Challenged to Civility, Part 2

In one of the very, very few posts that have appeared on this blog this year, I happened to mention that I had stopped paying much, if any, attention to Ann Coulter for her use of a pejorative term that I would prefer for people not to use.  Now, thanks to Bill Maher (to whom I pay little attention, though others seem to give him as much ego stroking as he desires), that word is being discussed yet again, thanks to Mr. Maher's reported use of it to describe Trig Palin.

Yes, Trig Palin, the five-year-old son of Sarah Palin. 

And then to see some of the women of "The View" trying to justify it...well, all I can do is shake my head and get further burned out on the political process.  When someone says it's okay to insult a child just because of who his mother happens to be, that person is not a helpful component of any political discussion.  Ever.  (It's amazing that "The View" never had an hour-long celebration of that purveyor of eloquence, Jack Stuef.)

Thankfully, others have responded in a much better manner.  Take, for example, this video:



I don't recognize who this is in the video, but what he says is well put, and simply put.

Just for the record, this is not in any way an attempt or a desire for anyone's speech to be regulated.  You have every right to use that word, just as I have every right to discount your opinion for thinking that word is acceptable.

And one last thing:  Adrienne Ross, an online friend who writes a blog called MotivationTruth, wrote recently on her Facebook page:

And I would say, as I've said many times, putting "tard" after "Lib' is also not acceptable, conservatives.

Very true.  It's not helping.

I'm sure I've said something like this before, but here goes:  yes, we can debate on the ideas.  Yes, I'm sure I don't agree with some of yours, and I'm sure you don't agree with some of mine.  But if we cannot have political discussions without throwing around words like "retard" (may this be the last time I ever write it on this blog), then we've lost a lot more than an argument.

Bristol gets it: calling out hatred is not a one-way street

Bristol Palin, in only the third entry in her new blog, nails it in calling out President Obama for his selective treatment of women who have been publicly insulted.

Now, as I have previously said on my Facebook page, I am absolutely not excusing what Rush Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke.  Calling people out for their double standards and/or selective outrage does not excuse the person on my side who says something uncalled for.

Regardless, I think Bristol Palin has a singular vantage point to make her point, as she does in her post entitled "Mr. President, When Should I Expect Your Call?" (which, for those who have forgotten, refers to President Obama's call of consolation, or something, to Ms. Fluke):

“One of the things I want them to do as they get older is engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on,” you said.  “I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way. And I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens.”

And I totally agree your kids should be able to speak their minds and engage the culture.  I look forward to seeing what good things Malia and Sasha end up doing with their lives.

But here’s why I’m a little surprised my phone hasn’t rung.  Your $1,000,000 donor Bill Maher has said reprehensible things about my family.  He’s made fun of my brother because of his Down’s Syndrome. He’s said I was “f—-d so hard a baby fell out.”  (In a classy move, he did this while his producers put up the cover of my book, which tells about the forgiveness and redemption I’ve found in God after my past – very public — mistakes.)

Now, unless I'm quite mistaken, Miss Palin, despite her status as the daughter of a public figure, was not herself a public figure when the insults against her began.  (Obviously that has changed at this point.)  Ms. Fluke, on the other hand, put herself out in front of a faux Congressional hearing and said what she said, and I see a huge difference there.

Again:  none of this excuses any of the comments made about either one.  As I have also acknowledged on my Facebook page, I used the word "slut" once on this blog, in reference to a celebrity, and I regret that statement.

And I do know that then-candidate Barack Obama basically said that Bristol's then-pregnancy should be kept off-limits.  And that is good.  However, a lot of people who revere President Obama totally disregarded that statement from him then, and, really, for the four years since. 

Let's face it:  Bristol Palin has received a lot of hatred ever since John McCain picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate.  Most of this hatred has been because of either her mother or her child.  And she is right to call on the president to make a statement about the insults she has received, and to call for civility toward all women, or, really, all people.  As she says:  "After all, you’re President of all Americans, not just the liberals."  Well stated.  And well worth a read.

Game Change: a hit piece masquerading as truth

Tonight, HBO will air what they believe to be a blockbuster-type movie, "Game Change".  As most people know by now, "Game Change" the movie ignores well over two-thirds of what was covered in the original book.

The original book had a fascinating portion about the 2008 Democratic presidential primary season, covering the implosion of John Edwards, the absolute mismanagement of Hillary Clinton's campaign, and the rise to prominence of Barack Obama.  There were literally hundreds of pages of material detailing how, for example, even when Senator Clinton's campaign appeared to be doing well, it was still reeling.  There were several moments when the Obama campaign was stressing over issues as well.  Brought to life on the small screen, it would truly have been must-see TV*.

But no, HBO and the makers of "Game Change" decided that the portion of the book that needed to be brought to life the most was the portion involving Sarah Palin.  And why not; the conventional wisdom when this movie was commissioned was that Governor Palin would be a huge factor, if not the front-runner, in the 2012 Republican presidential primary.  And HBO planned for maximum exposure for their movie, scheduling it to air the Saturday after Super Tuesday, when, they were sure, Governor Palin would have had a huge day.

And why?  Because they planned to kill her campaign with this movie.

This movie, as has been reported in many places, showcases a fictional version of Sarah Palin who couldn't spell "cat" if you spotted her the C and the A.  Gone is the fighter who took on corruption in both parties, instead, you can find, as John Nolte discovered (to his disgust), some "cold, snippy, power-hungry and cruel" two-dimensional character who "is 'flipping' fascinated to discover Germany was our enemy during the world war", who "had no idea in 2008 that England has a prime minister", and who was "shocked to learn Saddam Hussein wasn't behind 9/11, [needed] a flashcard to memorize what NAFTA is and [had] never heard of the Federal Reserve."

Monica Crowley had little good to say about it or its network either:

The film centers on Palin's selection as John McCain's VP and what a "huge mistake" it was, because, you know, she was such a Big Dummy. There's a brief mention of how McCain actually went into the lead over Obama by about 5 points after her selection and dynamite convention speech. But other that that, she's cast as the sole reason McCain lost. (Never mind that McCain was a terrible candidate, wouldn't go full-frontal against Obama, and that the entire global economy was collapsing. No, it was Palin who single-handedly lost the election for the ticket.)

Her conservative values are mocked, from her belief in limited government to her faith in God. Each time she prayed in the film, the leftwing elites around me in the theater laughed at her. But really, they were laughing at US. This is what they really think of us. This is what Obama thinks of us: "bitter clingers," and all that.

But who is really surprised by this type of treatment given Sarah Palin by HBO?  This is a movie in which the principal stars and executives have given over $200,000 to Democratic causes and absolutely nothing to Republicans.  This is a movie with an executive producer (you might have heard of him...his name is Tom Hanks) refused even to take a copy of a much truer movie about Sarah Palin entitled "The Undefeated".  Oh, and this is indeed the same Tom Hanks who can currently be heard narrating a Obama 2012 campaign video.  Certainly he would produce an impartial movie about his preferred candidate's potential opposition, right?  Don't make me laugh.

But I think the best response to this work of fiction came from SarahPAC:



Bottom line:  "Game Change" on HBO is not worth your time or attention.  Give it a pass, and while you're at it, you might evaluate whether HBO is truly geared toward someone on your side of the political aisle.

p.s.  If you have not seen "The Undefeated", you can check it out tomorrow night on ReelzChannel, or you can buy it right here**:




And, for those interested in the original "Game Change" book, you can purchase that here**:



* I hope I can use that phrase without running afoul of any trademarks.  I know NBC Thursday nights certainly don't deserve it anymore.

** As with all Amazon links on this blog, I get a pittance from all sales.  PLEASE BUY SOMETHING!

Is it open season on Sarah Palin or something?

