Right Wing Nut House

In a perfect world, all that would be needed to understand the law would be a heap of common sense and a love of liberty. Indeed, in the early days of the Republic, “the law” was largely considered self evident and that the nuances of a particular statute were interpreted not by highly trained legal minds but rather by judges appointed or elected based on their reputations for fairness and their ability to apply country wisdom to a legal problem.

This was an age when the courts were considered great entertainment, when judges and juries were routinely swayed not by careful legal reasoning but by the powerful oratory and histrionics of up and coming lawyers. Most of our great statesmen in the early decades of our history were lawyers who made their reputations in this manner. When one of these legal superstars was involved in a case, it would draw people from miles around to watch and listen as the barrister would hold forth, delighting the crowd with humor or moving it to tears with pathos.

But for the law to be a civilizing influence, it was perhaps inevitable that these simple, frontier practices would eventually give way to a legal complexity so discombobulating that ordinary people like you and me would be forced to place our trust in writing and interpreting the law into the hands of educated, trained legal high priests whose common sense and wisdom were less important attributes than their ability to obfuscate and confuse the nuances of the law, all the better to bend it to their will.

In short, somewhere along the path to legal enlightenment, cleverness and chicanery replaced intelligence and common sense as prerequisites to being a good lawyer.

I may get an argument from some of my readers who practice law regarding that last statement but I think my point is valid; understanding of the law is now beyond even those who might be considered reasonably intelligent and perceptive. Without the technical expertise in the law vouchsafed those who train for a career as a lawyer, the rest of us are at sea when it comes to the great legal issues of the day.

I say this only in defense of what follows. In a case that involves the very essence of our constitutional system of government, only a relative handful of the 300 million citizens of this country have the specialized knowledge to examine and debate the issues raised in Judge Taylor’s decision on the legality and constitutionality of the NSA terrorist surveillance program.

This won’t stop the rest of us from forming an opinion on the matter. But that opinion will be based largely on what other, more informed sources have instructed us to think. And in the court of public opinion, like the lawyers of our early history, emotionalism and sensationalism seem to sway our opinion more than common sense and reason.

I say this realizing that I am as susceptible to this kind of argumentation as the next fellow. But in recognizing my limitations, I feel confident that I can nevertheless offer up some observations on Judge Taylor’s opinion that are as valid as anyone elses - lawyers included.

I have had reservations about the legality and efficacy of this program from the beginning. I still do. Leaning once again on authority, there are many people whose opinion I value that have said this program is unconstitutional just as there are those I consider equally knowledgeable believing the program both legal and constitutional.

But then there are those - Eugene Volokh and Orrin Kerr to name two - who aren’t sure. The reason sounds plausible; not all of the details (technical or otherwise) about how the program actually works have been made public. The Washington Post brought this out in their editorial yesterday:

The NSA’s program, about which many facts are still undisclosed, exists at the nexus of inherent presidential powers, laws purporting to constrict those powers, the constitutional right of the people to be free from unreasonable surveillance, and a broad congressional authorization to use force against al-Qaeda. That authorization, the administration argues, permits the wiretapping notwithstanding existing federal surveillance law; inherent presidential powers, it suggests, allow it to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance on its own authority. You don’t have to accept either contention to acknowledge that these are complicated, difficult issues. Judge Taylor devotes a scant few pages to dismissing them, without even discussing key precedents.

Readers of this site know that I have taken a rather jaundiced view of the Bush Administration’s stretching of the constitution using the “inherent powers” argument on secret programs of which we know little or next to nothing. It makes me uncomfortable even though I realize the necessity for the secrecy that must be maintained if these surveillance programs are to be effective. I was especially confused by the tortured reasoning used by the Attorney General in citing the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) against al-Qaeda as a justification for what any objective observer would have to conclude is a broad based and troubling expansion of federal surveillance practices. It didn’t ring true then and it doesn’t now.

Having said that, I find it equally mystifying that so many on the left - including the probable next Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers - have already charged, tried, and convicted the President for engaging in surveillance practices whose exact outlines we can only guess at and with absolutely no evidence that the program has been used injudiciously. From what we know about oversight, it has not only been reviewed periodically by the Justice Department (causing alterations in the program to satisfy some of the attorneys there) but the NSA has apparently put strict procedures in place that are designed to prevent the kind of abuse so worrisome to all of us.

Is it enough? Who knows. Certainly not Lamchop and his hysterically unbalanced, unyielding, absolutist opposition to anything this President has done to decrease the likelihood of another 9/11. This goes for the rest of the cockamamie left whose hatred for Bush, the Republicans, and conservatives along with a lusting for power that would be unseemly in another, less forgiving age has poisoned their reason and clouded their judgement to the point that they question the very basis for the increased surveillance; that we are at war with fanatical jihadists.

In this context, it is easy for them to dismiss anything and everything the government does to protect us. Indeed, in their feverish desire to kill the Bush presidency, they have undermined the war effort, giving tremendous aid and comfort to people who want to kill us all. Whether this is deliberate or not is beside the point. It is the logical outgrowth of their hatred.

Does this mean the legality and constitutionality of these programs shouldn’t be questioned? Of course not. All Americans should welcome a discussion between opposing viewpoints on these critical issues. But having a civil, reasoned debate about the lines that must be drawn between expansive civil liberties and terrorist surveillance as the Washington Post is calling for is falling upon deaf ears on the left. Instead, hysteria, paranoia, and a shameless emotional exhibitionism rules the day.

I have said repeatedly that in order to win the War on Terror, we must find a way to engage the left in a dialogue that will bring both sides closer together so that some kind of unity of purpose can be achieved. Simply put, we will lose this war if we remain divided as we are. And as I’ve speculated recently, perhaps it will take a liberal President to make that happen. The pain and angst demonstrated by the Democratic left in being out of power is so profound as to border on psychosis. Hence, they will only listen to one of their own when he/she is sitting in the big chair and faces the awesome responsibilities of the office as well as the frightening truth about the nature of our enemies.

Perhaps then we won’t be seeing the “War on Terror” in quotation marks quite as often and the constant questioning of motives when some horrific plot is uncovered as it was last week in Great Britain. The breathtakingly stupid response of many on the left in this country to that near miss (they found “martyr videos” from some of the suspects which would indicate what a very near thing this plot was to unfolding) shows a continuing lack of seriousness on the part of liberals toward our safety and a sublime ignorance of the nature of our enemies.

