They Are Who We Thought They Were

Iím told by some Dem-leaning pundits that Iím supposed to feel bad that the GOP has gone to crazytown, that this portends unwell for progressive politics. I just donít really agree. [. . .] People should stop pining for some golden version of the Republican Party, a conciliatory, collegial team of problem-solvers. Theyíre not coming back. They havenít been around for a decade and a half. - D-Day

They are who we thought they were! Don't let'em off the hook:

Open Thread.

< A Mandate For Clintonism: How About A Little Clinton Tax Policy? | Whose 'Idiots' Are Shrewder, Pt 2: Preventable Losses? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    but (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 12:50:51 PM EST
    are we the ones we have been waiting for?

    I've been waiting (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by the capstan on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 01:16:16 PM EST
    for 6 years now to have a good reason to vote.

    So is Brand D... (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 12:55:29 PM EST
    they are who we think they are.

    In a nutshell, the two brands...

    Brand R...Crooked and Corporate with an increasing slice of crazy.

    Brand D...Crooked and Corporate with an increasing slice of "look over there at how crazy Brand R is".

    what happened (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 02:17:37 PM EST
    to Timmys big surprise?
    the one that was going to excite democrats across the country?

    I guess (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:30:40 PM EST
    we're supposed to be excited about a new logo, new website, and new slogan ("Change that matters") for the Democratic Party, just announced by the DNC.  Link.  Well, gee, that sure gives me a tingle up my leg, how about you? (snark)

    horrendous (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 05:08:16 PM EST
    it looks like the trademark for a new anti-depressant.

    you have got (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:44:03 PM EST
    to be sh!tting me

    Well, to be (none / 0) (#32)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:56:32 PM EST
    fair (sort of) to Kaine, he also burbled about Obama's accomplishments:
    As he went down a longer list, Kaine spoke passionately of how Democrats delivered an economic stimulus (he would only call it "the recovery act") and "the Affordable Care Act" (which is how he spoke of the new health law).

    "And we'll be talking about that as a signature achievement for generations to come," the former Virginia governor said.

    and said:
    "Today's Democratic Party is ready to use every single tool in the toolbox -- and build new tools -- to help the president and Democratic leaders continue to move this country forward because we know there is so much more work to be done."

    So there you are- the big announcement.  I'm sure the new logo will positively excite and energize the base, and grab back those wavering independents.  Or not.

    New D logo honestly represents the party (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Ellie on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 11:03:59 AM EST
    C'mon, it's clearly an overhead view of a toilet bowl so thoroughly clogged with bullsh!t, it's become surrounded with inches of standing water. [/I'd laugh if I could but I can't so I won't]

    and that "logo" (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:44:56 PM EST
    what the hell?  what and who did they pay for that?

    The new logo IMO (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 04:29:49 PM EST
    looks like a blue target and is quite ugly.

    OMFG! that logo (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by caseyOR on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 04:43:14 PM EST
    is awful? Please tell me the DNC got that fro free, like maybe from a design contest in a 3rd grade classroom.

    Let me be clear, It is awful. (none / 0) (#35)
    by caseyOR on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 04:44:41 PM EST
    Not sure why I added the question mark. I guess my head is reeling from the idea that the LOGO is Kaine's big, party saving announcement.

    effing hell (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 04:48:05 PM EST
    Just shoot me. Here, I'll make it easy with that ugly blue target.

    Kinda how my thoughts on (none / 0) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 05:08:29 PM EST
    that target were going.

    Just shoot me. Here, I'll make it easy with that ugly blue target.

    The crazies will have a field day with that logo during their marches etc.


    Maybe they're expecting us (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:11:45 PM EST
    to be so energized by that logo (and the new website and slogan) that we'll all open up our wallets and pour money into the DNC.  It's really bad.  And the slogan is stupid.  I haven't the energy to look at their new website.  (I was thinking "target" myself, only Target, the store. "Shop DNC for all your holiday needs!"  Idiots.  Complete idiots.  And Kaine is a disaster as DNC head.)

    Kaine and Steele should take (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 08:40:00 PM EST
    their show on the road. They would make a great vaudeville act.

    The new logo can replace snake oil as the cure for everything that ails you.


    Tim shoulda stuck with the harmonica (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by DFLer on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 09:31:48 PM EST
    Rarely read kos now (none / 0) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 10:01:24 PM EST
    but came across this about the logo after following the link for the Dream Act.

