: 10 degrees Cancer.
Mercury: 5 degrees Cancer
Mercury will move back over those positions on
Mercury: Tuesday or Wednesday July 17 or 18
Sun: Monday, July 23.
Oh, and the “toxic” Mercury will go back over Bush’s natal Sun on Thursday or Friday, July 26th or 27th. That should be the one most affecting Bush, if this new agey garbledygook is to be given the credence of, say, Politico dot com’s predictions of an Edwards suspending his campaign.
And, finally, Mercury will catch UP with the Sun on August 16th. That ought to be an interesting day.
Now, if there is anything to all this, it ought to be interesting to see what happens. Certainly more ennobling, say, than listening to the speculative ravings of a Wolf Blitzer, a Tucker Carlson or a Chris Matthews.
Do you ever wonder what would happen if Mercury actually WAS a god or demigodlike entity, and got mad at FTD ( for turning him into a flower-delivering freak)?Thought not. Neither do I.
OK: actually, I do.
UPDATE:, 2:48PM PDT: Added lots of really fun links. In the middle, Firefox crashed, taking all the links with it -- an object lesson in Mercury retrograde, one supposes, but one isn't going to go through all that again. Que sera sera (the one link of dozens that I WILL resurrect).