Judge Taylor’s decision on the legality of the NSA terrorist surveillance program read more like a press release from a candidate for public office than a legal opinion. This seems to be an almost universal take on Taylor’s writings. Even Lambchop agrees:

Yes, sure, it is true that the judicial opinion issued yesterday is very weak, in places borderline incoherent, in its reasoning with regard to some issues. Anyone can see that. Most everyone who commented on it, including me, pointed that out. But that does not undermine in any way the fact that this President has been systematically breaking the law for no reason other than he thinks that he can, and that judge’s rejection of that belief is quite eloquent and powerful. Most importantly of all, it is indisputably correct.

How we get from “incoherent” to “eloquent” in the space of two sentences only someone with the brains of a sock puppet can say. But it isn’t just the weak arguments and torturous language that jump out at one when reading the decision. It is the same familiar language used by leftist netnuts to describe the Bush Presidency that makes Taylor’s reasoning - or lack thereof - so eerie. It actually made me giggle a little when I realized that the pejoratives she hurled against the President had actually appeared on Lamchop’s website on numerous occasions. Chiding the President for acting like a “king,” is straight from Lamchop’s (and most of the left’s) list of Bush bashing ad hominems.

Is Taylor’s decision, despite its problems, the right one? It doesn’t appear to me that she knows any more about the way that the NSA program works than I do. Perhaps she was privy to information not available to the general public. If so, she doesn’t make that clear. And if she has no more knowledge of how the program works than the rest of us, how can her decision have any merit? It is one thing for sock puppets and other bloggers to state flatly that the program is illegal and unconstitutional. They are, after all, internet pundits and their opinions do not have the force of law. But when a federal judge, armed with exactly the same information that I or Lambchop has, writes an opinion that is in its surety a very serious indictment of lawbreaking by a sitting President, one can legitimately question other motivations that moved Taylor to come down on the side of the issue that she did.

In short, the revelations about Taylor’s past made by many righty bloggers are perfectly legitimate points of discussion considering all the factors at work in her issuing this opinion. And in that respect, Judge Taylor appears small minded, partisan, and eager for publicity - all points that call into question her ultimate judgement and the impartiality of her thinking that led to the decision in the first place.

No, I’m not a lawyer. But I’m not brain dead either. Nor am I insensible to the role that politics plays in our judiciary. But all things considered, Judge Taylor’s headline grabbing decision on the legality of the NSA terrorist surveillance program is not helpful to the kind of ongoing debate we must have on the nature and extent of civil liberties in war time. Bush may not be king. But he is Commander in Chief. And in that role, the President must be given expanded powers when America’s citizens are at risk. Does this mean that the NSA program is legitimate and legal?

I just don’t know. I guess it depends ultimately on whether or not you trust the President not to abuse the enormous power he has, even without this particular program. I wish it weren’t so. I wish everything could be revealed, all decisions about how to best to protect ourselves made in the light of day, all logic and reasoning used to encroach upon our civil liberties made public. But by the ultimate necessity of winning the war, such will not be the case.

The rationalists in this country recognize this. The hysterics do not. And therein may lie the difference between victory and death.

UPDATE

Hugh Hewitt:

Not a single Democrat of any stature or visibility has stepped forward to criticize much less reject the opinion from Judge Anna Diggs Taylor declaring NSA surveillance of our enemies contacting their operatives inside our country to be unconstitutional. Their collective silence has grown more and more revealing as the chorus of legal commentary mocking the absurd opinion has grown throughout the day.

The Democrats cannot be seen to say anything against the opinion because of Kosputin and his minions. The party of Lamont is unhinged, and Judge Taylor’s opinion is now a new icon of the movement.

In fact, the Dems have been mostly silent on this program since it was revealed by the NY Times last December. Given the fact that the President, under the requirement of law, notified the intelligence committees of Congress of this program and that even Dems on those committees have mostly kept their mouths shut, one wonders that if those who know more about this program than Judge Taylor or Lambchop aren’t saying it’s illegal and unconstitutional, how we do we square this with Taylor’s decision?

Strange indeed.

This is a HUGE SURPRISE! The already shaky underpinnings of the Bush dictatorship received a crippling blow that may help collapse the entire, rotten edifice:

A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government’s warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency’s program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

“Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution,” Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly listening to conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

(Bias? What media Bias? “…[S]ecretly listening to conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries” conjures up the men in the black van hunched over their magic decoder machine listening in while Auntie Midge talks to her sister in Budapest. If the judge based her decision on what was known about the program, this description of it is so far off from the truth of the matter as to not even be in the same galaxy.)

I can barely type this through my tears of joy. Lambchop and all the civil libertarian absolutists who have battled to save the soul of America lo these many years by trying to make the world safe for journalists, academics, lawyers, and their terrorist contacts overseas are to receive all the plaudits of a grateful nation.

Do you think a parade for these heroes is enough? Perhaps a laurel wreath of triumph and gratitude to be placed upon their fetid brow? How about (eliminationist rhetoric warning) a rope around their necks?

After all, what do you think the penalty was during World War II if a journalist, or scholar, or lawyer was found to be in contact with a member of the Nazi party in Germany? I can guarantee that the FBI took a very dim view of such contacts. I guess they figured if you couldn’t do your job unless you were talking to the enemy, that kinda made you, ya know, like, the enemy too.

But then, World War II was a real war, not this trumped up, ginned up political sideshow hatched by Evil Karl and Shrub in order to make their buddies in the military industrial complex rich and instill terror in the hearts of Americans so that they would vote for Republicans rather than Democrats in elections. This, after all, is no fair at all. Since Democrats could give a sh*t about national security, elections should avoid this issue at all costs. Better to have elections hinge on Democratic issues of taxing the rich (anyone who makes over $25,000 a year), enslaving the poor, handcuffing businesses, and playing pattycakes with the thugs in Hamas, Hizbullah, and any other dirty necked galoot (especially that radioactive elf in Tehran) who can prove that Shrub is at fault for all the troubles in the world.

There was one bright spot in the judge’s ruling. That other top secret program that liberals say was an impeachable offense and was proof of the President’s march to dictatorship that uses data mining techniques to develop information on terrorist networks was declared “constitutional” after all.

Maybe we could get that gizmo they used in Men in Black and flash the entire world, replacing the memory of people having information on that program with a recipe for my Aunt Donna’s corned beef and cabbage.

Oh, that’s right. No such gizmo exists. I guess we’ll just have to ask for an apology from the press and a great big “never mind” for revealing it in the first place. I await the day that happens with as much anticipation as I await the day that Ned Lamont takes his rightful seat on one of the most influential bodies in the world - the Connecticut Port-o-Potty Authority.

