Thanks to John Foust and here is a link to the offending comments by Peter DiGaudio that were referenced below in the post titled: McIlheran Likes it Caustic and Pungent.
The title of Peter's post was innocent enough: Texas Pizza Chain Accepting Pesos. Here's the text of the post.
This is wrong on so many levels.Pretty standard nonsense from the charitably-challenged. Just commenting now on this subject I could provide a couple of reasons for this being a good thing. One, it's good business. And two, other places in the United States have been accepting international currencies for years ... and the dollar is accepted internationally.
Pizza lovers who don’t happen to have American currency on them can still purchase their favorite pies with Mexican pesos, thanks to a Texas-based restaurant chain.
Starting this week, Pizza Patrón outlets, which caters heavily to Mexicans, will offer the alternative form of payment.
“We’re trying to reach out to our core customer,” Antonio Swad, president of Pizza Patrón Inc., told the Dallas Morning News.
“We know they come back [from Mexico] and have pesos left over. We want to be a convenient place for them to spend their pesos.”
It’s believed no other food chain operating so far from the Mexican border is allowing customers to pay with foreign currency.
You’re in the United States. Embrace our culture. Learn our language. Use our money.
Or go back home.
I am sick of them shoving their fucking culture and theire fucking language down my throat.This is who McIlheran links to approvingly. Why does the Journal Sentinel employ this guy? He's not even a real journalist. Hell, I'd feel better (well, just a real, teeny weeny bit - microscopic really) if Jessica McBride were writing the columns.
I stood in Wal Mart yesterday and listen to a bunch of chattering chihuahuas speaking Mexican until I sick of listening to it and finally said, “You’re in America. Speak English or go back to wherever you came from” and walked away.
Either adopt our culture or language or get the fuck out of the U.S. My grandparents were immigrants and guess what? English was learned in their homes. It was the only acceptable language.
My good friend Michael Mathias, co-proprietor of Pundit Nation, wrote a post titled "The Banality of Evil Redux." He wrote of the torture issue and noted that Journal Sentinel columnist Patrick McIlheran admits to having slept well despite evidence that the CIA has involved itself in cruel interrogation methods, popular amongst these being waterboarding, which causes the victim to think he is drowning. Having once almost drowned, I can state unequivocally that the sensation is extremely unpleasant and stressful.
Mathias offers this insight from Hannah Arendt's book Eichmann in Jerusalem that Adolf Eichmann "... represented the sort of everyman that had to exist for the Nazis to exercise total control over German life. Hitler didn’t owe his power to the loyalty of his fanatics, but to the acquiescence of the regular German citizen—the ordinary citizens who were only too happy to turn away from the truth, even as greater and greater evils were perpetrated against his neighbors."
McIlheran took offense. He did not like being compared to Eichmann, he thundered. In fact, though, Mathias never said that. He explicitly said he was not calling McIlheran, Eichmann. You can read McIlheran's rambling post here. He concludes by wondering whether "... Mathias has already sent them [Washington Times and Wall Street Journal editorialists] little paste-on Hitler mustaches."
Mathias responded with a knockout blow, which you can read here.
After reading all this, I checked to see if there were any comments to McIlheran's post. I found this comment left by someone named 3rd Way:
Condemnation of Hitler comparisons are apt. A blogger you are supporting with a link from this page has posted a video of Hitler and claims it is a US senator. I hope you condemn the comparisons being made by the Texas Hold 'Em blogger by removing his link. Such tasteless comparisons do nothing but degrade the debate.Ah, so let's up the ante. McIlheran relied thusly:
Well, you've got a point there, Mr. Way. I assume you're talking about Texas Hold 'Em Blogger's post of last Jan. 20.My, he thinks highly of himself. I had to reply to this impossible defense of DiGuadio:
All right, then: Tsk, Tex. It was quite a good PhotoShopping, and it's as amusing, in-house, as it was during the previous Clinton years. But it wasn't the most effective argument against Hillary.
I know this because you've made far better arguments. One would hate to think you'd have to do the reductio ad Hitlerium against the Hildabeast.
There, Mr. Way. Taken care of. And as I gave Matthias a heap of free publicity -- and an enduring link to his blog off my post -- I don't think I'll asymmetrically sever my blogroll link to Tex. After all, he remains the Clorox of Wisconsin blogs: pungent and caustic in such a wonderfully beneficial way.
