Arizona … Native America?

Which of these people who “met the boat” will be required to present their papers?

How will these “experts” be able to tell the difference between Native Americans and “Real Americans?”

Answer:  They won’t be able to.  Native Americans come in all shapes and sizes and shades and “looks.” This is the saddest piece of legislation in modern times to be forced upon a state aside from Oklahoma’s intrusive anti-choice legislation.  Arizona lawmakers should be ashamed of themselves.  At least Oklahoma’s governor tried to veto a bill that would violate rights.

What will the excuse be for pulling over people who were here before you Arizona lawmakers?

(Yes I realize that “Native America” is Oklahoma’s slogan).

Advertisements

Oklahoma rushes to pass legislation banning the social interaction of Singles?

No.

But here’s how it would sound if they did.   I’ll relieve all single men of being in the company of single women to avoid the possibility of her ever becoming pregnant.  Because, given the CHOICE, a woman that has become pregnant through a traumatic or ‘inconvenient’ event she WILL have an abortion … after all, life is sacred, fetuses are life, and any manner of cell meeting human cell in the womb is to be revered, and there is no way IN HELL a woman can figure out what’s best for her.  Best for us all to help her.  Men, especially.

Here’s how the anti choice crowd sounds:

The Oklahoma Senate approved several bills Monday that opponents say would make it more difficult or uncomfortable for men to interact with women, including one that would require men seeking to have social interactions with women to undergo a a full medical check.

The five bills, some of which will go to the Governor  for consideration and others which will return to the House, were overwhelmingly approved by the Republican-controlled Senate. If given final approval, the bills would give Oklahoma some of the most restrictive laws of any state, a civil rights group says.

One of the laws headed to the governor would require doctors to ensure a background check, proof of employment, criminal background check, bank account record check, credit check, proof of fertility, DNA check, and general interview of family in cases where it would provide a clearer picture of  the possible candidate for fatherhood.

“You’re going to force someone to undergo an invasive medical procedure,” objected state Sen. John Doe, D-Oklahoma City, who voted against the bill. “You have to invasively put an instrument into a man to do these DNA and health tests. This could be your 15-year-old son.”

At least three states require HIV tests before all social interactions, but no other states require DNA tests before all dates or that men must receive vasectomies if it is proven their DNA holds ‘defective’ genes. Additionally, single men wishing to socially interact with single women will be required to review a 3-D simulated viewing of the process of the vasectomy, should they choose to meet with any single woman.

State Sen. Republican R.U. Serious, who sponsored the bill, said the goal was to provide men seeking a mate with as much information possible before they met.

The governor vetoed the 3-D ultra sound requirement in larger bill two years ago, arguing it had no exclusions for victims of post traumatic stress disorder. But his veto was overridden when anti-male/female interaction Democrats joined with Republicans. The bill was later ruled unconstitutional because it dealt with more than one subject. The bill passed Monday also has no exceptions. He has not indicated whether he will sign it.

It passed 35-11 Monday with several Democrats voting with Republicans. Of the five women in the Senate, all Democrats, two voted for the bill and three voted against.

The other interaction measures would require men to complete a lengthy questionnaire before meeting a woman, mandate certain signs be posted on government web sites and prevent so-called “wrongful-suppression” lawsuits in cases where a man might argue that a woman who wasn’t a virgin or other problems would have been better off left dead.  Another bill would prohibit state insurance exchanges, created under the new federal health care law, from covering the required DNA tests, checkups, or vasectomies.

“Senate Republicans continue to fight for life of the sanctity of the family, and today we saw members from both parties join together in supporting this great cause,” said Oklahoma Senate President Pro Tem Ray Ban.

Another bill would require a man requesting interaction with a woman and her doctor to complete a 38-question form that asks, among other things, the man’s age, race, education, number of previous male-female interactions and reason for seeking this particular interaction.

State Sen. Goodbar, who sponsored that bill, said it would help policymakers answer questions about which men seek social interactions with women and why, providing valuable data that could be used to craft policies to prevent matches that weren’t ideal for the woman, the man, and future generations.

“This is an effort to try and reduce the incidents of a tragic copulation that is used way too often.”