And no, we’re not going to ask liberals to apologize. After all, they were looking out for all of our interests. Even the interests of the terrorists who, after all, are almost human too. Better that 100,000 Americans die than one terrorist suspect in this country have a conversation monitored with his Aunt Beddie Boo in Damascus. (I sympathize. I had an Aunt Beddie Boo in Damascus m’self once).

Leave it to Goldstein to crystallize thinking and reveal the truth of the matter:

Even still, it’s amazing that we’ve reached the nuance point where only by revealing secrets can we show the the secrets in question should not be revealed, lest they damage programs meant to protect us from attacks, which only work while details of how they work remain secret.

But it’s the thought that counts.

And what I’m thinking at this moment (Warning: more eliminationist rhetoric) about the civil liberties absolutists who revealed both these programs would get me 20 years to life in the real world.

The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir. [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark]

More evidence that when it comes to learning about science and technology, Americans are the smartest butter churners, blacksmiths, and wheelwrights in the world:

This is the result of a new survey of people’s attitudes toward evolution, country by country.

What is it that the rest of the enlightened world knows and we don’t? Are all the technologically advanced peoples on this planet under some magic spell of the evil Darwinists? What are the real world consequences of this kind of scientific ignorance?

There is little doubt that science education in this country is a joke. While American 4th graders score very well on international standardized tests, finishing 3rd in the most recent TIMSS Report (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study), it’s all downhill from there. Our 8th graders finish in the middle of the pack while our seniors in high school are almost dead last.

The good news is that we are very big country so that we still have a fairly large pool of scientifically inclined students who get advanced degrees and fill out the ranks in industry, government, and research firms. This Rand study shows that there is no shortage of qualified Americans graduating with degrees in life sciences who go to work for our bio/pharm companies at the moment.

The bad news is also in that Rand study; other countries are graduating many more scientific and engineering students per capita and will begin to seriously press our graduates for jobs in a globalized economy in the coming years.

I disagree with PZ Meyers who was kind enough to reprint the table above. He blames “God and the Republicans:”

Americans are being rolled in large numbers by an ideological ‘elite’ nested in our churches and in the Republican party—the reason we are falling so far behind in our understanding of the biological sciences is that political and religious authority figures are lying to the people and fostering ignorance, and Americans are dumbly falling for it…and the more ignorant they are, the more they depend on those false authorities.

Americans aren’t second to last because they are “famously independent.” They’re failing biology because they’re god-soaked sheep, and the Republican party has exploited that failing.

Nonsense! First of all, the grim figures about science education in America relative to the rest of the world have been trending downward since the early 1970’s, long before the religious right achieved influence in Republican politics. It goes hand in hand with declines in our international rankings in mathematics as well which has nothing to do with God or praying or belief in the supernatural.

PZ’s explanation is simplistic. It fails to take into account the hidden failure of our science education; that poverty and rotten schools have more to do with attitudes toward evolution than “Republican elites” or even God.

It goes without saying that those school systems - mostly located in large cities and the rural south - don’t need a belief in God to keep them from understanding evolution. All they need is local government (run by Democrats for the most part) to run the schools so incompetently that students can graduate while lacking the scientific fundamentals.

This table shows the huge disparities between achievement scores by race. The crisis in science education in the inner city is a direct result of neglect as well as a cultural bias on the part of students where any academic achievement is frowned upon.

And if PZ’s explanation is correct, how do you explain this?

Between 1995 and 2003, U.S. eighth grade students improved their performance on the Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) assessment, which measures mastery of curriculum-based knowledge and skills. However, scores of fourth graders generally remained flat over the same period. Both U.S. fourth and eighth grade students scored above the international average on the 2003 TIMSS, in which both developed and developing countries participated.

A ray of good news that sort of knocks some of PZ’s argument for a slight loop. During almost the exact period of Republican ascendancy, scores for eighth graders improved relative to the rest of the world. At the very least, this shows that other factors are at work when making judgements about our very real problems with science education.

I know what PZ is saying and I share some of his concerns. But to place the blame solely on a belief in the almighty or one political party is a stretch.

As for the notion that conservatives in government are playing politics with science I might ask why this is news? To the extent that the Bush Administration has injected politics into global warming research or other scientific projects one might better ask why is it that this is news when Republicans are in power and not the other party? The political arm twisting at EPA that has been going on for 25 years over second hand smoke has led to shoddy research, poor methodology, and perhaps even jiggered conclusions. It’s no accident that there were 82 studies funded during the Clinton Administration on second hand smoke effects. The trial lawyers were pleased with this avalanche of studies that they could introduce in their class action suits against the tobacco companies.

Aids research has enjoyed similar political attention from Democratic Administrations in order to pander to one interest group or another. And anyone who can’t see the politics on both sides of the global warming debate when it comes to interpreting data needs to take off their rose colored glasses and start paying attention.

My point is that there is enough politicization of science as it is. Blaming Republicans or “god-soaked sheep” is shallow thinking indeed. Better to address other aspects of the problem as well before the rest of the world surpasses us in scientific fields vital both to our economy and national security.

You may find this very hard to believe but despite the fact that I’m probably one of the two or three smartest people I’ve ever met, my grades while I was in school left much to be desired.

I like to think it was because my teachers were a bunch of philistines whose dreary recitations of facts and fallacies bored me to tears.

The truth is a little more prosaic. I daydreamed in class constantly.

One of my favorites at almost any age was my “Rookie sensation hits Grand Slam Home Run to win the World Series” daydream. That was one guaranteed to bring tears to my eyes so that when my English teacher thought I was digging on Joyce Kilmer, I was really enjoying the fantasy of being carried off the field in triumph.

Then there was the “Academy Award acceptance speech” dream where I was on stage accepting my 10th Oscar for Best Actor, thanking all the little people while being mobbed by the likes of Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro, and of course, Farah Fawcett who would then ditch Lee Majors to shack up with me and be my body servant. No tears with this fantasy, although there were other, more embarrassing outward manifestations of the vision, especially when getting to the part in my reverie where Farah was getting a little frisky.

Such a pleasurable way to pass the time, daydreaming. In fact, why don’t you and I try it right now, shall we?

Let’s imagine it is early tomorrow morning in Connecticut. We are watching CNN as a breathless Anderson Cooper is talking about the victor in the Democratic primary for Senator. We are told that he will make an appearance in the hotel ballroom shortly. Scenes from the ballroom flash across the screen of overjoyed people, dancing and singing.