"Hey, let's go after Sarah Palin...it's what all the cool kids are doing!"

Enough already, people.

I have no idea why so many on the right, in an attempt to be relevant (which I have almost never been, politically speaking), have decided that the best way to do so is to attack Sarah Palin, who, you may recall, isn't presently running for anything.  But this behavior appears to be encouraged, based on the way some of it gets promoted.

Case in point:  Eddie Scarry, who writes for Mediabistro's FishbowlDC and The Blaze.

Mr. Scarry apparently took issue with a piece Gov. Palin wrote for Newsweek Magazine, an increasingly leftist-slanted magazine which very recently spotlighted an article by Andrew Sullivan, noted expert on Sarah Palin's uterus.  (I commented about that in a Facebook note, which is what I do sometimes when I don't have time to blog about things.  Of course, the dearth of posts on my Facebook page doesn't speak well for my use of my time either.  But I digress.)  In her note (entited "Life With Trig: Sarah Palin on Raising a Special-Needs Child"), Gov. Palin paints an almost-idyllic picture of the blessing her son Trig has been to her and her family.  (Note to readers:  You might want to follow my example and not read the comments...as usual, some of Newsweek's readers have displayed what appears to be a typical (for them) hatred.  Yes, I did read a couple of comments, and then I forced myself to stop, as they all appeared to be coming from a hive mind afflicted severely with Palin Derangement Syndrome.)

An example of what seems to have set Mr. Scarry and a bunch of angry commenters off:

God knew what he was doing when he blessed us with Trig. We went from fear of the unknown to proudly displaying a bumper sticker sent to us that reads: “My kid has more chromosomes than your kid!”

So, what in the world could someone who writes for a conservative site such as The Blaze have against Sarah Palin gushing, as any decent mother would, about her young son?  Well, Mr. Scarry got it into his mind, somehow, that Gov. Palin was supposed to be writing about Rick Santorum, who has his own special-needs child.  She wasn't, but Mr. Scarry based his four-paragraph rant (entitled "Somehow, Santorum’s family troubles relate to Sarah Palin") on this incorrect premise.  Hey, why fact-check this stuff when you can score cheap points against Sarah Palin, right?

A sample of his comments:

For more perspective, the names “Rick” and “Santorum” appear three times total and are all found in the first paragraph. The word “my,” in reference to Palin herself, appears 15 times throughout the rest. I didn’t bother searching for “I” and “I’ve.”

Thankfully, many people tried to correct the record about the reasoning behind Gov. Palin's piece.  Notable among these was Stacy Drake:

Now, while this blog does not care for the last term of endearment Ms. Drake used, it certainly did not deserve Mr. Scarry's response (courtesy Big Journalism, since Mr. Scarry has since whitewashed the following tweet):

(there used to be an image of a tweet calling Stacy Drake "whore" here, but it has since disappeared from Big Journalism's site)

I wonder how The Blaze's founder, one Glenn Beck, feels about that response.  I'm hoping he's a bit upset about it, but at this point, who knows?

Regardless, of course, Ms. Drake was right, as evidenced by the Huffington Post piece she linked:

[A] Daily Beast spokesperson says the Palin piece was assigned last week following the news that Rick Santorum's daughter, Bella, had been hospitalized and he was briefly leaving the campaign trail.

"We asked Sarah Palin if she would like to share her personal story about life with a child with special needs upon learning about Senator Santorum's decision last week to place his campaign on hold to be with his daughter," the spokesperson emailed. 

I couldn't sum up the issue any better than John Nolte at Big Journalism:

In other words, in the wake of what happened to Bella Santorum, Newsweek reached out to Sarah Palin — and I’m going to repeat this carefully for the Beck-impaired — to… share… her… personal… story… about… life… with… a… child… with… special… needs…

So what is Sarah Palin guilty of here? Writing the piece she was asked to write.

But what is The Blaze guilty of here? Again, telling a lie of omission and, just like Wonkette and Andrew Sullivan, using Palin’s family as a weapon against her. After nearly four years, this tactic is well-honed and easy to spot. Anytime the Governor writes about or speaks of or is seen with her family, some bottom-feeder weaponizes the event, weaponizes her own family, to beat her senseless with. And that’s exactly what The Blaze did.

As it turns out, though, Mr. Scarry has now added the following to his rant, which he left untouched otherwise:

UPDATE: Many Palin supporters have read this post and taken issue with the fact that it does not mention Palin was actually asked by “Newsweek” to write about her experience raising a special needs child. She did not approach the publication and that is a crucial piece of information that should have been included for BLAZE readers.

This post was a brief analysis of the perception I, among others, had of Palin contributing to a magazine she regularly criticizes. And though my thoughts on Palin’s column still stand, it‘s also important to acknowledge that Palin’s experience raising her son Trig is a fascinating story and is worth a read in her book “Going Rogue.” –Eddie Scarry, Eddie@theblaze.com

Some of the above does not ring true.  Mr. Scarry devoted one throwaway phrase ("a magazine she loves to hate") in his initial rant to the idea of Gov. Palin writing for Newsweek after having slammed it.  No, Mr. Scarry, the original post was a brief assumption that Gov. Palin had made something all about her when, in your mind, it should not have been.  The problem, of course, is that Gov. Palin's piece was indeed supposed to be about her own family, and you still haven't acknowledged that you were flat-out wrong about it.

But, as has increasingly been the case, facts don't seem to matter to those who want to take down Sarah Palin.  And a lot of the Palin-hatred, unfortunately, is coming from our own side.

Update:  Welcome, Conservatives4Palin readers!

Another day, another celeb taking a cheap shot at Sarah Palin

I have a theory that goes something like this:  a fading celebrity, in a desperate attempt to get some attention and thereby jump-start a flagging career, will get just the attention they are craving by saying something outrageous and totally over-the-top and, of course, insulting to some conservative or another.  In the past three years the conservative target has, more often than not by my observation, been Sarah Palin.  And that makes sense; after all, Sarah Palin has been the most prominent voice speaking out against the largesse of government for the past three years, even if she isn't a presidential candidate.

In the past, celebs such as Ashley Judd have singled out Governor Palin for abuse and scorn, and in most cases, those celebs have been rewarded with several days of attention because of it.  This blog has certainly not helped in that respect, what with its "useless celebrity" label, possibly best exemplified by this post from February 2009.

This week has offered yet another piece of evidence that my theory is correct, as another actor offered liberals advice consisting of "kill Sarah Palin".  At this point, naming the actor, who, honestly, I don't think I've seen in anything since about 2002, would be rewarding him for his abhorrent behavior, and I don't think it's worth my time to do much more of that.  (I linked the story on Twitter this morning, so you can go search through my ~150-200 tweets from this day if you're that interested.)  Seriously, the guy has half the followers that I do, so what other reason would he tweet such slime?  Because of this, he has gotten a bunch of conservatives to start Twitter conversations with him, and he's probably gotten more press today than he has since he advertised a second-rate soft drink (was that even during this century?).

And so I am done with this story.  It's not worth it for me to say more about it, as all it will do is give the would-be celeb the attention he apparently desperately misses...which, per my theory, was exactly the reason that he said what he said.  Plus, it would probably inspire more of this nastiness.

On Governor Palin's announcement

After reading/hearing Sarah Palin's announcement (through a written statement and an interview with Mark Levin, available here) that she will not be running for President in 2012, I have a few thoughts, directed toward a few different, but involved, parties:

To Sarah Palin, who, I'm quite sure, will not read this*:

I respect your decision not to run.  I'm sure that you didn't make it lightly.