    Dear DNC, your new logo sucks. It's painfully bad. Hugs and kisses, kos

    Now that is a kos opinion that I can definitely get behind.


    Remember... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Tony on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 02:42:45 PM EST
    that huge announcement that Tim Kaine said was going to excite Democrats across the country?

    It appears to be, I kid you not, a new logo for the DNC.

    {head desk} (none / 0) (#22)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 02:51:58 PM EST
    D train anyone?

    I will say though, it is as exciting as Kaine . . . .


    Great clip! My laugh of the day. (none / 0) (#1)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 12:48:34 PM EST
    I'd like to see the names of these left leaning pundits who think the rightie train to crazytown just made its inaugural journey. Must be new in town.

    It's an old route... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 01:22:15 PM EST
    but it does feel like they've added a few new stops to the route, somewhere off the deep end.

    I don't know... (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 01:33:55 PM EST
    When they actually introduce articles of impeachment  over the birth certificate thing, I'll be convinced.

    I don't know either... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 01:48:47 PM EST
    maybe my perception is whacked from paying more attention, but I could swear they used to at least have a little more shame on the right, keeping the crazy on the down low, for believer's ears only...now the inmates are most definitely running the asylum.  

    Yes, they were missing a key catalyst (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 05:12:13 PM EST
    for the full on crazy to be made visible.

    add black president
    shake well.


    Nail on the head I'm afraid... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 09:10:28 PM EST
    and no Fox soapbox.

    True, though also (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by dk on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 05:32:05 PM EST
    back in the 90s the mainstream media took care of so much of the dirty business (Whitewater!  Travelgate! Bl*wjobs!) that the crazies didn't have to pull as much weight.  Why bother when the New York Times was doing it for them?

    Now, of course, the corporate media has decided to back the Democratic party for a while, others have to step up their crazy.  The question is when will Wall Street flip back to the R team?  


    For those in need of context: (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 01:10:45 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 01:18:16 PM EST
    It is pretty amazing that a small group of extremists (Rs) managed to convince Americans (and the world) that they represent the center.

    And ironic that the small group of extremists (Rs) managed to convince 70+% of Americans that .001% of Extremist Muslims represent all of Islam.

    If the Right (3.50 / 2) (#9)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 01:45:33 PM EST
    hadn't been allowed to hi-jack populism with it's appeals to old time religion and (superficial but effective) rural identity politics, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. And that happened because the Democratic Party sold out, to large extent, to union busting and neo-liberal economics, while the like-minded Repubs at least were cunning enough to fill the resultant void with Jesus and the NRA.

    The What's Wrong with Kansas thesis. Fairly on target, imo. Reap the whirlwind.



    Insane (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 01:49:39 PM EST
    The Southern Strategy is something you clearly are not familiar with.

    A women's right to choose is something you clearly are not familiar with.

    What an ignorant comment.


    What a rash interpretation (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 02:18:23 PM EST
    of a comment. I'm not suggesting that the Southern Strategy etc was-is in any way, shape or form a morally superior line to adopt for the country. Quite the opposite. Im saying only that Right has very cunningly and cynically continued to use utilize variants of it to galvanize sizable swathes of the population, who, at one time, could've been brought over by strong progressive voices appealing to working people. But you're not going to appeal to many working people whose outsourcing you've abetted and whose ability to organize you've impeded.    

    Rove Too Liberal.... lol (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 01:50:12 PM EST
    With the battle won by the ultra-right in Delaware, the national conservative pundits who backed Christine O'Donnell in last night's GOP Senate primary have turned on a man who is presumably one of their own: Karl "The Architect" Rove. After Rove bemoaned O'Donnell's nomination as the end of the GOP's chances to take back the Senate in a heated interview with Sean Hannity last night, pundits and tea partiers have slammed him as a traitor and even called for Fox News to suspend him as an on-air analyst.

    In one five-minute interview, it seems, Rove went from keeper of the conservative cause to the next Jane Hamsher in the eyes of those who are ostensibly his allies.


    Wow looks like Rove and his pals unleashed something that they can no longer control....  we'll see.....  

    Extremism makes $$$$ for advertising.... but it is bad for corporate america, big paradox, imo.

    next Jane Hamsher (none / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 01:54:11 PM EST
    thats funny for many reasons

    Karl Rove Master Bates? (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:36:04 PM EST
    If he already knows what pleases him, and he can please himself, then why am I in the picture?