The reporting requirements and the interaction bill are among the strictest anti-interaction measures in the country, said Moe, an attorney for the New York-based Center for Gender Social  Rights, which successfully challenged interaction-related bills passed by the Oklahoma Legislature in 2008 and 2009.

Seven of the anti-interaction bills passed by the Legislature so far this year were included previously in larger bills struck down in separate court cases for violating a state requirement that bills deal with only one subject.

“We’re very disappointed that the Legislature has decided to pass these bills and open themselves up to possible legal challenges in the future,” Moe said. “We’ve been monitoring the bills, and it’s definitely a significant possibility we’ll be challenging some or even all the bills.”

The bills  governor for consideration. The other measures will return to the House for consideration of Senate amendments.

THIS IS NOT REAL LIFE … BUT, this is how anti-choicers seem they want it.  All of these things are absurd, will never happen, and are not likely the number one consideration in woman who is seeking an abortion’s mind.  This is FICTION, it’s fiction just as purported outrage over a painful, invasive, procedural decision is.  Any procedure removing something from an individual’s body, with the prospect of anything going wrong, is horrifying to face.  Women can make that decision all on their own.

Oh, ‘Reason’ …

In response to Reason’s blog post, “Progressive History 101 (Minus All that Uncomfortable Racism, Sexism, and Support for Eugenics)” I bring you a couple of  quotes from UCLA Professor Joyce Appleby:

” … the critics of liberalism have been working at cross-purposes.  Social histories have opened up new fields of knowledge which have forced a broadening of categories, but they have not created a historical synthesis to illuminate the meaning of the American experience.  Those who have examined liberalism as a historical discourse have undermined confidence in more than liberalism, for their deconstructive weapons have been trained upon the whole conception of bodies of knowledge.

“This encounter between scholarly research and philosophical skepticism in the writings of American history is but our national version of a crisis in Western thought. ”

She continues:

“The original passion of liberal reformers was outrage: outrage at institutions that interfered with free inquiry; outrage about the tyranny that groups exercised over individuals; outrage with the human debasement in the aristocratic assumption of innate superiority.  Between its animating spirit and its deliquescent complacency liberalism held the ground for a powerful, if contradictory, commitment to equality and freedom.”

Of the beginnings of American republicanism she writes:  ” … Not having a sense that a historical event cannot be understood independent of when it happened, they collected historical instances as a naturalist collects fossils – as empirical data to be worked into general laws.  The most that they would concede to human variety was the diversity of the physical world where different conditions prevailed but nevertheless were understandable within a unified structure of knowledge.”

For the record, in the evolution of the United States political differences have been a part of our national story.  Each political party is a branch of another, Progressivism is simply break from conventional Republicanism as that political philosophy is a break from the original Liberalism the nation was founded upon.  Libertarianism is adoption of European ideas as are the previous three.  Each of these has committed its own brand of atrocity, made bad judgments across the board, and are continually evolving.  The constant branding of Progressives with this bizarre notion that the group accepts eugenics as sort of okay or something is the most regressive way of thinking I’ve ever encountered.  It would be akin to us assuming that to the United States’ participation in the release of Jews being slaughtered during World War II Libertarian’s response would be: ‘Meh – we should stay out of it.’  I’m reasonably sure that wouldn’t be entirely true.

To Reason magazine I offer the KKK to Republicans  and the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party to Libertarians – and, if I see one more blog post or comparison of modern Progressives to racists, sexists, and eugenics I think I’ll go ballistic.

Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin Return to Their New Jobs

Those of you who know me best know that I will do almost anything for a joke. It doesn’t even have to be a good joke, just one that makes me laugh. So, after watching Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin spend all of last week fighting it out over President Obama‘s new NASA plan, the first thing I thought of when I saw Ke$ha‘s backup dancers on Saturday Night Live was “So, that’s what they’re doing for extra cash now.”

Add to that the fact that this performance is made of 9 different varieties of AWESOME, and I was determined to build a Mediaite blog post around that one joke. I will long consider it a personal failing that I could not manage it. Now, the moment is gone, but if ever there are two astronauts battling it out in the public square again, I can simply link to this post. In the meantime, enjoy the best thing I’ve seen on SNL in awhile.