With that said, I am disappointed to hear today's announcement.  You, Governor Palin, were the only potential candidate (to say nothing of the declared candidates) who had truly taken on corruption in both parties in your state, and I believe you were the only one mentioned in the nomination discussion who would take it on again in the federal government.  I have generally enjoyed reading your thoughts on the issues facing our government today (much more, obviously, than I've enjoyed being continually lectured by President Obama), and while I'm sure there will be more statements from you on different policy issues, I would rather have heard them from you as a declared candidate for President.

Some have said that there is more to this story than what we have heard so far.  I'm sure that if there is more to tell, you will do so in your own time.  In any case, I wish you and yours all the best in whatever the future holds for you.

To a few Palin-haters, who, I'm quite sure, also will not read this*:

Congratulations, you got what you want.  Someone who has had more than a few insights to offer over the past three years is not going to be in this race.  And how do you react?  In more than one case, by acting like a child as you become perfect examples of a sore winner.


I would have preferred it, though, if that hatred had been confined to the left.  I expect pettiness from a hack like Andi Sullivan; I believe that to be one of his defining characteristics at this point, which is too bad.  (Sorry, readers, but there's some real nastiness on the left.  Accept it.  And no, I'm not going to link the rantings of Mr. Sullivan tonight.  Or ever.)  But I expect better from people on my side of the aisle.  And maybe I shouldn't.

Erick Erickson of RedState.com, for example, gleefully posted every hour, on the hour, when Governor Palin did not announce anything on the last day of September (though I still don't recall her ever having said she would announce yea or nay by that day), and he even more gleefully "recommended" a hopelessly out-of-date RedState diary entry (posted earlier today) called "Palin's running...Here's why"...after she made her announcement.  Oh, and he also posted the number of the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline on his Twitter account this evening in the midst of rubbing Palin supporters' noses in the announcement.  Tacky, tacky, tacky.

(Mr. Erickson has, as one might expect, attempted to walk back his previous immaturity with a post tonight in which he states that he has always liked Sarah and Todd Palin.  I'd hate to see what you would have done on your site, Twitter, etc., if you hadn't liked them, Mr. Erickson.  I'll give you some credit for spelling out all that Governor Palin has accomplished over the past couple of years.  And I'll admit to being jealous of your having met her.  But your behavior in recent weeks has still left much to be desired, in my opinion.  And I doubt I'll be visiting RedState.com anytime soon, thank you very much.)

But the grand champion of apoplectic rantings appears to be RedState contributor Jeff Emanuel, previously mentioned in this blog for...well, pretty much the same thing.  In the aforementioned "Palin's running" diary, Mr. Emanuel appears to aim for an all-time low with the following comment (written with the subject line "You people have a serious sickness."):

If Christ returned tomorrow, I’m confident you and the rest of the Palinistas would reject Him until SARAH confirmed that He was God, and instructed you to follow Him.

For all I know, this is the level at which Mr. Emanuel has been operating for quite a while.  Honestly, I've done my best to ignore his comments (and based on the downward trend that I saw today in his Twitter followers, I'd say I'm not the only one to do so), but I happened across this one, and it shows me that Mr. Emanuel seems to have become so blinded in his hatred of all things Palin that he has apparently lost the capacity for reason.  As for tact, of course, he lost that some time ago; this little gem of offensiveness makes that all too plain.

And as an aside, as a very imperfect follower of our Lord Jesus Christ, there is a huge difference in how I feel about Christ and how I feel about Sarah:

If I differ with Sarah Palin about some issue, I would hope that she would change and come around to my side.

If Christ differs with me about something, then I would hope that I would change and come around to His side.

But maybe that difference in perception is beyond Mr. Emanuel, who has amused himself this evening by gloating about Governor Palin's announcement, up to and including this gem of a tweet:

You stay classy, Mr. Emanuel.

Oh, and as Mr. Emanuel has demonstrated beyond doubt that he has no respect for anyone who might support Sarah Palin, then I have no further use for his opinions.  On anything.  Whoever his preferred candidate is would be well advised to avoid him.

To the regular readers of this blog (now numbering well into the double digits!):

If you happen to like Sarah Palin, as I do, then you'll probably understand if I run silent for a few more days.  Just writing the above section got my blood boiling.  Apparently respect is a lost art in political discourse these days.

And if you don't like Sarah Palin and feel the need to respond to this post, either use some of that respect or don't bother.  I'm not in the mood for further condescension.  I've already, just for supporting Governor Palin, had my intelligence, my sanity, and my Christianity questioned.  Rise above it or go away.

Oh, and I won't be making any signs of support for any of the Republican presidential candidates in the near future.  Someone is going to have to convince me to go any further than the "anyone but Romney" stance I adopted on Twitter tonight.

And with that I wish you a good night.

* The reader is reminded that this is, at best, a seventh-rate blog.

New old meme: Palinistas are crazy idiots!!!!

How do they hate Sarah?  Let me count the ways.  Let's see, I've in the past commented on people falsely characterizing her as an extremist, insulting her daughter and her son, and, of course, calling her every possible synonym for "idiot" (and, occasionally, much worse).  We can't forget the blaming her for violence having nothing to do with her, either.

And we've even heard the "Palinistas are idiots for liking her" arguments before, sometimes (at least for me) from people once considered friends.

But now the seemingly chic thing to do online--on Twitter or wherever--is for the "Palinistas are idiots" assertion to come, not from the Obama supporters, which would be expected, but from fellow conservatives.  A lot of these such tweets swapped "idiots" for "crazy", which does not appear to be much of an improvement.  Typical of this are tweets such as the following, both of which occurred during a very quick period during which it appeared that Governor Palin had cancelled a proposed speech on Saturday:

@jeffemanuel: @gabrielmalor @allahpundit Palin and her faction have reminded me more and more of high school girls. This doesn't help.

@gabrielmalor Palin die-hards are already blaming this SNAFU on *anyone but Palin* before we even know what really happened. #allyouneedtoknow

 

There are others who appear to take great joy in painting all Palinistas with this broad brush as well.  None of these people who have recently taken up this type of argument ever respond when I try to point out that not all Palinistas are unreasonable, crazy, stupid, or whatever.*

And yes, I do know that some supporters of Sarah Palin do have an unfortunate tendency to snipe at anyone who says anything bad about her.  Some do insult the intelligence of others who question anything of Sarah Palin.  It's sad that I have to say this, but you Palinistas who do this type of thing:  YOU AREN'T HELPING.  No, it's not fair that Sarah Palin is called out for things that aren't even true, or things about which, if we were talking about anyone else--Democrat or Republican--no one would care, but in case you've forgotten, Sarah Palin is more than capable of defending herself.

 

But regardless of these supporters' behavior, the people who have taken to insulting all Palin supporters in the fashion mentioned above are out of line.  It's like it's a new game:  "Bait a Palinista".  Step one:  say something insulting about Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin's supporters, or both.  Step two:  Wait for one Palinista to respond.  If response isn't sufficiently insulting, keep needling at Palinista until Palinista lashes out.  Step three:  Retweet Palinista's response, then state that your point that Palinistas are idiots are crazy/stupid has been proven.

It's enough to make me begin to understand why some supporters of Hillary Clinton in 2008 formed the PUMA movement.  (Like Hillary's supporters, it certainly appears that Sarah's supporters are being brushed aside.)  

 

So some of y'all think Sarah Palin is unelectable?  Fine.  Give me a reason to support someone else instead.  But cut the insulting out.  It doesn't make me want to support you in, well, anything.  (And yes, these same suggestions apply to someone attempting to convince people to support Governor Palin.)

* There is one person I know who, when I challenged him regarding his characterization of Palinistas, did respond, but this person has been gleefully posting anything to make Governor Palin look bad long before the current group of people adopted the new trend of baiting Palin's supporters.