    So, GOPers Nominate "Extremists" (none / 0) (#14)
    by TearDownThisWall on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 02:01:20 PM EST
    yet the DEMs only nominate "moderates"?

    But, wouldn't the DEMs give anything to nominate their own brand of "extremists" instead of moderates?
    And then somehow get them elected (via enthusiastic, motivated, electorate?)
    For instnce, if DEMs had 60 "extremist" Senators... maybe they would have passed Cap n Trade, Public Option, Repeal of DADT...list goes on.

    On that note alone, the TeaPartiers should be commended for not sticking with the "same ole same ole" and nominating someone they really believe in....no?

    Reflection on being "a minority." (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 02:13:06 PM EST
    Took 12-yr. old Latino tutoree to Chivas USA v. Chivas GL pro soccer game last night at Petco Park.  Very, very few non-Latinos in the crowd.  Such a joyous croup of people, 22,000.  Didn't see any fights (thinking Dodgers games at this venue) or obviously intoxicated fans.  Just a lot of people enjoying themselves.  Where's the threat?  Good for San Diego economy, good for city and park owners' revenue stream.  Not an inexpensive outing, but apparently important enough to shell out for tickets  for those who came--including many families with children.  

    Saw Chivas... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 02:49:27 PM EST
    in Guadalajara against arch-rival America of Mexico City...nary a donnybrook to be seen, more mellow than a Jets game.

    I hear ya sister...what's the problem?  where's the threat?  I just see people like you and me too, trying to get by and have a little fun before they die.


    Peter Beinart is a weenie (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 02:30:24 PM EST
    but THIS is the worst idea ever:

    The country didn't swing right Tuesday night. Only the hard right bothered to vote. Peter Beinart on how compulsory balloting could prevent the next Christine O'Donnell.

    the only thing worse than not voting is voting when you have no idea what you are voting on or about.

    Revenge of the Ner- uh, er, Birchers (none / 0) (#19)
    by SeeEmDee on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 02:41:06 PM EST
    They've waited 46 years since Goldwater. Now 'all of the poisons that lurk in the mud' are 'hatching out'. The Machiavellian auxiliaries of the Big Money Boyz in the Reptilian Party have finally had enough of being used like the toilet paper they were.

    They think they're coming into their own, but it's still the Big Money Boyz (in the form of the Kock Brothers) who are still pulling the strings...and yanking the leashes.

    But this time, the dog isn't heeling. Worse, it's also snarling at its' handlers. When it slips the leash, don't be surprised if you see foam at the mouth.

    Koran Burner Fired (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 02:54:27 PM EST
    The protester who burned pages from the Koran outside a planned mosque near Ground Zero has been fired from NJTransit, sources and authorities said Tuesday.

    Derek Fenton's 11-year career at the agency came to an abrupt halt Monday after photographs of him ripping pages from the Muslim holy book and setting them ablaze appeared in newspapers.....

    "Mr. Fenton's public actions violated New Jersey Transit's code of ethics," an agency statement said.

    "NJ Transit concluded that Mr. Fenton violated his trust as a state employee and therefore [he] was dismissed."...

    If Fenton was fired for burning the Koran while off-duty, his First Amendment rights probably were violated, Chris Dunn of the New York Civil Liberties Union said.

    "The Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right to burn the flag. As reprehensible as it may be, burning the Koran would be protected as well."

    NY Daily News

    Hope it will be a learning moment, if the tea party hater gets defended by the ACLU.  

    Where does the 1st fall in regards to (none / 0) (#24)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:01:07 PM EST
    a company's COE, and is Jersey a right to work state (or whatever that's called)?

    You mean the 1st amendment? (none / 0) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 12:14:43 AM EST
    If so, if falls nowhere near this.  The government didn't suppress his speech, his employer fired him, which it's entitled to do.  He might have a legal case depending on what the company policies are on this, but it won't be on 1st amendment grounds.

    His employer... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 09:15:46 AM EST
    is the government...and they fired him over "off the clock" speech.

    I don't know their code of conduct and how strict it is, but I would hope NJTransit workers can still attend political rallies, even controversial ones, and not have to worry about losing their job over it.

    Mad kudos to the NYCLU for taking his case...