Peter DiGuadio, or Tex, as you refer to him, once proudly admitted on his blog to yelling at a group of Latinos because they were speaking their native tongue. He demanded they speak English, called them "chattering chihuahuas" and suggested they go home, assuming, I guess, they were here illegally. Which, by the way, is still no excuse in case you had doubts, Mr. McIlheran.McIlheran returned fire:
I am stunned that the Journal Sentinel keeps you on its payroll ... one who so approvingly links to this character. It's not a good smell emanating from the JS these days.
Dear Mr. Rock: You may have missed this one, but I'm not Pete DiGaudio's editor. You may want to go complain to him about that one.And I conclude here at my blog:
Or, to be more explicit, here's my disclaimer: Hyperlinks from my blog, either in posts or in the blogroll, do not imply agreement in whole or in part with any particular content on the linked pages.
Particularly in the case of the blogroll links, it implies only that these are blogs I look at with some regularity and that I suspect you may find interesting as well. They are, after all, bloggers with viewpoints of their own.
If you want to impose your little speech codes on them, knock yourself out, but don't expect me to play along.
No, you're wrong. Considering the sparseness and selectiveness of your blogroll, it's reasonable to assume a certain amount of agreement with the views of those linked to, including the views of DiGuadio. Additionally, you have accorded praise for other posts he's written in the past, linked to him approvingly and quoted him on occasion. All this implies just a wee bit of agreement..One More Thing
As far as speech codes, isn't that exactly what you were trying to do with Michael Mathias? I've read his post and nowhere did it imply you were a little Nazi. Michael made a point, albeit a harsh one (as he said), regarding the ease of acquiescence of the “everyman” in WWII Germany. Eichmann is described by the author Michael quotes from as archetypal of that everyman. Your continued defense of the indefensible Bush administration and your dancing around the torture issue brand you as an acquiescent “everyman.” You swallow what you are told and follow in lockstep.
Mathias (one T by the way) is exactly right.
By the way, you still owe Mathias an apology for your little aside regarding Hitler paste-on moustaches. Who now is playing the Nazi-insinuation card?
Mr Way: Yes, caustic and pungent, just the qualities that made, for instance, H.L. Mencken so readable.I almost threw up after reading that, but recovered. Here my final comment to it all:
Finally, comparing H.L. Mencken to DiGuadio, even in the abstract, is ludicrous. Mencken was the master of satire and the exquisite use of the lampoon ... quite a bit different from the race-baiting and sophomoric name-calling that DiGuadio engages in.
It discredits you and the Journal Sentinel to lend any credence to DiGuadio's writings.
It's time Patrick McIlheran and the rest of his conservative ilk are arrested and charges of war crimes brought against them. This needs to be done because their support of the illegal conflict in Iraq and their efforts at dividing the populace are treasonous.
McIlheran claims the left is guilty for genocide in Vietnam. This is, of course, a lie. Using this lie, McIlheran ignores the illegality of having entered into the conflict in Iraq and who is to blame for it, and says that failure to continue this illegal conflict will be the fault of the left - the guilt of genocide he spouts - when in fact the guilt lies with this administration and those who have lied to the American populace.
Oh, did I say I'm pissed off, too? The reason for my anger is a blog post by McIlheran titled "You Want to Talk Vietnam?" As I stated above, he makes the dubious claim that it was the left's fault for the outcome in Vietnam and if we fail to follow through in Iraq, the same result will occur. What pisses me off is his history about the Vietnam conflict is so wrong. And, I'm pissed off because of his lame attempt to assuage his own guilt about supporting murder in Iraq by lying about Vietnam.
First of all, the anti-war movement was not merely a left-wing phenomenon. I remember family members who were decidely conservative who opposed the conflict. Surely there were others. By 1968, the furor over the war blossomed with the revelations of My Lai. Opposition to the war became a national concern. In fact, it was Richard Nixon's claims that he would bring about "Peace With Honor" that helped him win the presidency.
We now know this was a lie. Nixon lied and escalated the war. This seems to be a habit of conservatives. Their actions can't stand up to public scrutiny, so they lie. Mr. Disengenuous claims Cambodia was ceded to the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge by American withdrawal and the result was genocide. This is hogwash. It was the bombing of Cambodia in which over 2.5 million tons of bombs were dropped (more than were dropped by the Allies in WWII) and kept secret from the American people that spurred the rise of the Khmer Rouge along with an American-supported coup of Prince Sihanouk.