The Handmaid's Tale? Really?

The discussion at the Republic of Austin Facebook page over the link to my last post went in a direction quite different from where I thought it might go.  It went something like this:

So, in the interests of making things clear:  Yes, I like Sarah Palin.  Yes, I've read A Handmaid's Tale.  I didn't care for it.  And the Republic of Gilead, as portrayed by Margaret Atwood, in no way represents either my Christianity or, from what I have seen, the views of Governor Palin.

What, did you expect me to sit back and tacitly accept your ideas of what it must be like to be a conservative in deep blue Austin?  Try asking me next time instead of stereotyping.

The media's love/hate relationship with Sarah Palin

This isn't exactly breaking news, but maybe you, like me, have noticed the tendency of many commentators in the (old-school) news media to cover every little thing Sarah Palin does with the same intensity as the paparazzi did Paris Hilton's trip to jail, while at the same time decrying the influence and popularity Sarah Palin presently holds.  For example, a few months ago some guy named Dana Milbank, who works at some old dinosaur called the Washington Post, decided that the best way to get himself some attention attempt to take away from the influence wielded by Mrs. Palin was to declare that February would be a Palin-free month in the (so-called) mainstream media.  The fact that most of my readers probably are not aware that this even happened speaks volumes both to Sarah Palin's influence and to Dana Milbank's lack thereof.

Anyway, the current even that has those types frothing is a bus tour by the Palin family to historic sites around our nation.  This may be followed at the SarahPAC webpage. You can view the introductory video to this tour right here:



Now, most rational people would not think that there is anything wrong with a bus tour.  Heck, John Madden did it every week when he did NFL color commentary.  But when Sarah Palin does it, it's a real problem!  She can't do this!  But it must be reported to death anyway!

Or at least so sayeth the talking heads.

For example, I don't need to go into the details of how some of these people are annoyed at not being told where the Palin family is going...Matt Lewis already summed up most of the grumblings:

Some journalists believe Palin is behaving like a celebrity, and that covering her may be beneath them. For example, The Atlantic’s Garance Franke-Ruta Tweeted: “reality TV star Palin treating pol reporters like paparazzi — needing & hating, inviting & making chase.” Politico’s Ben Smith Re-Tweeted her — and Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post agreed, responding: “seriously, why dont media outlets have entertainment reporters cover her instead of polit. press?”

The whining got even better, or more shrill, or something, with one CBS News producer blaming potential future car crashes on Mrs. Palin.  As Geoffrey Dickens of NewsBusters writes:

The press is pouting because potential GOP presidential contender Sarah Palin is apparently having a bit of fun with them, by refusing to let them know in advance where she is headed on her bus tour. One of them, CBS News producer Ryan Corsaro, even suggested the former Alaska governor is a "dangerous" traffic hazard because she is forcing reporters to chase her around like they were paparazzi.

[...]

In a May 31 CBS News.com article headlined "Sarah Palin's bus tour treats reporters like paparazzi" Corsaro complained:

I just hope to God that one of these young producers with a camera whose bosses are making them follow Sarah Palin as a potential Republican candidate don't get in a car crash, because this is dangerous.

But the prize for the lamest take on the Palin bus tour has to go to MSNBC's Martin Bashir, as quoted by Alex Fitzsimmons, also of NewsBusters:

Anchoring his eponymous program, Bashir scolded, "In fact, the whole thing could be in breach of a federal law because the United States Flag Code establishes important rules for the use and display of the stars and stripes, the flag of the United States."

The entire video of the rant can be found at the previous link; I don't care to post it here.  

Hey, perhaps Mr. Bashir would prefer people who use and display American flags like this:

(Picture courtesy the Denver Post via HotAir.com; used under Fair Use)

(That, in case anyone has forgotten, is how used flags were "used" and "displayed" following the conclusion of the coronation nomination acceptance speech of Barack Obama in 2008.  But hey, at least he didn't put them on a bus!)

But regardless, with regard to Sarah Palin, if it isn't one thing, it's another for the dying breed of media talking heads so desperately hanging on to their waning prestige and their nonexistent influence.  They can't live with her, but in these present days with their many choices for information gathers, they sure can't live without her.

(Oh, and I am on record as hoping that the Palins will make it to the Austin area, despite its deep-blue condition, and check out The Salt Lick.  I can dream.)

(Hat tip: Texas for Sarah Palin)

Lesson for this week: Don't mess with Trig

Yesterday I mentioned, in the midst of a rant about haters hating, a post at a site called Wonkette (no link this time) about Trig Palin.  The past 24-or-so hours since attention was focused on this post has shown me several things.

Before I get into that, I will clarify, without being asked, that I posted the picture of the author, Jack Stuef, not to make fun of how he looks (though others have done just that in the past 24 hours, and while I don't rate that as being as bad as making fun of a defenseless 3-year-old Down Syndrome child, it's still not a good thing to insult how someone looks) but to highlight that this was the picture he himself chose for his Twitter account.  This is just my perception filter talking here, I suppose, but he looked angry in that picture.  I don't know if he is an angry person in general, but his picture looks that way to me.  And that angry look, to me, seems to fit in with the hate-filled writing he inflicted upon the world this week.  (Per Legal Insurrection, this is not the first time he has gone after Trig Palin using a form of the word "retarded".)

Okay, with that done, let's get back to what I've seen in the past day.

I saw things start on Twitter with just a few comments.  The first person I saw really calling attention to Wonkette's scummy post was Big Hollywood's John Nolte, whose Twitter handle is confusing at first glance.  After he pointed to the post, Wonkette got the unintended benefit of the most traffic it's seen in two months (which is one reason why I'm not linking them again), but it also got a lot more people riled up.  Very quickly, some people started tweeting the advertisers, and also very quickly, several advertisers pulled their advertising from Wonkette.

This was when I saw the other phenomenon of yesterday.  On seeing the first advertiser, Papa John's, pulling its ads, Wonkette tweeted the following:

(Yes, the editing is mine.  I'm sure you can guess what the word was, but that doesn't mean I feel the need to print it on my blog.  You want to print it?  Start your own blog.)

It should be noted that there were several other tweets directed at Papa John's trying to explain that Wonkette was satirizing Sarah Palin's use of Trig as a "prop" (again per Legal Insurrection, that seems to be a common theme at Wonkette).  Because, you know, that completely excuses insinuating that Trig was the product of incest and saying he doesn't dream because he's "retarded".

So, as can be seen, the powers that be at Wonkette apparently do not feel any need for things like personal growth or responsibility.  All that could be managed was throwing the author, Jack Stuef, under the bus, as seen in this Daily Caller piece:

However, later on in the day, Layne told Adweek, “Jack [Stuef] has been admonished and put on night probation until further notice. Anything involving Palin, I want to make it extra clear that *Palin* is the problem with America. Not her kids. Not her little kid, anyway.”

Layne also sarcastically noted that giving Stuef comment deletion duties was fair punishment because “he gets to read all the Palin fans’ insane unmoderated comments calling him an a*****e [editing mine] and threatening to kill him.”

Well, that makes everything okay, doesn't it?  Um, no.  Wonkette is still way off base here.  And apparently they realize it...in the midst of the multiple companies pulling ads from their site, Wonkette pulled the piece off their website.  Can you say "too little, too late"?  Caches exist of the post, y'all, as well as all the incredibly hateful comments that you deleted last night before you took the whole thing offline.  This won't go away that easily.

But I won't end with the sorry half of the story.  People from both sides of the political aisle have denounced Wonkette's sorry excuse for a post in the past day, renewing a little of my faith in humanity.  (Matt Lewis even compiled a list of "principled liberals" slamming Wonkette for going after Trig.)