Jezebel, quit bashing Jessica Simpson please

I’m kind of annoyed.

It seems Jezebel is bashing Jessica Simpson for the sake of bashing her.

There is a large percentage of Americans who have not EVER spent time outside the United States, and while Jessica Simpson is a person who has traveled, she most likely is not a person who has actually lived amongst the ‘natives’ of whatever country she is visiting.

I’ve been reading – with interest and confusion – Jezebel’s commentary on Simpson’s new show “The Price of Beauty” and the contradictions in its critique is odd.

For example:  “In photographs, Khansa was wearing non-traditional, Western clothing— like many people in Morocco — and yet when she met with Jess and her friends, Khansa wore a djellaba.”  Well, my problem with that is Simpson’s show is about traditional, native thoughts about beauty, not whether modern women subscribe to them.  “Exoticism” seems not to be the issue, rather pop-culture introduction to different cultures and customs.  The author completely ignores how women in Muslim countries may NOT feel objectified by their traditional clothing.

Example Two:  “What’s hidden behind the hidden door.” Jessica was giggling and laughing the whole time.  What that means, to people have an ounce of a sense of humor is … “HaHa, MYYYYTTTTH.” To quote Napoleon Dynamite … “GAH!”

Example Three:  Oh dear. How dare the young ladies have learned that it’s lovely to have a human being look at you in the eyes, not in the cleavage … … … ?! Really, that’s what we’re laughing about?  Think about this audience in general.  This is for PEOPLE WHO DON’T KNOW WHAT A FEMINIST LOOKS LIKE! This is for young women who are afraid to be feminists because they think it equals “man bashing” or some such nonsense.  This is for women who don’t have that sort of education.  Jezebel, please don’t turn them off, instead, welcome them into the fold.

Example Four:  Jessica dressed inappropriately?  In a Muslim household, with traditionally what would be only women for this visit, and you are concerned about how she respects those who have her in her household? A roomful of women …  with no men in the picture, AT ALL. Women do this all the time in Muslim culture amongst family and other women … hasn’t Jezebel seen those shopping shows? I’m confused.  Frankly this is what confuses most people.  Just as Jezebel says feminism shouldn’t be about stereotypes.  Good for Jezebel for standing up for Jessica standing up for herself … “owning it.”

Example Five:  The “Tea Tray Dance.” It’s a fun show … get a grip.

Post Script:  Jezebel also complained about Jessica freaking out over a spider and buggin’ over mosquito nets and those sinus cleary things … “neti pots?” … getta grip.  I know grown men who panic if a tarantula is near them even though they can’t sting or kill but are only big and hairy.  Wimps.  You visit a country where you’ve heard you can die from an insect bite and we’ll talk … losers.

On Newsbusters, Michelle Malkin, Big Journalism, Alan Colmes, and David Shuster

Regular readers of this blog probably know some of this, but here goes anyway.

On Newsbusters: I wrote two stories today based on Newsbusters stories, and it occurred to me that I ought to clear a few things up. First of all, I have no axe to grind against Newsbusters. In fact, quite the opposite. Along with Jason Linkins, they saved my career. They did really excellent reporting on my firing from Politics Daily, without which I’d be a former troublemaking blogger-turned-fry cook. Melinda Henneberger tried to ruin my career, and she would have gotten away with it if it hadn’t been for Newsbusters’ and Jason Linkins’ refusal to let her muddy the waters, and for Ed Morrissey’s extraction of a slanderous lie from her. Conservative radio host Media Lizzy also pitched in the smoking gun, and was also shitcanned by Henneberger for her trouble.

For this, I will always be grateful, as I am to Michelle Malkin, who was also very supportive at that time, despite our near-uniform disagreement on just about everything.

More than that, though, I think people tend to dismiss Newsbusters too easily. Certainly, they make no bones about their point of view, and it shows in everything they do. But that doesn’t mean that if you don’t agree with them, you should stay away. The two posts I wrote today were perfect examples. If you strip away all of the editorializing, there are useful facts in both Newsbusters pieces that I linked to that I wouldn’t have gotten anywhere else. Is TPM going to count how many Bob McDonnell pieces were in yesterday’s Washington Post? Does HuffPo have those CNN emails? Looking back a bit more, is Daily Kos going to put together a montage of Ed Schultz spitting fire?