Just then, the winner appears on stage to the roar of his supporters. The happy, smiling candidate raises his hand for quiet but the crowd simply won’t settle down. They worked hard for this victory. Finally, the room begins to settle. But as it does, a strange barely discernible noise can be heard in the background. Straining, we try and pick it up but it is almost too indistinct to be understood. Suddenly, it dawns on us. It almost sounds like…like…one hundred thousand people screaming in agony and rage at the top of their voices.

That’s right. The candidate making the victory speech is Joe Lieberman. And the howls of pain and anguish are coming from the legions of netnuts whose smug, self righteous crusade to take down Lieberman failed in the end as a direct result of their own hubris.

Kos is so bereft he announces that he’s getting out of politics and going back into the telemarketing business. Hamsher writes a goodbye note to her blog readers, goes back to Hollywood and makes millions doing acne cream infomercials. Oliver Willis is so overcome with grief that he rejoins the circus.

Softbank puts a “Stop Payment” on their $5 million check to Huffpo. Chris Bowers was last seen weeping uncontrollably in the lobby of a skid row hotel in Norwalk with a bottle of Mad Dog and a 3 year old Hustler. Matt Stoller asked his mother not to disturb him for three days (Her response: “Matty, as long as you’re living in this house, you’ll take out the garbage. Now, march!”).

Digby outs himself and joins a convent. TBogg dissolves into a toxic sludge of excrement and bile. John Aravosis refuses to acknowledge Little Neddy’s defeat and spends the next 5 years proving that Diebold employees hacked into the voting machines and gave the victory to Lieberman (he’s eventually proved right).

Atrios stops blogging, posting an “endless open thread” (Wait…that’s what he does every day anyway). Maha goes catatonic - not that anyone could tell the difference between before and after the primary. Dave Niewert is convinced that Neddy’s defeat is a sign from God and joins a Druid monastery where he accuses a tree of being a Kluxer. Billmon goes on the wagon and renames his blog “Juice Bar.” James Wolcott is so upset he lets his mask fall off revealing his true identity - Joan Rivers.

Pleasant dreams, everyone…

Watching as Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake gets raked over the coals by conservatives for her jaw dropping portrayal of Senator Lieberman in blackface over at HuffPo, I couldn’t help but have a twinge of sympathy for her.

Not because I care that conservatives are being really, really nasty towards the bitch. She deserves every mean thing said about her and then some. She’s a female version of Glenn Greenwald, Dave Niewert, and Billmon all rolled up into a disgusting Rouladen of snark, snippiness, and snobbishness so disturbingly vile that after reading her hysterical rants against righties, you feel compelled to decontaminate your laptop in order to prevent the spread of some flesh crawling contagion.

My sympathy for Mrs. Hamster lies with the fact that being a liberal is such a challenge to rational thought that only a select breed of human is capable of the feat. Think about it for a minute. How many aggrieved races, classes, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, oppressed minorities, mentally challenged, physically challenged,, weight challenged, sexually repressed, sexually aberrant people does a liberal have to keep track of so that when trying to be funny they don’t step on anyone’s toes?

It must be like living life in a minefield. One misstep and BOOM! All of a sudden, you’re an internet verb.

Can you imagine the thought processes a liberal has to go through in order to try and be funny? I mean, do you think they have a list of forbidden words tattooed on the inside of their thighs so that they remember not to use gay” when talking about people who are simply happy? Or “niggardly” to describe miserly behavior?

Perhaps this is why most liberal bloggers are so deadly serious. It’s the only way they can be truly amusing. When Glenn Greenwald accuses conservatives of being incipient authoritarians or when Dave Niewert posits prestidigitation as a reason that conservatives sound like neo-Nazis, we should remember that these are considered real knee slappers by liberals and not to take either these gentlemen or their ideas with any seriousness whatsoever.

Of course, there are other things that makes a liberals life a living hell. Keeping up with the latest in grievance group news must be a pain in the butt. Scouring the papers daily for that telltale whine from some newly oppressed sub-sub group of an already oppressed minority can be a real chore. But Gaia’s chosen ones must put their all into the effort to bring the sub-sub group’s grievance to light. There are meetings to organize, T-Shirts to be printed, editorials to be written, blogbursts, blegs, and blab-fests to be highlighted.

And then there’s that trip to the tattoo parlor to get another word etched on the inside of their thigh, one more sub-sub group they can’t afford to injure by using some offending nomenclature while trying to be amusing.

The picture of Lieberman in blackface will not injure the reputation of Mrs. Hamster. After all, no one seriously believes that she has a racist bone in her body. But what truly might become a cause celebre is her candidate’s eyebrow raising response to the imbroglio:

“I don’t know anything about the blogs, I’m not responsible for those, I have no comment on ‘em…Independent blogs, I can’t say anything about it.”

Huh? Malkin explains:

As I pointed out yesterday, Jane Hamsher is more than a mere “independent” blogger sitting on the Lamont campaign sidelines. She filmed Lamont’s first videoblog. She chauffeured Lamont and his staff. She raised money for him. She’s still on his blogroll. And despite Lamont’s claim that he doesn’t control blogs and Hamsher’s claim that she “answers to nobody,” he told her to pull the blackface Photoshop yesterday–and she dutifully complied.

And this was Hamster’s statement from yesterday:

I sincerely apologize to anyone who was genuinely offended by the choice of images accompanying my blog post today on the Huffington Post. It’s also important to note that I do not, nor have I ever worked for Ned Lamont’s campaign. However, at their request, I removed the image earlier today.

“Pay no attention to that girl behind the curtain…”

Ned Lamont was cruising to a huge victory in the Democratic primary next Tuesday over Lieberman. He may yet win. But his disingenuous response when asked about his…what is Mrs. Hamster to Lamont’s campaign? Personal confidante? Blog Guru? Lapdog? Whatever role she fills in actuality, it is clear that in her own mind, Mrs. Hamster was a mover and shaker inside Little Neddy’s campaign. And for Lamont to disavow any knowledge of or connection to Jane Hamsher is a shocking mistake that almost surely will cost him some votes - but probably not the election. That said, Lieberman’s independent campaign for the seat got a huge boost with this idiocy.

And who knows? We’re only on day two of this little kerfluffle. If the local media latches on and starts to chew, anything is possible. And if it costs Lamont the primary, it will be a blow to the already non-credible netnuts whose track record in elections is surpassed in futility only by that of the Cubs and their efforts to get to the World Series.