But the two best responses that I've seen today have come in the form of two open letters.  The first, by K.J. Adan, is entitled "An Open Letter to Jack Stuef" and relates a touching family history of her having a brother with Down Syndrome, in the hopes that Mr. Stuef will "be remembered as the guy who bothered to learn about Down Syndrome and redeemed himself by helping others to do the same."  Since I can't really summarize it or take one paragraph by itself, the whole letter should be read by everyone.

The second was Lisa Graas's "Letter to Sarah Palin", which is best summarized by the following:  "What I offer to you today is the consolation of Christ, that when the serpents bite, that you gaze upon the Cross. Look to Him, not at them."

(Picture of someone viciously attacked on a left-wing website this week, along with his mother.  Picture courtesy LisaGraas.com, used under "fair use" clause.)

Given what I've seen today, I hope this is the last I ever mention Wonkette, but I hope to have much more to say about people standing up for what they believe to be right.

In which some nasty hate-filled writers are called out

In a recent treatise on my dealings with burnout with regard to blogging, I asked whether my continuing to write was worth it.  I think I have a new answer to that question.  My writing is definitely worth it, if only to counterbalance some other people's attempts at writing.  There are some people out there who seem to be filled with hatred, which seems to cause them to write some of the nastiest things I've seen in a while.

And what appears to be the common thread tying many of these writings together?  Trig Paxson Van Palin.  Yes, the youngest child of Todd and Sarah Palin, who infuriates many "progressives" simply by existing, it seems.

Some of them, not having any writing talents (as if I have any room to talk there...) use the rather pedestrian tactic of making fun of his name.  Now, it's obvious to most people in America that Todd and Sarah used rather, well, unorthodox names for their children, but so what?  I've lost count of the number of times I've heard their precious little boy referred to as "Twig".  Seriously, that's incredibly lame.

(But Snowed, your side makes fun of Obama's name!  Do I?  Have I?  Ever?  I don't think so.)

And then, of course, there are the people who are bent on finding some long-lost proof that Trig is not Sarah's son (spoken about previously in this blog here, so now I don't have to mention a certain former editor of The Atlantic).  Most recently, this mantle has been taken up by some professor at Northern Kentucky University named Brad Scharlott.  This guy, fueled, it seems, by a few Palin-hating blogs in Alaska read by about the same number of people as read mine, has tried to beat the dead horse of Trig Palin's parentage using the same old thought that Bristol Palin must have been Trig's real mother, even though she had a child of her own just over eight months later.  John at Verum Serum gives this idea all the attention it deserves:

The fatal flaw with this theory is that back on September 1, 2008 Bristol Palin was announced to be five months pregnant with a baby who would eventually be known as Tripp Palin. Tripp was born December 28th. Even liberal bloggers noticed that it would be difficult for any woman to give birth to Trig on April 18th and then give birth again on December 28th. How does Dr. Brad Scharlott explain this problem away:

The validity of the logic that Bristol could not have been Trig’s mother depended on two unsupported suppositions – first, that Bristol was indeed five months pregnant at the convention,and second, that Trig was in fact born on April 18. Concerning Trig’s date of birth, the Mat-Su hospital will not confirm whether Trig was born there, let alone when. (Blogger Andrew Sullivan called the hospital and was told there would be no comment regarding Trig Palin.) And no evidence was offered concerning Bristol’s stage of pregnancy. Thus, if Trig was born, say, in January, and if Bristol was only four months pregnant at the convention, not five as alleged, then the logic of the argument that she could not be Trig’s mother falls apart.

So there are two “unsupported suppositions” at work here. Let’s look at those. First, was Bristol really five months pregnant in September 2008? Well, we know she gave birth on December 28th to a health baby which many press outlets reported weighed over 7 lbs. Babies this size are not born at six or seven months of pregnancy, only at term or very close to term.

John goes on, showing photos of proud grandparents, Chuck and Sally Heath, holding what appears to be a newborn Trig on April 18 (for that matter, even People Magazine had, and still has, a birth announcement page for Trig, and that page very clearly was created on April 18, 2008) , so one would think that Dr. Scharlott would give up at this point, but no, he responded:

I am going to revise paper and explicitly say I am not pushing her as the mother. I don’t know who is.

If there was a hoax, ANYTHING is possible.

John entitled his post "Spiral of Stupid", which appears to sum it up nicely.  (Now, for those concerned about my tone, I'm not saying Dr. Scharlott is stupid.  His theory, however, seems to fit the bill.  Honestly, who ever said there are no stupid questions was just wrong.)

(Just a reminder:  this isn't even the worst of it for this week.  That comes later.)

"Uffda" at Barbaric Thoughts had a few things to say about the esteemed Dr. Scharlott as well:

This is what he teaches:

Dr. Scharlott has taught in Journalism at NKU since 1991. He teaches journalism and mass communication courses.

His research focus is on the relationship between communication technology and society. Additionally, he serves the department by coordinating the journalism department and directing the journalism lab…

Dr. Scharlott has been teaching here at NKU since 1994 and teaches courses such as photojournalism, research methods and news writing.

And this is where he found his info and who he was in contact with. And I assume he trolled the other Palin-hating, Trig-truthing blogs populated by losers with pea-sized brains as well.

This guy teaches other people about journalism and journalistic research. Murrow is spinning in his grave.

He goes on to take aim at all the other rumors about Sarah Palin, pointing out that there are also a lot of rumors about President Obama, yet no one takes those seriously, so why are the Palin rumors given any credence whatsoever?

Oh, I remember, it's because it's Sarah Palin, she who must be destroyed.

(Sidenote:  I take no responsibility for Uffda's comments about "pea-sized brains".  I do not presume to speak to that point, but I will yet again point out that they certainly do have a lot of hatred seething inside them.)

But what really crossed the line this week was a beyond-the-pale post at Wonkette titled "Greatest Living American: A Children’s Treasury of Trig Crap On His Birthday" by some guy named Jack Stuef.

This is Jack Stuef:

As to what Mr. Stuef presents in his piece:  before a single word appears, he starts with a sexually explicit picture as part of a collage in which Trig Palin appears.  The words aren't much better:

Today is the day we come together to celebrate the snowbilly grifter’s magical journey from Texas to Alaska to deliver to the America the great gentleman scholar Trig Palin. Is Palin his true mother? Or was Bristol? (And why is it that nobody questions who the father is? Because, either way, Todd definitely did it.) 

Believe it or not, it gets worse:

What’s he dreaming about? Nothing. He’s retarded. 

Yes, that is an exact quote.  (There was previously a link in that quote, to a video by a known Palin-hater claiming that Sarah Palin regularly used that word to describe her own son.  I took it out because this discussion is already pretty lousy without adding another unsubstantiated, probably untrue, rumor into the mix.)

So, why should I write?  Because I have to be better at it than some of these haters are.

Stuff I missed, Part 1

In my self-imposed exile from blogging (partially brought about by happenings highlighted in my previous post), I missed quite a few items about which I would normally have blogged.  For the sake of my thousands of readers catharsis, here are a few of the high points:

1.  RIP, Geraldine Ferraro.  Regardless of her political stances, she was absolutely a trailblazer.  I doubt, though, that she would have been too impressed with the way that far too many people commemorated her by slamming Sarah Palin.  (Language warning for the previous link, because some amount of slamming of Sarah Palin apparently is required to use objectionable language.)  Really?   Is the death of Ms. Ferraro a mere tool to continue your crusade against the idea, nay, the possibility that a woman might have conservative leanings and be treated with a modicum of respect?  It's sad, really.  Wendy K over at NewsReal Blog calls this behavior "the death of dignity".