    Good for NYCLU (none / 0) (#80)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:28:10 PM EST
    I'm in favor of having this stuff litigated.

    But... the fact that his employer is the government is irrelevant to 1st amendment issues.  The gummint fired him acting as his employer, not acting as the gummint per se.

    Whether transit workers should be able to attend political rallies or not on their personal time is another matter.  I rather think, given the long-established provisions of the Hatch Act barring any political activity by federal employees, or local employees paid through federal grants, such restrictions are permissible.

    Do you really want, say, anti-immigration activists deciding who can get on a crowded train and who can't?


    If they can perform their duties... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:51:32 PM EST
    without letting their personal politics get in the way, I've got no problem with it.

    Sh*t G the thought has crossed my mind to jack up the price on a NYPD renovation quote, or toss it in the shredder, but I'm not krazy kdog on the job, ya check that at the door when you punch in and pick it back up when you punch out...if you can handle that, nobody should care what ya do on your day off.  And if you can't, I'd bet there is grounds for termination on the clock without having to look off the clock.


    you might want to revisit (none / 0) (#84)
    by cpinva on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 12:20:01 AM EST
    the hatch act, it's clear you're a tad behind. federal employees are able to engage in political activity, off the job, and not presenting themselves as a representative of the government.

    that changed years ago. many federal employees have run for, and been elected to local public office (school boards, city councils, etc).

    so, the hatch act has nothing to do with the individual's firing. in fact, by firing him, specifically for his off the job political actions/speech, they did indeed attempt to illegally suppress his freedom of speech. and sent a rather chilling message to the rest of their employees.


    the maverick is back! (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:18:14 PM EST
    Interesting NYT op ed on the political (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:21:24 PM EST
    history of Mexico, up to an including the unbelievable current internal slaughter.  In Mexico, a war every century

    The article doesn't mention (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 05:16:14 PM EST
    Pancho Villa or Zapata of the 1910 Revolution....

    And only obliquely refers to the victory of PAN and Vicente Fox over the rival PRI....and apparently blames the PAN victory as a decentalzing of power that allowed the narcotraficantes to flourish.


    Overview, I gather. My knowledge (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 05:35:35 PM EST
    of history of Mexico is pretty poor.  Did just finish listening to Barbara Kingsolver read her historical novel, The Lacuna.  

    perhaps mr. D-Day is younger than i, (none / 0) (#28)
    by cpinva on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:32:20 PM EST
    but the republicans officially went over the deep end 30 years ago, with the election of "St ronnie of rayguns", beatified for his destruction of the national debt, and rampant expansion of the military.

    they've not been the same since.

    Witness Protection (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 04:50:03 PM EST
    "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" instigator, Molly Norris, has gone into hiding because of the FBI has decided that the death threats against her are credible.


    She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program--except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab.

    Maybe those who supported her "activism" would be happy to send her some $$$$...   care of the FBI of course.. lol

    I ain't sending the FBI no money... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 09:28:36 AM EST
    err, no more money...but I got her back with a couch to crash on if she wants to lay low for awhile.

    I think you're off base here squeak...you do realize we've got a political cartoonist on one side and those who threaten murder over political cartoons on the other...no brainer to stand with the cartoonist, regardless of what you think of the cartoons.


    Off Base? (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:57:07 AM EST
    Hey, where were you when Madoff got busted? Wonder why a national campaign of Jewish joke day did not happen. Or, maybe jew cartoon day...  

    I guess scapegoating the Jews is passe these days but good thing that the Moooslims the new Jews. Life would be so boring without some group to make fun of. Besides, why make it harder for our boys and girls fighting for our freedoms, to kill em.  De-humanizing the lot as a bunch of barbaric savages is patriotic.

    Collective punishment is so much fun.


    I was laughing when Madoff... (none / 0) (#67)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 11:06:03 AM EST
    got pinched.  Then appalled when he was sentenced.  

    I don't get the comparison...if we saw a bunch of cartoons riffing on the "greedy jew" stereotype, I don't think the holy-rollers in the jewish community would start making death threats against the cartoonists.  Criticize the art, criticize the speech...thats fine.  But stand with the artist or speaker when their life is threatened, even if you couldn't disagree more with the message.


    Connection? (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 11:26:42 AM EST
    Why collectively punish, or humiliate a group of people for the acts or threats of a few psychos?

    It is bigotry plain and simple. Draw a Muhammed day added to the hate of Muslims in America.