They also watchdog liberal shows and websites for quotes and coverage they don’t like, which has several benefits. First, if Newsbusters hates it, it’ll probably be good content to promote to the left. Sometimes, they have a point, and digesting that can help you become sharper, perhaps avoiding the same mistake. I also have long believed that it is important to call out your own side, as well as the other, because it is the right thing to do. For me, being liberal isn’t about being on a team, it’s about having a set of beliefs and values, and applying them with integrity.

Having said all that, of course, I reserve the right to criticize Newsbusters, and they, me. The key is not to personalize it, not to be completely and personally negating. Any wiseass can string together insults, but it takes real talent to learn from, and teach, your adversary.

That brings me to Michelle. In probably the least helpful endorsement ever, it turns out I’m Michelle Malkin’s favorite liberal. I’m actually very proud of that fact, because it’s easy to gain the admiration of people who agree with you. I also reserve the right to criticize Michelle, but I’m not sure if I ever have, at least not directly. Her influence is such that, like Keyser Soze, I’ve probably fought with those she influences without even knowing it.

I met Michelle at CPAC, and I was very nervous, for a few reasons. One of the things I admire about her is her toughness. The attacks she endures are way out of proportion, yet she doesn’t just endure them, she seems to relish them. For all of her outrageousness, she will feed your outrage right back to you. She also doesn’t try to weasel out of the inflammatory things she says, like Rush Limbaugh does.

This is why I don’t understand the way some people treat her. Max Blumenthal, for example, who I’m decent friends with, went up to her at CPAC once and tried to get her to sign a photo of a Japanese-American internment camp. Keith Olbermann, who I also like, always flashes that awful picture of her, as if being caught in a grimace makes you wrong. If her rhetoric is so wrong, why resort to these kinds of tactics?

In person, she’s just a tiny thing, underscored by this sick video of some guy getting in her face and screaming, followed by a violent fantasy shot of her bleeding. I haven’t read her book, but if I did, I doubt I would have to physically intimidate her in order to get my point across, or use Japanese internment victims as props, or try to deny that she is a very attractive woman.

Anyway, I like my relationship with Michelle the way it is. Despite her toughness, I sense some very raw nerves, and I’m sure her positive feelings about me are fragile. Whatever she sees in me, perhaps she can see in other liberals, so I didn’t want to screw it up by getting in an argument with her, or being too suck-uppy. There are a million liberals for her to fight with. So, I said “Hi,” and I hope I thanked her, and went on my way.

Similarly, I would urge those on the right not to dismiss sites like Media Matters or Crooks and Liars, or personalities like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. Any dope can work up a froth, but it takes talent to put your opponent’s argument in context, concede the points that have merit, and argue those that don’t. The right could learn a lot from Maddow, whose charm and cultivated sense of fairness trump a truckload of snark. If Fox News had any brains, they’d give Mary Katherine Ham a show at 9 pm.

That brings me to David Shuster. I did a write-around on an interview I did with him a few weeks ago, and everybody flipped shit when I said “From what I know of Shuster, I don’t think that he’s ideologically driven.” I’m not going to re-argue the point here, I just want to point out that clinging to assumptions is never helpful, it’s not going to help you “win.” I was one of the people who assumed that Shuster was a lefty. Now, whether you think he’s good at it or not, I think Shuster’s passion for journalism is what drives him into a ditch now and then. His contempt for James O’Keefe is obviously about that. Ditto Breitbart. But also, think back to the Chelsea Clinton incident. The central issue there was the Clinton campaign’s use of Chelsea on the campaign trail, while insisting the press stay away.

His throwdown with John Ziegler was also mainly about the press’ treatment of Sarah Palin.

What surprised me most about our interview was Shuster’s acceptance of the roles of people like O’Keefe, Breitbart, and Drudge in journalism. I assumed it might have had to do with his network’s reprimand of his handling of O’Keefe. Now, I think I get what he was saying. I think he views them the same way I view Newsbusters. While I understand, I have to disagree on the particulars.