It is a fallacy that withdrawal of support of the ARVN (South Vietnamese army) caused it to fail in the field. The ARVN was never able to take on the North successfully. It was overun with graft and badly-led troops. It's performance was not improving and a prolonged effort by American forces would have made no difference.
The genocide that occurred was not brought on by American withdrawal, it was brought on by American arrogance. That's why McIlheran and the like are traitors to this country. It's his sort of misleading commentary that, 35+ years ago mislead enough good people to believe that 20 million gallons of herbicides dropped on South Vietnam (our ostensible ally) was a necessary thing to combat communism. It's his sort of commentary that supported the deaths of more than 5 million people, civilian and military.
It's the McIlheran's of the world who are responsible for most of the death and mayhem. They are responsible for every death in Iraq. They continue to lie about al-Qaeda and Iraq when the proof is that al-Qaeda came to Iraq to kill Americans. Not the other way around. They continue to spread the lies this administration so glibly perpetuates. I have no more use for them, even as sometime targets for fun.
McIlheran is right in one regard. This Iraq conflict does share similarities with the conflict in Vietnam. Innocents are being killed. So much for the beacon of light American democracy is supposed to be. So much for compassionate conservatism.
(Edited not for content, but so it might read better. I had a 7-month old in my arms for the initial draft.)
After 3,679 American deaths, 27,104 Americans wounded and 60,000+ Iraqi casualites, Patrick McIlheran almost got it, in an ironic sort of way.
Posting about the news that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, author of the much-disputed "Shock Troops" article, has recanted his story, McIlheran attempts to use Beauchamp's alleged deceit to question the motives of the (as he calls it) "surrender-now side."
His final sentence of the post, however, was almost a striking condemnation of this entire misbegotten affair and the failure of the McIlherans on the right to honestly view the excursion into Iraq, rather than mouthing platitudes provided to them by this administration. If McIlheran had had the courage, this is what he would have written:
What good can come from the war against the war in Iraq if it's a campaign founded on lies?
That was nearly the first honest thing you've said about Iraq, Paddy! Keep trying.
I swear they get together and have posting parties. How droll.
Patrick McIlheran and Jessica McBride unite to provide more evidence they just don't get it. They take turns pounding the keyboard to provide statistical evidence that Mike Plaisted was wrong and there really is more violent crime in Milwaukee than in Oshkosh. Problem is, the piece that Mike Plaisted wrote about the "Guns of Oshkosh" had nothing to do with the amount of violence that occurs, but rather with the perception that conservatives are really interested only in all things "black people." Look at McBride's site and over 50% of the last 20 posts have to do with either African-Americans or Hispanics. I suspect some of her outrage is because so few live in the Town of Merton, her home residence. Heck, they get escorted out by gunpoint and with the help of a snarling dog just for fishing.
As for Paddy Mac, let me say this even more slowly so he can understand: Plaisted was making a point about the lack of coverage by conservative bloggers, he was not playing a numbers game.
This is just a quick note about a blog post by Patrick McIlheran (already well-covered by Bert at folkbum). David Gaubatz, the fellow that Melanie Phillips and McIlheran rely on for the breaking news on WMDs is a member of a fascinating group that believes in wonderful, pro-American ideals like this (by way of Glenn Greenwald, h/t Bert):
White Christians were at the founding of this nation a distinct people and privileged as such. Men of means among this people were given the opportunity for representative government. This is, for those of you flinching, not a thesis or “viewpoint”; this is historical fact.
After the Civil War, this changed; with the move into the 20th century this change became a wholesale reformation. Today, you cannot speak of Christianity in the public sphere and if you mention “white” and “Christians” in the same sentence you will be set upon as a despicable racist by every “fair-minded” public person. And, this phenomenon extends far beyond race.
Then this:
It was of course the beloved Ronald Reagan, the David of conservatism against the Goliath of Liberalism, who was the first president in the history of the US to actually grant amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants with his support of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. And before that, it was the Great Society’s Lyndon B. Johnson who passed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which eliminated nation-specific quotas, replacing them with just one overall quota. This meant of course that we had as a country effectively determined that we were not a white Christian nation, but would become a brownish-black nation of third world types who could barely speak our language, knew nothing of our culture and civilization, and indeed desired to be one of “us” predominantly for economic reasons.