2.  Prior to that, Sarah Palin (yeah, I write a lot about Sarah Palin...if you've been here more than once, you know this) had issued a statement about the Supreme Court's controversial ruling upholding the right of Fred Phelps and his ilk to protest at military funerals.  I actually did start a blog entry on this one, but I never finished (there is, after all, a reason why this blog has a label entitled "I have no time management skills"), so in the interests of not having a bunch of stupid unfinished drafts lying around, I present some old thoughts of mine, with slight editing:

I think some Palin-haters just love to parse every little thing Sarah Palin says in the hopes that they can have a "gotcha" moment.  (Sadly, this includes a Facebook connection of mine whose utter contempt for Gov. Palin led to what was in effect the end of our friendship.)

This week's [week of February 28] favorite topic for the everpresent wordsnatchers was a tweet from Gov. Palin on Wednesday the 2nd relating to the Supreme Court's ruling with regard to the Westboro Baptist Church and their continual practice of making Christianity look really, really bad.  The tweet read as follows:

Well, according to some, obviously that meant that she was against the decision and therefore against free speech.  "PALIN MISINTERPRETS THE FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!!11!" I hear them shouting.  No, I'm not linking them.  Go find it yourself if you're that interested, 'cos these people are flat out wrong.

And how I know they're wrong?  Well, someone bothered, rather than to assume what Sarah Palin's opinion is, to ask her.  I know, what a concept.  Well, the Daily Caller got a response from Gov. Palin about what she meant.  And it's a good thing, as, well, as they point out, "Her quote was interpreted by many news outlets, including The Daily Caller, to mean that she disagreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling."  But they do post her take on this:

“Obviously my comment meant that when we’re told we can’t say ‘God bless you’ in graduation speeches or pray before a local football game but these wackos can invoke God’s name in their hate speech while picketing our military funerals, it shows ridiculous inconsistency,” Palin told TheDC. “I wasn’t calling for any limit on free speech, and it’s a shame some folks tried to twist my comment in that way. I was simply pointing out the irony of an often selective interpretation of free speech rights.”

And that's as far as I got.  Anyway, whether or not Gov. Palin's interpretation is correct, it probably deserves more of a real discussion than it ever got.

Moving on...

3.  How do you like this?  One of the very few entries I've actually posted this year linked to a news article about what turned out to be a hoax study.  So, once again, men will have to find some other way to justify staring at women's breasts.  I'm sure we'll continue to see coverage of this quest as it develops.

I think, after that item, we'll leave it at that for the moment.  More stuff I missed will undoubtedly be coming, if and when I ever get around to it.

Who's spreading hate again?

This video has been posted all over by now, and it's already been yanked from YouTube because one of the people highlighted in it has complained about privacy rights (for a tweet?  really?), but since some of my regular readers (I'm thinking of one in particular) doesn't read many (or any) other blogs, I present this to refudiate the idea that conservatives have a monopoly on hate, while the sainted left can do nothing wrong.

Language warnings, and lots of them, apply.


Twitter Users Wish Death on Sarah Palin from JoeKenha on Vimeo.

So, let's summarize:  Sarah Palin targets (ooh, can I still say that?) Democratic House members for defeat and gets crucified for it (as a reminder, you can see her response here); other people, in as vile/vulgar a way as possible, wish actual death on her.  And yet Gov. Palin is the only one expected to shut up as a result of the tragedy in Tucson.

Give me a break.

The Arizona tragedy: the good and the bad responses

There was a lot of good in the responses I have seen to Saturday's Arizona massacre.  Obviously, there was Daniel Hernandez, the intern who rushed to the side of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords; I have read that his actions saved her life, and they were obviously heroic.  Also praiseworthy is the group that is organizing to form a blockade against the haters from Westboro Baptist Church (a church whose actions disgust me and many other Christians...how is any form of hate showing the love of Christ?), who are planning to protest at the funeral of 9-year-old Christina Green.  The moment of silence held today by people from both political parties was a good gesture, as have been all the prayers for the victims and the families.

Unfortunately, the good that can come out of the worst of events is overshadowed so much by the pettiness, sniping, and politicizing to a level I don't remember seeing in recent memory.  Almost immediately there were people pointing fingers at the usual suspects, the foremost of whom, of course, was Sarah Palin.  See, her PAC (political action group, for the uninitiated) targeted 20 House districts which voted for McCain-Palin but were held by Democrats.  (The original Facebook post is here, and the comments are going nuts.)  The symbol over each of these districts appears to be cross hairs.  One of those districts belongs to Rep. Giffords.  And so, obviously, by some leap of logic that escapes me, Sarah Palin was responsible for the shootings in Tucson. 

Jim Treacher at the Daily Caller has correlated several people all jumping to the same Palin-is-responsible conclusion here.  As Mr. Treacher says, "it was only a matter of minutes before blame for the incident could be assigned."  And assigned it was, all to the same people.  (And a lot of other people seem to be looking for a roadmap to that same conclusion, including several people who have found this entry on my blog while searching for some variant of "palin incendiary comments".)

But is that really the way to handle this tragedy?  First of all, there is no evidence that the assailant, Jared Lee Loughner, paid much attention to Sarah Palin at all.  Second, thanks to the rush to judgment by the people mentioned in Mr. Treacher's article, there was a counter-push of conservatives and Tea Partiers which can be summarized as "Oh, yeah?  Well, you hate worse!"  And they have a point.  Michelle Malkin compiled what appears to be a master list of liberal hatred toward conservatives, starting with a lot of hatred toward Sarah Palin and George W. Bush and moving toward topic-specific hatred.  (Because of such hatred, this link is NSFW.)

Oh, and third, Neal Boortz reports that Gov. Palin's office is saying the symbols weren't even cross hairs anyway; they were surveyor's marks.  And so Mr. Boortz links to a PDF from the U.S. Geological Survey which uses a very familiar symbol for a "principal point".  (Of course, then Mr. Boortz shows maps from the Democrats showing targets.  Not something that looks like cross hairs--actual targets.  But then, maybe they were just organizing against Walmart.)  There's more on the whole targeting of blame toward Sarah Palin and other like-minded people from Mr. Boortz here.

And fourth?  Sarah Palin weighed in on this herself, in an e-mail to Glenn Beck, as reported by The Right Scoop.  As read by Mr. Beck, Sarah Palin wrote the following:

I hate violence. I hate war. Our children will not have peace if politicos just capitalize on this to succeed in portraying anyone as inciting terror and violence. Thanks for all you do to send the message of truth and love and God as the answer. -Sarah

Yeah, she's a real purveyor of hatred, isn't she?

So how do I respond to all the sniping right now?  Do I spend several more paragraphs focusing on a Democrat who called for the Republican candidate for the governorship of Florida to be shot?  Do I wax poetic at the absurdity of those who started a petition (signed by 3910 people at this writing) for Sarah Palin to be indicted for the Tucson massacre?  Do I point out, as multiple people linked already have done, that no less than Barack Obama said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"?

Is this discussion even worth it anymore?  Or does the discussion of political ideas need to be changed one person at a time, starting with me?  Starting with you?

The change to political discussion, at least for me, has to come as part of a greater transformation.  I today read this post from Scot McKnight, in which he reminded me that "[t]he problem is that human beings are cracked," and in which he said:

But the problem, Mr and Mrs Pundit, is not the Right or the Left. The problem is You and Me. Let’s quit the blame and look inside.

And so my response to the Tucson massacre, as well as to another issue about which I intend to write ASAP (because my most faithful reader asked why I haven't blogged lately), is to remind myself that there are things that I need to change.  I don't think I've demonized political opposites before, but I will redouble efforts not to do so. (No, I'm not swearing off snark.  There's always a place for well-used snark.  But snark must take a back seat to civility when the two don't jibe.) 