That brings me to Big Journalism. The key difference here is the fundamental dishonesty with which they operate. It all started at CPAC.

First, a little backstory. I was outside the hotel copping a smoke when I heard some CPAC attendees buzzing about a run-in between Andrew and liberal videographer/columnist Max Blumenthal, that had just occurred (this is an annual rite at CPAC). I learned later, from Max, that he was on his way out of the hotel when he was accosted by James O’Keefe’s ACORN-busting partner, Hannah Giles.

According to Max, she began asking him “bizarre questions,” and a crowd quickly formed. He engaged the crowd for about an hour, and while they started out hostile, by the end, it was much more civil. As the gathering broke up, Breitbart saw Max, and (according to Max) started an argument, part of which can be seen here. (Max’s own video may be available soon.) The crux of the argument was Max’s accusation that Breitbart’s…independent contractor… is a racist. I find it instructive, though, that in both this argument and in his interview with me, he says that the worst thing you can do in America is to accuse someone of racism. Andrew, if you’re reading this, here’s a follow-up: How many notches below that is actually being a racist?

Max also claimed that the DC police who were handling security for the conference advised him to leave for his own safety.

Upon hearing this, I rushed into the hotel to ask Andrew about it. Aside from his dissertation on mucus and weird personal cracks, there are several things worth noting.

First of all, I did not accuse anyone of racism, no matter how much Breitbart wishes I did. I simply asked a question. Breitbart and his crew might want to paint this as an indictment itself, like “when did you stop beating your wife,” but this is just not the case. There’s ample reason to ask it, and it’s a gift-wrapped opportunity for them to put this issue to rest.

In fact, this points up a neat contrast between O’Keefe and myself. I had a reason to ask the question. It’s an issue that’s been raised elsewhere, based on O’Keefe’s own behavior. In fact, after my interview with Breitbart, several CPAC attendees thanked me for “calling it out.”

O’Keefe, on the other hand, decided to set up a sting operation to see if ACORN would give tax help to a pimp and a prostitute. Why? Did O’Keefe have any reason to believe that this was an issue for ACORN? He’s never said so. So what is it about ACORN that made him want to engage in the pimp attack? Where was the probable cause?

If only James or Breitbart would answer that. For it appears that Breitbart’s influence over O’Keefe extends to only let him talk to friendly journalists, but, as our encounter shows, his influence isn’t large enough to include taking responsibility for O’Keefe’s actual product. Apparently, O’Keefe has no editor. This is a great deal for Breitbart, as he gets to exploit O’Keefe’s work, but assumes less responsibility in protecting him.

Also worth noting is that when Breitbart realized what my followup question would be, he grabbed my camera and tried to end the interview. I shouted, to be heard above the crowd, “Because I got him, I got you!” I challenged him to stay and answer the question. As you can see, he wanted to leave because he had no answer, because there’s only one answer.

Now, for some reason, it’s very imp0rtant to Big Journalism’s John Nolte to believe that, after the interview, I said “We got him. We got him.” I don’t understand the significance, but it’s so crucial to him that he even made the quote a nickname for me. The problem is, that’s not what I said.

What I did say is pretty similar, and I only object for the sake of accuracy. The point is, Nolte refuses to correct his reporting.

After Breitbart used the crowd of 100 or so to get away from me, several CPAC attendees urged me to go after him, and I say “Nah, that’s ok, I got him. That’s why he’s running away.”

Saying “We got him” would make no sense, since there was no one there with me. If there had been, I probably would have said that. The fact, though, is that I did not.

Later that night, I went out for karaoke with about 10 other conservative bloggers, mostly from Redstate.

Christian Hartsock, one of James O’Keefe’s friends resourcefully trailed me to the karaoke bar, and accosted me outside, at about 2 am.We had about a 15 minute exchange, during which I completely demolished him. I asked him the same thing I asked Breitbart, and after dodging me for as long as he could, he predictably accused me of racism for equating a pimp costume with black men.

“So you’re saying that pimp=black is racist?” I said.