Makes me glad I’m not a liberal. It’s just too much work to prove how ignorant and stupid you are.

Evidently not satisfied with simply being made into an internet verb, noted child molesting humor mongerer and thorn in the side of human decency Deb Frisch is back - with a vengeance.

Employing poorly disguised sock puppets, Frisch (a woman defended by some on the left despite her unhinged attacks on Jeff Goldstein and his two year old son) commented at Ace’s site thusly:

Do you think Jeff sux Satchel’s dick or just plays with it?

Of course, she didn’t use her true name. But the IP address on the comment - as well as the IP address on similar comments made at Goldstein’ site - traces back to Eugene, Oregon where Frisch currently resides. The comments left at Jeff’s site are so sickening that I’ve decided not to publish them here. Patterico has a screenshot of them if you feel the need to see depravity in the flesh.

That’s not all. According to Patterico, the IP address is eerily similar to one used by Deb Frisch herself in comments left at Aces, Goldstein’s, and Patterico’s websites in the past.

Patterico sums up the evidence:

Frisch previously left comments on my site, Ace’s site, and Jeff’s site using a slightly different Qwest IP address that traced back to Eugene, Oregon. That previous Frisch IP address was Qwest IP address 71.34.252.228, which also traces to Eugene, Oregon.

I long ago deleted the content of comment she left on my site, under the moniker “WW” (”Word Warrior”); it’s still linked here. I preserved the original text in a Notepad file.

Ace confirms that Frisch previously posted comments under her own name on his site, under that same Qwest IP address. And Jeff tells me she had previously used two Qwest IP’s on his site. One was the same as was left on my site: 71.34.252.228. The other was 71.32.126.27. That is also a Qwest IP address that traces to Eugene, Oregon, the city where Frisch lives.

In the meantime, Jeff Goldstein has felt compelled to stop posting until he can resolve his problems - “once and for all” - either through the legal system or, my recommendation, by using law enforcement if indeed any laws have been broken.

Couple this with the ongoing drama involving Seixon, Larry Johnson, Jason Leopold, and God knows who else and you have an extraordinarily disturbing picture. And I would say to my friends on the sane left who I know visit here from time to time and are kind enough to disagree with me rationally that the time has come for larger lefty blogs to stand up and be placed in the decency column by using some of that vitriol they hurl at the right and at the President with such practiced ease and send some of it in the direction of the guttersnipes, the bullies, and the dirty necked galoots who are making the internet a sewer and a place of dread.

I don’t like the direction that the blogosphere is going at all. All the great hopes for this new communications medium engendered in the lead up to and following the 2004 election are being subsumed in an avalanche of filth and threats that have gone far beyond bad jokes, inappropriate humor, or simple flame wars. It is no longer enough to “fisk” a post by a rival blogger. Now you must destroy the blogger himself, lay him low with withering personal invective of a kind that borders on threats to his person or even more disturbing, to his family.

I mentioned in my Seixon post that these tactics are a kind of hardball politics not seen on the internet before but not unfamiliar to those who have been involved in politics on the national level. Whispering campaigns of a vile nature carried out against opponents, the call in the middle of the night, siccing friendly reporters on rivals by rumormongering, digging up dirt on people’s personal lives, even veiled threats have all been part of The Big Game in Washington for decades. Somehow, you would think that the citizen journalists who inhabit the blogosphere could have immunized themselves from that kind of nastiness.

Alas, the stakes are considered so high by most that the old saw “The ends justifies the means” becomes a battle cry for those who seek the brass ring of power and the prestige that comes to those invited into the outer rings of the Councils of State. It is the politics of Court transmogrified to 20th century America. It is a game played for keeps. The victims are those who see politics as something less than life or death. And in that kind of contest, those most determined to prevail generally do.

Unless the blogosphere as one rises up in righteous anger and condemns without equivocation, without qualification, and without regard to ideology or party affiliation those who seek to sully this medium with the poisonous tactics of bullying, or threatening, or crossing over from the virtual world into the physical world in order to carry out vendettas against opponents, we will become a sideshow, a gaggle of carping, sniping, irrelevancies who deserved to be laughed at rather than taken seriously for our ideas or beliefs.

It’s not to late to take a stand. And I urge everyone that reads this to take that stand with me.

See Howie? See Howie smile. See Howie grin. See Howie be nice.

HOWARD DEAN CALLS FOR AN END TO DIVISIVENESS

Down with divisiveness was the message Wednesday delivered by Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean as he told a group of Florida business leaders that Republican policies of deceit and finger-pointing are tearing American apart

GOOD BOY, HOWIE! GOOD BOY

Now see Howie. Howie is mad. Howie is mean. Howie is a two faced lying weasel. Can you say “two faced lying weasel?”

I knew that you could.

HOWARD DEAN COMPARES KATHERINE HARRIS TO STALIN

Democrat leader Howard Dean called the Iraqi prime minister an “anti-Semite” during an address before party loyalists on Wednesday, drawing a swift rebuke from Republicans. The Democratic National Committee chairman also called Republican Senate candidate Katherine Harris a “crook” and compared her to Stalin.

Dean also used the Florida appearance to criticize President Bush, calling him “the most divisive president probably in our history” as he complained that Republican policies of deceit and finger-pointing are tearing the country apart.

“He’s always talking about those people. It’s always somebody else’s fault. It’s the gays’ fault. It’s the immigrants’ fault. It’s the liberals’ fault. It’s the Democrats’ fault. It’s Hollywood people,” Dean said. “Americans are sick of that. Even if you win elections doing that, you drag down our country.”

BAD BOY, HOWIE! BAD BOY!

Howie says our President blames gays for our troubles. Howie is a two-faced lying weasel. Howie knows our President never blamed gays for our troubles. Not once. Not ever. Howie is fibbing.

BAD BOY, HOWIE! BAD BOY!

Howie says our President blames immigrants for our troubles. Howie is a two-faced lying weasel. Howie knows our President never blamed immigrants for our troubles. Not once. Not ever. Howie is fibbing. Our President loves immigrants. Can you say “Bush is in the pocket of the Chamber of Commerce when it comes to immigration reform?”

That’s okay. That was a hard one. Can you say “Bush is carrying water for big business interests who need the cheap labor illegals provide?”

Never mind children.

BAD BOY, HOWIE. BAD BOY! BAD BOY, GEORGE, BAD BOY!

Howie is unhinged. Howie is losing it. Howie can talk out of both sides of his mouth and get away with it. Why is that, children? That’s right. Because the reporters working for the big big newspapers and big big TV networks let him get away with it. Can you say “bias” and “double standard?”