    True, you get to have a big guffaw, and watch the crazies act out, maybe murder a few people, but what about the half billion of peace loving people you throw down the toilet because it is fun to taunt psychos?


    You lost me... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 11:56:38 AM EST
    who is being punished by a cartoon?  who is so fragile they find a cartoon so humiliating they need blood vengeance?

    I am not humiliated when something I hold dear is ridiculed...and I'm certainly not punished. At the most I'd be offended...and that is a guarantee in a free society.


    It ain't a free society (none / 0) (#70)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 01:14:54 PM EST
    not when the most powerful vehicles in our media can be hijacked for the purpose of talking us into going to war..

    ..And half the country thinks Iraq attacked us and can't name a Supreme Court Justice and doesn't knows that the earth orbits the sun..

    Under those circumstances, "free speech" is little better than a shibboleth or a placard held up a football game.

    So, really: what do we have to be so arrogant about that people feel so free to resort to meaningless schoolyard taunts in the midst of a highly volatile situation?



    I'm not so sure... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 01:23:42 PM EST
    these taunts are meaningless...I'm not even sure they are taunts.  The point that cartoons & religion ain't for killing over is one I feel is most worth making.

    In my book the extreme tyrannical and/or violent Mo (and JC) followers can't be ridiculed enough...regardless of the dirty my government does with my 4 grand a year.  


    Seen in the context of what (none / 0) (#73)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 01:40:55 PM EST
    we've been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, I see those cartoons as just more provocative, neocon-inspired, war propaganda. And again, what do we have to be so arrogant about?

    Obviously cartoons and words - unless they're lies about wmds - aren't worth killing over, but schoolyard taunts aren't the way to bring around the people who think they are; particularly when some of the people who think they are may also be recovering from the trauma of recently seeing a son or daughter blown to bits as the result of an invasion launched by the cartoonist's country of origin.    



    Is saying... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:09:44 PM EST
    "draw that picture and I'll kill ya" or "burn that book and I'll kill ya" not a taunt? Intimidation? An outright threat?  

    This sh*t is older than our most recent adventures in empire jondee...I wouldn't poke fun at some Iraqi kid missing limbs courtesy of a clusterbomb, that would be evil...but I'll ridicule a centuries dead prophet whose followers are so f*ckin' nuts they'd kill a woman in Seattle for drawing a picture.


    Is anything gained by doing it? (none / 0) (#77)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:25:07 PM EST
    Is any peaceful, dialogue creating, thought inspiring moment missed by not doing it (I know: how warm 'n fuzzy 'n  kumbaya..) I don't think so.

    Sounds a little like you're embracing the neocon meme that's been saying that these people are unreachable no matter what we do, so let's just let fly with all the sh*t - from the hardware department and the propaganda department - we can and let the devil take the hindmost..


    Is anything gained by doing it? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:58:06 PM EST
    not at all the point.  the point is you do not have a right to kill me if I do.  or even threaten to kill me.

    It's MY point (none / 0) (#79)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:06:02 PM EST
    and I agree with your point as well. I contain multitudes.

    Not at all... (none / 0) (#82)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 06:17:13 PM EST
    Molly Norris is not part of some organized propaganda campaign...if some nefarious characters took her ball and ran with it I'm not gonna hold it against her.  

    What if she simply had a strong feeling about Viacom cowering to death threats, picked up her sketchpad and went to work?  I'll stand with that all day long no matter what it looks like...and I got no reason to believe that's not how it went down.

    It's hard to reach somebody who threatens to kill you because they don't like your doodles.  It's a very small number of course, but ya can't cater to that garbage. Threaten to kill us cuz we bombed your village, propped up a dictator and armed him...that's logical.  The free speech of a cartoonist in Seattle or some psycho preacher in Gainesville?  Gotta draw the line.

    That being said, of course it ain't nice to tell somebody what they hold dear is garbage...it shouldn't be a death sentence, or even a big deal...what does anybody know?


    shouldn't be.. (none / 0) (#83)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 07:12:07 PM EST
    Don't get me started on all the shouldn't be's that've been gone down in the last eight years..

    No, it shouldn't be a reason to threaten anyone with bodily harm. But, looking at this stunt within the overall context in which it's occurring, I still think it was a dumb idea; particularly if anyone gets hurt because of it: so Norris can get her name in the Free Speech Hall of Fame or whatever. And I also don't buy her Miss Innocent "I didn't know it would be controversial" jive, do you? I mean, how out-of-touch can you be?