He warily agreed. “Then why did James tell Fox News that he was surprised anyone believed he was a pimp, when he’s the whitest guy ever? White=not a pimp?”

Boom! He had no response. Looong pause. “C’mon, that was a joke.”

I predicted that he would chop up the video, if he posted it at all, and I was right. Here’s what Hartsock put out. Even in his cherry-picked version, I still crush him:

It should be noted that the Redstaters surrounding me all promised, at the time, to loudly call Hartsock out if he tried to post an edited version. They have all chickened out, and can GFT. Ask any of them, they’ll tell you what happened.

Anyway, Nolte seems to think he can help himself by crawling onto Twitter every now and then to insult me, then run away when I challenge him ass to post the whole Hartsock tape.

The irony is that Hartsock posted the clip in an article where he tries to defend the heavily edited ACORN tapes. Awesome, right?

Aside from correcting the record, the point of all this is that these guys are fundamentally dishonest, so you can’t even trust the facts they present. Other partisan blogs like Media Matters or Newsbusters might leave out facts that don’t support their stories, but by and large, they don’t alter them. There is no place for outright liars like O’Keefe, Nolte, and Henneberger in journalism. I cut Hartsock some slack because I don’t blame him for hiding the utter humiliation I dealt him. We’re all only human.

The irony is that these guys are picking a fight with the one guy who can give them a fair shake. The right is certainly not going to tell them what they tell me, the left has no interest in their side of things, and the mainstream media is just happy to point at them until they stop being entertaining.

Which brings me to Alan Colmes, a guy who is unappreciated by the people he can most help. I said my piece about Alan on Mediaite, and I was humbled to get a big “Thank you” from him. This is a guy who is a better liberal than a lot of the posers who snark it up around the internet, he’s sharp as a tack, and he’s the only liberal who’s in a position to do any good. Everyone else is preaching to the choir, but when Alan points out something that doesn’t make sense, he does it in front of people who actually need to hear it. He might not convince them to love health care reform, but maybe he can convince a few that it’s not going to kill them. And if you think you could have done better than him against Hannity, keep in mind that Keith Olbermann won’t have any guests on who disagree with him.

If this business has taught me anything, it’s that you should always challenge your own assumptions, and that it’s rarely a good idea to personalize that which is not personal. Since I’m only human, I’m sure I will continue to do a little of both, but that’s how we learn. I suppose it’s also important to remember that Andrew Breitbart, Michelle Malkin, Keith Olbermann, Markos Moulitsas, and even Tommy Christopher are all human beings, not bogeymen.

FireDogLake the left’s Politico?

Oh dear.

I seriously don’t know what to do with myself when an entire article is not read, but instead only the headline and clips from an article that supports one point alone.  I suppose some folks still don’t realize that headlines are meant to grab your attention … either that or they just don’t care.

Over at FireDogLake they posted this nonsense yesterday:  “According to new polling released by Greenberg and partner James Carville, Democrats are held in such little regard today that ‘we’re on the edge of 1994… If the election were now, you would be there.’

Now, a responsible dissenter would indicate that perhaps a more complete point is arrived at later in the story and then continue on with that thought, but not with the firedogs … nooooo.  The funny thing about it is that the completed portion of the thought comes BEFORE their cut and paste job.

So, I’ll do it for them: “Greenberg, who was Bill Clinton’s pollster in the early 1990s, went on to say that he doesn’t think the current situation will hold over the next seven months, and that he expects things will improve for Democrats.”  The Hill adds:  ” … Greenberg also noted a series of differences between now and 1994, including the Republican Party being held in higher regard back then.”

The moral of the story is that both Greenburg and Carville primarily were speaking of voter passion and “intensity” in RELATION to PREPARING for the next election.  I really don’t think I’m reading between the lines too much on this one … it’s pretty clear.  In fact, Greenburg explicitly says “… I don’t think it’s 1994.” Um …

With regard to Rahm Emmanuel … give it a rest. He’s not the President.  And, even so, I’d wager a bet he meant polls would improve AFTER things in the bill began to be implemented.  With no direct quote, though, we really don’t know what Rahm actually said, now do we?