I knew that you could.

BAD REPORTERS! BAD, BAD, BAD!

Okay children. That’s all for today. Tomorrow we’ll learn all about the war in Iraq. Can you say “Retreat and defeat?”

I knew that you could.

BAD DEMOCRATS! BAD, BAD, BAD!

New York Times best selling author and famous sock puppet Glenn Greenwald has done us all another favor. In the past, The Great Waldo has given us the benefit of his wit and wisdom regarding all manner of conservative sinfulness, most notably that the right has transgressed by failing to recognize the god-like thunderbolts of truth and logic that sputter and spark from his tireless (and tiresome) pen on a daily basis.

Forgive us, your Puppetress! We are not worthy. And may I suggest that the brown sock matches your eyes and skin tones quite nicely while the blue one makes your hand look rather limp and unattractive?

What has Waldo in a hysterics today is that someone dared try to debunk one of the left’s made up terms that insults, smears, and savages conservatives. Like redefining “racism” to include ethnic groups that are not of another race and are in fact, scientifically speaking, as white as the driven snow (Hispanics, Arabs, and anyone else who wants to piggyback on top of the grievance culture of the left), Waldo is in a snit because Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe wrote an article revealing the “chickenhawk” charge made by the left against people who disagree with their anti-war worldview has nothing whatsoever to do with debating the issues. Rather, by using the term, liberals have every intent of shutting off discussion while at the same time, gleefully savaging their political opponents by creating a narrative that places them in an ascendant moral position.

Goldstein has called out the left on this tactic many times, most recently here:

And controlling the narrative—first by bending it to fit your will, then by repeating it until it becomes provisional “truth”—is at the heart of a progressive “activism” that, let’s face it, has failed to win people over using an unrigged marketplace of ideas.

Indeed, it is now impossible to have a discussion about racism in America without including Hispanics as a separate “race” and a victim of white oppression despite the fact that there is not now nor has there ever been such a unique racial anthropological designation for Hispanics. It is simply part and parcel of the left’s desire to stand truth on its head whenever they feel it necessary to gain an advantage in dialogue and has nothing to do with reality, science, the ordering of an individual’s genes, or the correct usage of the English language. It is bogus. It is disgusting. And it must stop.

Similarly, Waldo attempts to redefine the word “chickenhawk” in order to dismiss Jacoby’s argument without even addressing its major point; that the use of the term is a slur and is used to shut people up. Here’s Jacoby:

“Chicken hawk” isn’t an argument. It is a slur — a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don’t really mean what they imply — that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force. After all, US foreign policy would be more hawkish, not less, if decisions about war and peace were left up to members of the armed forces. Soldiers tend to be politically conservative, hard-nosed about national security, and confident that American arms make the world safer and freer. On the question of Iraq — stay-the-course or bring-the-troops-home? — I would be willing to trust their judgment. Would Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean?

The cry of “chicken hawk” is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action. But there is no difference, in terms of the background and judgment required, between deciding to go to war and deciding not to. If only those who served in uniform during wartime have the moral standing and experience to back a war, then only they have the moral standing and experience to oppose a war. Those who mock the views of “chicken hawks” ought to be just as dismissive of “chicken doves.”

In any case, the whole premise of the “chicken hawk” attack — that military experience is a prerequisite for making sound pronouncements on foreign policy — is illogical and ahistorical.

It should be noted that not all agree with Jacoby’s contention that military service makes one more hawkish. In fact, McQ at Q & O makes a good case that military service actually makes one more dovish. But putting that aside, instead of addressing the meat of Jacoby’s argument, Greenwald once again raises the bar by redefining the term and restructuring the chickenhawk narrative so that it can be applied in as broad a manner as is possible:

That is simply not what “chicken hawk” means, and it is less than forthright of Jacoby to mis-define the concept in order to argue against it. Although there is no formal definition for it, the “chicken hawk” criticism is not typically made against someone who merely (a) advocates a war but (b) will not fight in that war and/or has never fought in any war (although, admittedly, there are those who mis-use the term that way). After all, the vast majority of Americans in both political parties meet that definition. The war in Afghanistan was supported by roughly 90% of Americans, as was the first Persian Gulf War, even though only a tiny fraction of war supporters would actually fight in those wars which they advocated.

Something more than mere support for a war without fighting in it is required to earn the “chicken hawk” label. Chicken-hawkism is the belief that advocating a war from afar is a sign of personal courage and strength, and that opposing a war from afar is a sign of personal cowardice and weakness. A “chicken hawk” is someone who not merely advocates a war, but believes that their advocacy is proof of the courage which those who will actually fight the war in combat require.

That last part of Waldo’s “definition” - “Chicken-hawkism is the belief that advocating a war from afar is a sign of personal courage and strength, and that opposing a war from afar is a sign of personal cowardice and weakness” - is a brand spanking new addition to the word’s meaning. And it was appended to the original meaning by none other than the Great Waldo Sock Puppet himself (or one of his many admirers).

How do we know? This is a cached version of the Wikpedia page defining the term “chickenhawk” from just two days ago (7/23):

Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political epithet used in United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, but has never personally been in a war, especially (but not always) if that person is perceived to have actively avoided military service when of draft age. The term is a deliberate insult, meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present. Often, the implication is that the person in question lacks the experience, judgment, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war.

Here is the Wikpedia definition as seen today - after more than 50 revisions to the entry in the last 24 hours:

Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political epithet used in United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, but has never personally been in a war, especially (but not always) if that person is perceived to have actively avoided military service when of draft age. Many proponents of the term insist on an additional requirement: Chickenhawks believe that their support for a war (or other military action) is an indication of their personal courage and that those who disagree are appeasers and/or cowards. This important point is rarely acknowledged by the term’s opponents when its use is criticized.

(Emphasis mine)

Could the reason the point is “rarely acknowledged by the term’s opponents when its use is criticized” have to do with the fact that Mr. Sock Puppet redefined the term only just today for his own purposes of argument? Give us some time, Waldo! Another day at least before we acknowledge your blindingly brilliant addition to the nomenclature of the word.

Even if Waldo or one of his minions did not rush to alter the Wikpedia definition to reflect his revised, made up definition, the point still stands; when losing an argument, the left invariably tries to change the parameters of the narrative rather than attempt to win on the merits or on logic. They view language with a fluidity that lacks the proper respect for and understanding of the importance of commonality of usage - that we all must use the same reference points when talking with each other. Otherwise, we talk past each other rather than with one another.