So, who wants to join me on this journey?  You, gentle reader, must decide if you want to continue to spew hatred at Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, or whoever.  But for me, it's time for this road to end.

American Idol, you are dead to me

I'll admit it:  I've watched American Idol more than a few times in the past several years.  I particularly have enjoyed the auditions, to be sure, as they have provided lots of opportunities for the judges to give some fairly entertaining feedback.

One of the things I've liked about American Idol was the way in which it could appeal to everyone, regardless of creed, color, politics, or whatever.

Until now.

When the revolving door of AI judges stopped this time around--in case you've been living under a rock or truly don't care about pop culture, or both--three of last season's judges were gone and two new judges were ready to take their places alongside the only remaining original judge, Randy Jackson.  And those two new judges seemed to be people who would have the same universal appeal:  Steven Tyler and Jennifer Lopez.

Sounds good so far, right?  I mean, Steven Tyler fronted Aerosmith for what, as long as I've been alive, at least, and J-Lo is, well, J-Lo.

But something nagged at me.  And I've finally remembered what it was.

J-Lo, on national television, called Sarah Palin a bitch.

See for yourself, if you can stand watching her:



And since, as people have implied to me before, it's not a long road from thinking little of Governor Palin to thinking similarly of people who happen to agree with Governor Palin's politics, who's to say that J-Lo doesn't think similarly of me, as well as many, many other conservatives and/or Tea Partiers?

And before it's asked:  no, I don't think that everyone in the public eye has to shut up about their opinions.  But there is a respectful way to air one's opinions, and Ms. Lopez severely missed the mark.

So, then, is Jenny from the Block someone who deserves to be on my television, as she put it, "discovering and nurturing that spirit [of success]?  Is this someone that I want to present to my children as an example of someone worth my respect?  Not even close.  No, Ms. Lopez, you are definitely a useless celebrity.

American Idol/Fox/whoever is calling the shots, you blew it on this one.  And I'm done watching AI.

Bristol brings out the haters

Wow, some people hate Sarah Palin so much that they are taking their hatred out on Bristol, just for having the audacity to appear on Dancing With the Stars.  Good grief, y'all, they asked her if she wanted to do it; it isn't as if she went begging for them to let her on the show.  (No, the publicity hound most closely associated with this family is someone this blog no longer wants to mention.  So I won't.)  But because she is Sarah's daughter, the hate drips from them.

For example, film critic Richard Roeper brings the class with these two tweets:

Bristol Palin is dancing to "Mama Told Me (Not to Come)"??? Good God.

Guess there's not a song called, "Got Knocked Up by a Mope, Now What?"

Sigh.  Let's move on.  

And other non-celebrity types have added their two cents on Twitter as well, going so far as to wish Bristol a broken leg. 

And, if you can stomach it, you can check out the comments at E! Online's recent article, "Will Sarah Palin Steal Bristol's DWTS Spotlight?"  Here's a sampling.  You've been warned.

Yeah E...continue to make a superstar out of a teenage whore and her flaky, right-wing, nut-job of a mother. ABC is a horrible network. Attempting to put lipstick on Alaskan trailer trash pigs isn't going to change the fact they are still going to be Alaskan Trailer trash pigs. Caribou Barbie SUCKS!!! DEFEAT THE TEABAGGER LOONIES!!! Obama should enact a law require all white trash like this to sit in the back of the bus. Just a joke people. Lighten up and stop being so politicall [sic] correct. HA! 

Due to this show's track record, expect Bristol to have her leg snap in half and/or be pregnant with her dancing partner's baby. I think Brick, Rock, or Cement would be an appropriate name for baby #2.

Ding Ding Ding!!! We have a winner for the Trashiest Family in America 

Hopefully those that didn't vote for Palin in the election won't be voting for her hoebag daughter on DWTS. I'm hoping either her or the situation are the first to go. A double eliminiation [sic] would be priceless **

And yet somehow it's Sarah Palin who is seen as a hate-spreading idiot.  I don't get it; do you?

In the meantime, if you do happen to support Bristol Palin's foray into dancing, Rachelle Friberg gives the info on how to do that:

VOTE FOR BRISTOL AND MARK- TEAM BALLIN!!! The number to call to vote for Team Ballin is 1-800-868-3407.

Requiem for a Friendship, Part Three

I have been writing, mostly for purposes of catharsis but also for a very important reason that will be revealed at the end of this column, about how a friendship of mine has suffered death by a thousand cuts from political and religious discussion between another party, herein referred to as "Friend", and myself.  Part One covered the beginnings of these discussions, while Part Two showed how the intensity level was ramped up to 11 when Christianity came into it.  Given that both Friend and I are Christian, and given the level of sniping in our discussions, I'm sure the two of us presented a wonderful picture of what Christianity should be.

(Note:  in the interests of clarity, I am presenting my quotes in red, while Friend's will be in blue.)

I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.

 --I Corinthians 1:10

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

 --John 17:20-21

My interpretation of these particular verses is not that every Christian is going to agree on everything.  Good grief, even Paul had a bitter argument with Barnabas (Acts 15:38), such that they went in totally different directions.  But they both held onto their Christianity, of course.  As time went on, I feared that my discussions with Friend were getting less and less Christian.

In the wake of our quite recent (at the time) discussions of whether Jim Wallis's viewpoint that a government-controlled healthcare system was the best way to provide the best care for this country (unnecessary reminder:  I disagreed with Mr. Wallis), I posted multiple links on my Facebook page addressing the Wallis/Glenn Beck situation, as well as addressing the "Obamacare" bill, which was passed that same week in the Senate.

In the first of those links, Shane Vander Hart took on Mr. Wallis's viewpoint, which Mr. Vander Hart called "akin to wealth distribution".  Friend, of course, could not take this affront to his ideological brother lying down, and so, very quickly, Friend's comment appeared stating, "The problem here is that Shane doesn't know what the gospel is."

(Side note:  it appeared, at least to me, that Mr. Wallis and Friend share the unfortunate tactic of talking down to the opposing side of their respective arguments.  And by the way, I decided to let Friend's comment go unchallenged because I felt it would be a rehash of the same discussion we had just had.  And yes, there was more to Friend's comment, including a book recommendation.  'Cos a guy who hardly has the time to blog is going to rush out and read a long book that, I'm sure, would just mirror Friend's viewpoint anyway.)

The next one, by another friend of mine, Dr. Melissa Clouthier, really got Friend's dander up.  To wit:

More of this horsecrap that calls objecting to the tyranny of the rich "childish". Cut it ouit. [sic]

Gee whiz, I didn't even know I was supporting the tyranny of the rich.  But, as we've seen, this isn't the first time that phrase has slipped into our conversations.  Friend wasn't done, either; within three minutes another comment had appeared:

She says that working for the common good is immoral. ALL CIVILIZATION involves people giving up freedom for the common good. Claiming otherwise is a libertarian fantasy.

Please stop posting this intelligence-insulting, immoral drivel.

And that was where things really started to unravel, because I had had it.  (It may come as a surprise that a blogger does not enjoy having his viewpoints called either intelligence-insulting or immoral.  But it shouldn't.)  My comment was very direct:

Your continued assault on my viewpoint as "intelligence-insulting" is insulting to me. Discuss this civilly or stop commenting on my posts. I value your viewpoint, but it is NOT necessary to belittle my mindset as part of such a discussion.
And I fail to see how our paying for benefits that a lot of irresponsible people failed to plan to pay themselves is at all working for the common good. What we are doing is allowing some people to sit back and let others pick up the slack for them. It's the ant and the grasshopper all over again.