    I also still think we, in our sequestered and blissfully ignorant existence over here, are way overly-cavalier about who, in other parts of the world, should have a stiff upper lip, not be so overly-sensitive and just be grateful about having the living sh*t bombed out of them or having their country dotted with bases by the Land of Free..

    I still don't think we're in a place where we're ready to give teaching moments to all the other nations. I know many others disagree. Bottom line: I think it was a bad idea and bad timing to make a good point..

    And I think we may have officially entered agree-to-disagree territory.



    What do you find humorous here? (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 05:36:14 PM EST
    What I Find Humorous (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:34:46 PM EST
    Is that many who took up the "challenge" are not likely to support her now.

    And as a matter of record, I thought the whole thing was distasteful, to say the least. Why would people go out of their way to taunt extremists, with the hope that they do something extreme, is beyond me.

    I guess most who jumped on the bandwagon felt safe behind their anonymous keyboard kommando stations. Doubt that any of the participants would say something to a mafioso about their mama, to their face....

    But hey, we are at war with Islam, why not stoke the fire, it is patriotic....... not...


    strange (none / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 05:37:33 PM EST
    since only .001% are dangerous and all.

    true (none / 0) (#47)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 05:58:37 PM EST
    but there's also something insufferably arrogant about going out of one's way to launch a campaign to mock people whose necks we've already stepped hard on these last few years. Some of them probably feel that that tradition, as specious as it may seem to us, represents one of the last scraps of dignity they have left.  

    lets be clear (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 09:15:34 AM EST
    that campaign was not born out of thin air.  it was in response to death threats against a cartoonist.

    no crocodile tears please.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#64)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:13:53 AM EST
    I am not in the habit of supporting Daniel Pipes who was behind the right wing Danish Cartoon episode.

    What's next cartoons of African American lynchings because the New Black Panthers have threatened to kill white people?


    silly (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 01:30:34 PM EST
    comment.  how about sticking with the fact that the cartoonist got death threats for a cartoon.

    I'll stick with that (none / 0) (#74)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 01:49:50 PM EST
    and the fact that she's a disingenuous idiot when she claims that she didn't know it would be controversial. Two facts. At the same time.

    And now she's "less self-absorbed". Lets hope so.


    those wmd stories (none / 0) (#76)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:12:09 PM EST
    were just words. Someone's opinion. In a free society. Cuz we're free. And people hate our freedoms.



    Makes me contemplate how Paul Conrad (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 06:31:18 PM EST
    made it to a ripe old age.

    Strange? (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:56:54 PM EST
    Why is that?  

    It just takes one looney to kill someone. Or were you imagining that several million muslims would be coming after you.

    Much more exciting that way, have to give you that.


    .001% (none / 0) (#54)
    by cpinva on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 08:47:08 PM EST
    times 1.6 billion, is a lot.

    Republicans Even Worse (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:44:05 PM EST
    Republicans are heading into the general election phase of the midterm campaign backed by two powerful currents: the highest proportion of Americans in two decades say it is time for their own member of Congress to be replaced, and voters are expressing widespread dissatisfaction with President Obama's leadership.

    But the latest New York Times/CBS News poll also finds that while voters rate the performance of Democrats negatively, they view Republicans as even worse, providing a potential opening for Democrats to make a last-ditch case for keeping their hold on power.


    Moderate Republicans No Longer Welcome in GOP (none / 0) (#59)
    by john horse on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:58:12 AM EST
    Regarding the GOP, here in Florida the inmates now run the asylum.  Conservatives like Charlie Crist have been driven out of the party.  Former GOP party chairman Jim Greer has admitted that his criticism of Obama's speech to schoolchildren was to help appease the racists and the extremists who now dominate the Florida GOP.

    Moderate Republicans are no longer welcome in todays GOP.  Ask Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island or Castle in Delaware.

    For those moderate Republicans looking for a refuge from the insanity may I suggest voting Democrat.  We'll leave the light on for you.  

    Well.... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Rojas on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 07:52:10 AM EST
    "In a little hilltop village, they gambled for my clothes
    I bargained for salvation an' they gave me a lethal dose
    I offered up my innocence and got repaid with scorn
    "Come in," she said, "I'll give you shelter from the storm""