One of my commenters “GawainsGhost” - a much smarter and more credentialed man than I - puts the abuse of language by the left in perspective:

But the larger point is that deconstruction best serves the purposes of leftist academics, which are to teach that a poem or text says what they want it to say. This is why other academic fads, like Marxist theory, feminist theory and new historicism, are so prevalent in today’s academy. Deconstruction allows a Marxist or a feminist or a new historicist to take any poem or text and claim that it supports whatever ideology they advocate, even and especially if that ideology did not exist anywhere at the time the text was composed and has absolutely nothing to do with the intention of the author. (Incidentally, the best book on this subject, if you’re interested in pursuing it, is John M. Ellis’s Against Deconstruction, Princeton UP 1989.)

When there is no truth and words have no meaning, any text, or any event for that matter, can be turned around and made to say or mean the exact opposite of what it actually says or means.

Turning truth and reality upside down. Travelling to a place where black is white, up is down, and intent doesn’t matter as much as forcing it to fit into a new, interpretive paradigm that bears no resemblance to any sense or significance allowed by the author.

Welcome to Waldo’s World.

When I first read about Nobel Peace Prize winner Betty Williams saying that she “would love to kill George Bush” I wasn’t particularly shocked. It’s not like we haven’t heard similar sentiments expressed everyday on liberal websites. In books, plays, and probably their wet dreams, liberals write and fantasize about bathing in the blood of George W. Bush, celebrating as the life oozes out of the President of the United States, dancing on his mangled corpse and the corpses of their political enemies.

I’d say that they were engaging in “eliminationist” fantasies but as I’ve pointed out before, there’s no such word.

But what made the statement shocking was the reaction of her audience - made up of children:

“I have a very hard time with this word ‘non-violence’, because I don’t believe that I am non-violent,” said Ms Williams, 64.

“Right now, I would love to kill George Bush.” Her young audience at the Brisbane City Hall clapped and cheered.

There’s something profoundly disturbing seeing children cheering on the murder of another human being, even if he is President of the United States and even if the left has made it perfectly acceptable to contemplate murdering him. It reminds me of stories that circulated in the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination. According to William Manchester’s searing chronicle of the assassination Death of a President, there were several instances in Dallas schools where, upon hearing that the President was shot, children spontaneously applauded.

The reason can be found in the Warren Report. When the Commission was discussing how much blame to place on the city of Dallas itself for the assassination, there were several members who believed they couldn’t be too harsh in their criticism. In the end, the Report downplayed the white hot atmosphere of hate and loathing against Kennedy that had been ginned up by Ted Dealy, owner of the Dallas News as well as the local John Birch Society that was made up of several prominent Dallas civic leaders. In fact, on the day of the assassination, Dealy’s paper ran a full page ad with a picture of Kennedy, front and side view as if looking at a mugshot, with the banner “Wanted For Treason” in bold, black letters across the top.

The Commission found that there were dozens of instances of people in Dallas talking openly of assassinating Kennedy when he came to town or wishing that someone would. Texas Governor John Connally had heard the talk as well and begged the President not to go to Dallas. But some of the President’s aides saw Connally’s warnings as self serving. The reason for the Texas trip was to repair the schism in the Democratic party between Connally’s boys and the liberal wing of the Texas Democratic party headed up by Congressman Henry Gonzalez. Connally’s warnings were seen as an effort to stop the President from coming to Texas and foiling the Governor’s plans to kick the liberals into the corner, freezing them out of party leadership positions and influence.

But Kennedy Derangement Syndrome was pretty much confined to Dallas and a few other cities in the south. What is clear from the reaction to Mrs. Williams ranting in Australia is that its successor, Bush hatred, has gone global. We shouldn’t be surprised by this given the planet-wide reach of mass media, the internet, satellite TV, and pop music (especially Hip-Hop) whose graphic images and language routinely threatens violence against the President and authority figures in general.

It makes one wonder - how many similar demonstrations would there be by children the world over? In the United States?

A proud day for the left. And God help liberals if something happens to our President before his term in office ends.

UPDATE

Goldstein has another example of superior, reasoned thought from the left. This post from Booman Tribune is a sterling example (one that we conservatives should take to heart) about how to engage in debate with your ideological foes:

Forgive me for this but Alan Dershowitz’s children should be hit by a 5000 lb. bomb made by an American military-industrial corporation, sold to Israel, and misfired into his home. Then he can talk to me. I will offer my sincere condolences. Then we will get drunk and talk about relative culpability. I’m sorry Alan. You’re scum. Among the people in history that would gladly bitch-slap you are Jesus, Buddha, Zoroaster, Socrates, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jr., John Lewis, Nelson Mendala, Bishop Tutu, Pope John Paul II, and me. We’d all like to smack you for being a prick.

Actually, as Jeff points out, this threatening violence against children is getting to be something of a habit with the left recently, Perhaps like Magua in the Last of the Mohicans (nice turn by Wes Studi, btw) he “wishes to wipe his seed from the face of the earth.” More likely, he’s just a moronic twit who enjoys playing with himself thinking about naked dead children.

AND WHERE IS GLENN GREENWALD? WHY HASN’T GLENN GREENWALD CONDEMNED THIS OUTRAGEOUS RHETORIC?

To my mind, it is one of the most amazing transformations in recent political history. After working tirelessly in the post World War II environment to assist in the establishment of the state of Israel, many on the left have forgotten the original noble impulses that spurred their advocacy for a Jewish homeland and, in some cases, replaced it with a virulent, nauseating anti-semitism.

The dichotomy has its roots in the transformation of the old left to the new. While it is true the old left embraced Soviet Stalinism, it nevertheless rejected the Soviet state’s overt anti-Semitism the same way it ignored other human rights obscenities under Uncle Joe’s regime - such things just didn’t happen in the “worker’s paradise.” But it was the refugee crisis in post war Europe that galvanized the left and spurred their support for United Nations action on establishing the State of Israel.

The war ended with millions of displaced persons including 1.5 million Jews who refused repatriation or were denied re-entry to the countries of their birth. This was due in large part to a vicious anti-Semitism, especially in Eastern Europe. It was especially true in Poland where there were several pogroms carried out against returning Jews including a massacre of 42 Holocaust survivors in Kielce. The US and Britain also failed these unfortunate refugees in American restrictions on immigration and the British refusal to allow unrestricted immigration to Palestine. The UN had put the British in charge in Palestine and the local Arab population was not keen on having hundreds of thousands of refugees pouring into what they claimed were their ancestral lands.