And if you don't like the ant/grasshopper idea, consider Paul's statements in II Thessalonians 3. We are not to be idle, not working for "the bread [we] eat". And far too many people are doing just that and living off the government's largesse.

Is letting people who could be taking care of themselves leech off the system what you think Jesus meant for us to be doing? Because that's exactly what this bill is going to facilitate for a lot of people.

I don't believe Friend's response held to my request for Friend to discuss things civilly:

"a lot of irresponsible people failed to plan to pay themselves"

"the ant and the grasshopper"

"people who could be taking care of themselves leech off the system"

If you think that these things describe the health-care situation in the USA or describe civilization generally, then you are either ignorant or callous.

You grossly misused the scriptures.

Again, your advocacy of those who treat the poor as children for their desire to be protected from the rich is insulting.

The rich of the USA have been playing you for a long time, painting libertarianism as "noble" and "adult". Buying into that means that you have abandoned your sworn duty to stand with the poor: you continue to paint 99% of the world as "mere children" because they don't trust the rich. That sickens me.

I responded:

You cannot throw out a statement such as "you grossly misused the scriptures" without justifying it.

And just because I don't trust government doesn't mean I've thrown myself into the arms of "the rich". This issue is not black-and-white, regardless of how you would like to frame it.

And then Friend, rather than justifying the earlier statement, referred me to a status update Friend had posted linking to an N.T. Wright essay which--big surprise--mirrored Friend's viewpoint.  Big deal.  I can find links that back me up, too.  And I guess that was what I had been doing when Friend butted in to tell me that my opinion was "horsecrap".  But at this point, I was not going to continue to play with Friend in this way.  I had read the Wright essay days before (and I did reread it), and while I didn't agree with it, I did notice that it in no way justified Friend's assertion that I misused scripture, which--and maybe this is just my opinion--should not be an assertion made lightly, particularly without justification.  But in any case, I was not going to continue this ridiculous "he said, Friend said" back-and-forth discussion.

And so I left the discussion at that point.  I hoped that by not firing back, yet again, at Friend, some modicum of civility might be restored.  For a little while it seemed that my hopes were well-founded, as for a few days, there was no further sniping between us.  But then I posted two things that put the final nails into the possibility of future civil discussions.  The first was a link to this post, in which I pointed out that a lot of the MSM were falling over themselves trying to call Tea Party protesters racist.  Friend, of course, had to chime in, saying that I was being "disingenuous, at best":

The tea parties and related gatherings have been full of overt expressions of racism. Lots of people are testifying that similar expressions were made Sunday. Indisputable audio evidence doesn't exist (I assume). Why shouldn't we take the observers at their word?

It is hard for honest, informed people to disbelieve that the Republican southern strategy has used racism to develop opposition to federal social spending. It doesn't surprise us, then, that the tea partiers display overt racism: they are the base to which Republicans have been appealing for 45 years.

So when Olbermann points this out, you distort his words to be "you are all racists."

You also try to exempt Republican leaders from responsibility for this. When Beck, Palin, O'Reilly, and Bachmann sow the wind and reap the whirlwind, then we should recognize it as such. I don't think that any of them want to see violence, but its childish of them pretend [sic] that they haven't contributed to it.

Did you, gentle reader, notice the smooth way that Friend transitioned from "honest, informed people" in one sentence to "us" in the next?  Apparently Friend started this discussion with the preassumption that Tea Partiers and/or Republicans do not fall into the category of "honest, informed people".  Also take note of the way that apparently, to Friend, only conservatives might possibly have followers whose viewpoints are unacceptable.

But Friend's postscript went back to the usual tactic of telling me what I should and should not post.  Quoth Friend:  "If you want to convince honest people of your belief, then don't cite Breitbart. It makes you seem like a partisan hack."  (Note:  I am indeed partisan.  I am not a hack.)

I, having grown weary of the same shtick from Friend, fired back with both barrels:

It is obvious to me that you see in people, and groups of people, only what you want to see. While I will agree that early proponents of the "southern strategy" appealed to some people's racism, for you to say that racism is still what motivates the base of Republicans is totally baseless. Regardless of what the Dems' talking points might be, states' rights and racism are not the same argument.

So yeah, I'm inferring an accusation of racism from both you and Olby. On top of that, I'm inferring a great deal of condescension from you every time you call one of my viewpoints "childish" (and you do it a lot).

And no, I don't think Palin and Bachmann are fomenting ideas of violence. (I haven't seen much of O'Reilly or Beck in a while except for Beck's continued dust-up with Wallis.)

In short--and I hope I'm misreading this--your comment is saying that yeah, Republicans are racist thugs. And I will remain in total disagreement with that conclusion.

p.s. And if I'm a partisan hack for citing Breitbart, you are just as much of one for citing HuffPo.

Friend never responded to this statement.  I can only hope Friend decided that this discussion was just as unproductive as the previous ones, but future events led me to believe that this was not the case.
The second event which put the nails in the coffin was my posting of a Michelle Malkin column about the same events I mentioned in my post.  Ms. Malkin's column took the viewpoint that the left had manufactured a fake hate-crime to pin on the Tea Partiers.

And how did Friend respond?  Of course, by attacking the messenger.  "You need to stop referencing Malkin. She is a demonstrated liar and bigot..."  At this point, I was incredibly tired of being told what not to post.  I certainly didn't tell Friend not to post the Frank Rich NYTimes column from the following Sunday (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html?hp) which, as one might expect at this point, called the Tea Partiers racists.

No, I decided that the Christian thing to do in this case was not to engage Friend in any discussion whatsoever.  I changed the privacy settings so that, presently, Friend is no longer able to see my posts, thereby leaving Friend unable to comment on them as well.

But, with that said, Friend's status updates still appeared on *my* Facebook news page.  And two of those updates crossed a line.

The first:

Nevermind that she and the right-wing media establishment are willfully misinterpreting the U.S. president, but Sarah Palin is a Constantinian, not a Christian. I quote: "I don't understand a world view where we have to question whether we like it or not that America is powerful."

Friend, who are you to question whether someone else is a Christian or not?  Last I heard, God was in charge of making that determination, and you certainly are not God.  Was Governor Palin's statement Constantinian?  Perhaps it was.  But neither you, nor anyone else in this world, gets to make the call on her character.  Your statement was incredibly arrogant and infuriating.

The second:

Mark Davis is a damnable racist, and both the Dallas Morning News and WBAP happily give him platforms for his wickedness. I am furious at him for how much he loves to hurt black people and I'm likewise frustrated at the society that makes our local media essentially untouchable.

Other than that Mark Davis hosts a show at WBAP in Dallas/Fort Worth, I know absolutely nothing about him, but again, Friend, who do you think you are to refer to a person as "damnable"?  IT'S NOT YOUR CALL.  (Given your leanings and your previous postings, Friend, I'm inclined not to believe he's even a racist, but I'm not having that discussion.)

So, Friend (and I know you're reading this), why did I change my privacy settings to let you read this particular post (and, of course, the other two parts through the links posted above)?  Because you and I are still fellow Christians.  First of all, as a Christian, I feel that it is important to call you out for your statements above, which, in my opinion, were decidedly not Christian.

Secondly, and more importantly, I feel called to end this bitterness.  Several of my comments to you in our Facebook discussions were not exactly Christian in nature either, and I feel that we both owe it to God to apologize.

So I'm sorry.  I'm not sorry for my viewpoints, but I am sorry for the way I defended them at times.

And what of you, Friend?  Do we reconcile, acknowledge that we are going to disagree on certain issues, and move forward, or do we part ways now?  It's your call.