By 1947, the situation in the camps was getting desperate. This led to the formation of several Jewish quasi-military units who began spiriting the more than 250,000 displaced persons out of camps and onto ships bound for the Holy Land. Intercepting most of these ships filled with Holocaust survivors, the British set up detention camps on the island of Cyprus to deal with this crush of humanity. These camps were administered by the British Army, not the United Nations and the conditions - little shelter, horrible food, inadequate medical care - were a disgrace.

Led by socialist groups in Europe and America (a large and vocal segment of which were Jews), the resulting international outcry spurred the United Nations into action. The British pawned the problem off to the UN at the urging of President Truman and a special session of the UN General Assembly voted on November 29, 1947, to partition Palestine into two new states, one Jewish and the other Arab. The solution was embraced by the Jews but rejected by the Arabs. On May 14, 1947, the State of Israel was born.

On May 15, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq invaded.

Fighting for their lives, outnumbered 10-1, the Israelis nevertheless prevailed. Over a nine month period, they pushed the Arab armies out of Israel while forcibly displacing some 750,000 Palestinian Arabs. This was a solution backed by the western left at the time because the armistice agreement between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, and Syria allowed for the formation of an Arab state in Judea, Samaria, and the West Bank of the Jordan River. The problem was that it was not the Palestinians who would be administering that state. The UN-brokered accord called for Jordan and Egypt to share in governing the Palestinian territory.

For the first 25 years of its existence, the State of Israel’s greatest champions in the west were on the left. Through the wars in 1967 and 1973, liberals in America lobbied for strong American support for Israel against its enemies who were seeking to destroy it.

But something happened that transitioned the left’s strong support for Israel into opposition to Israeli policies and even tipping over into anti-Semitism. And the answer can be found in the transition from the tolerance, coherence, and nobility of thought of the old left into the intolerant, riot of conceits and unabashed hatred spouted by the new left.

It wasn’t just the radicalization of politics during the 1960’s that gave the new left traction. More than anything, it was their bold forays into political advocacy that gave them real power and caused a sea change in American liberalism that booted the old left to the sidelines. Immersing themselves in Democratic party politics, the new left’s anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, statist (later anti-globalist) message that became ascendant saw the state of Israel as just one more rich state oppressing poorer ones. Forgotten was the reason for the formation of the State of Israel. Instead, the grievance culture of the new left identified with the Palestinian cause (as they identified with the bloodthirsty North Vietnamese during the war) and saw Israel’s “occupation” of Palestine a travesty of justice.

This is how the new left can look at Hizbullah and rather than seeing a terrorist group wishing to kill every living Jew in Israel they see instead a “resistance” to Zionist neo-colonialism. The Ward Churchills and Cindy Sheehans of the new left are only the most incoherent examples of a kind of virulent anti-Semitism disguised as opposition to capitalism and “racism” (as if Arabs and Jews are of a different race) that is now accepted on the new left as gospel. In fact, it is now perfectly acceptable to daydream about ridding the world of the Jewish state while making the jaw-dropping denial that this is in any way anti-Semitic.

This diary at Daily Kos sums it up perfectly: Does Israel Have a “Right to Exist?:

Might doesn’t make right, but it does determine who acts as they please.

The problem is the nations that get no respect and get anti-social as a result. It won’t help Israel to become a giant of bombers and tanks, because they cannot use their nukes.

We hope. What happens if Goliath strikes first, before David winds up his slingshot?

My answer? Evacuate Israel. Take everything that ain’t screwed down. Buy Baja, or some other available property. If it can’t be done anywhere in the world, change the culture to one of assimilation.

He is not alone. As this excellent article in The Weekly Standard by Dean Barnett points out, Daily Kos (which is the largest meeting place for the new left on the web) reveals much more of a casual, obscene anti-Semitism in its numerous diarists and commenters:

Perhaps sensing that this issue could highlight just how far removed the Kos community is from the American mainstream, Moulitsas and his other front-page bloggers have opted to ignore Israel’s war. Combined, the half dozen front-pagers have written exactly one post on the subject. And that post, authored by Moulitsas, simply declared that he wouldn’t write anything further on the subject. So while the most important story of the year develops, the nation’s leading progressive blog has chosen to focus on the Indiana second district House race between Chris Chocola and Joe Donnelly. Nothing wrong with that; it’s their prerogative to blog about whatever they like.

But inside the Kos diaries, it’s been a different story. The conversation in the diaries has been overwhelmingly anti-Israel–and potentially disastrous for the Democratic party.

One diarist labeled Israel “a destabilizing force in the region” and saw “no difference between Iran’s support of Hezbollah and Hamas in the form of finances and even arms and The United States’ financial support of Israel.” Before modifying this diary into a more moderate form, the author opened his essay with the declaration, “Israel is showing the entire world why the Iranian President was absolutely right to suggest that Israel cease being a sovereign state as is.”

Echoing the themes of moral equivalence and hostility towards the Jewish state, another diarist observed that, “War is nothing but terrorist attacks. Call it what you will, whatever rhetoric you want to use . . . when it comes down to it, that’s all it is. Israel committed terrorism today. And we helped to fund that terrorism.” [Ellipsis in original.]

It must be stressed that there is a difference between opposing the policies of the American and Israeli governments and anti-Semitism. But try as one might, it becomes virtually impossible to take such critiques as simple political disagreements when the very same rhetoric used by the anti-Semitic, Holocaust denying Arabs to call for the destruction of the State of Israel is used by the new left in their hateful rants against the Jewish state.

Clearly this metamorphosis by the left from strong support to hateful opposition towards the State of Israel can have a disastrous political effect if exploited by Republicans. However, since no prominent Democratic politician has actually come out and condemned Israels actions in the latest conflict (even though 8 House Democrats including ranking members Conyers, Dingell, Rahall, Stark and Abercrombie - all in line for Committee chairmanships if the Democrats take control - voted no on the House Resolution supporting Israel) it seems unlikely that the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic mouthings of the Democratic base will play any role at all in the November elections.

As Sir Thomas More said in Robert Bolton’s play A Man for All Seasons regarding the switching between Protestantism and Romanism by Will Roper, “Let us pray that when your head stops spinning, it ends up facing the right way.”

One can only hope that the left in America once again will face the “right way” and come home to its original lofty and noble support for one of its truly decent impulses of the 20th century - giving a battered and oppressed people a place that they could call home and where the words “Never Again” would have real as well as symbolic meaning.