And this:
Immigration is now at the front lines in the battle for America's national existence. Under assault by the Left, including the Libertarians, the fact that America was founded and made strong by immigrants from western European countries with Judeo-Christian roots is no longer part of the modern immigration "debate." The only question now is how do you secure your borders and establish the necessary factors for "assimilation." This "debate" of course ignores the most fundamental fact: is there not something unique about American national existence that is directly related to the fact that it was founded by white, mostly anglo-saxon, believing Christians? Does the modern charge of "racism" now preclude the observation and analysis of this fact?
McIlheran's friend Gaubatz is currently engaged in mapping every mosque and Islamic day school in America, attempting to come up with a “threat” picture.
I knew McIlheran was whacky. Who would have thought he had such weird fellow-travelers … well, easy to believe actually.
Patrick McIlheran is at it again. At least he is consistent. Now he’s got a piece claiming the environment is not as bad as those nasty scientists say it is. Everyone has an opinion on this and that’s okay. It’s just that McIlheran keeps trotting out these conservative think tank groups that have a vested interest in saying everything is peachy keen, to back up his assertions, rather than use real science. For example:
American Enterprise Institute: The American Enterprise Institute is a neoconservative think tank, AEI has emerged as one of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy. (Wikipedia)
Pacific Research Institute: Another think tank, which has been closely associated with the American Enterprise Institute. (SourceWatch)
Steven Hayward: Hayward studies the environment, law, political economy, and the presidency. He is author of the annual Index of Leading Environmental Indicators, published jointly by the American Enterprise Institute and the Pacific Research Institute. Hayward writes AEI's Environmental Policy Outlook and also recently authored The Age of Reagan: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order, 1964-1980 (American Enterprise Institute).
Ah, a scientist devoted to the environment, NOT!
Look, McIlheran does point out that this is a different point of view. But, why oh why does he continue to abuse the intelligence of those who read his tripe. Just come out and admit it, Paddy, you don’t have a clue what you are writing about … you just do it to piss off the other half of the people who read your columns and blog entries, the ones who don’t take your writings at face value.
Pat McIlheran is such a putz. His post last night regarding “nasty campaigning” is just too funny, and misleading. The Journal Sentinel, he reports, sent a “cease and desist” letter” to the Linda Clifford campaign because a few people became confused thinking the newspaper was calling voters. Of course, if these people had not followed their natural inclination to hang up on all outside phone calls not made by families and friends, they would have discovered that the Clifford campaign clearly identified itself at the end of the message. Not enough for McIlheran who calls them to the front of the class for their "confusing" deception.
Of course, this minor transgression (if one) is far more serious than insinuating that Linda Clifford is somehow dirty … what was that line about “immigration lawyer?” Nothing like confusing the issue and piling on racist innuendo in support of your client. But I guess that’s okay in the beady eyes of McIlheran.
And then there is the “professional dirt digger” caper. We know that Republicans would never stoop that low to accommodate what is, truly, the reality of today’s political campaigns. Oh, wait … there is a professional dirt digger for Ziegler. His name is McIlheran. Evens.
And last, and least is the laughable accusation regarding the photographers who lied about their true mission. They should not have. But compared to breaking rules that govern the judiciary (Annette Ziegler did this), and finding it easy in her heart to sentence real sexual predators to incredibly lenient sentences (Annette Ziegler did this), lying about taking photos (Linda Clifford did not do this) is kind of silly.
Speaking of photos, wasn’t it Annette Ziegler who first played “catch me lying if you can” early in the campaign with her photos in front of courthouses around the state?
McIlheran, give it a rest, but thanks for the laugh. Oh, by the way, what is it with the brown sportscoat and red tie? Channeling Ernst Röhm?
An explanation to my son ... Why did we invade Iraq (from my mom, again):
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq ?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq ?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we? A: That's because the weapons were so well hidden.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it ok to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is a Communist country.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being Capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become Capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like in China?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein came to power through military coups, so they're not really legitimate leaders anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in theUnited States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men, fifteen of them Saudi Arabians, hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamists who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women too.
Q: Didn't the Bush Administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people ware caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's ok with us if radical Islamist fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic bodycovering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia .
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan .
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the Mujahedeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the evil Communist empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and Capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets, I mean, the Russians, are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq , so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to re-name French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always re-name foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah, for a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yes, but we looked the other way, to show him we were his friends.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable and go to sleep. Good night.
Good night, Daddy.
Some of Jessica McBride’s friends are highlighted in this video from The Daily Show titled “Loathe Thy Neighbor.” It’s hilarious … this Craig Baker fellow is completely clueless.
Considering Catholic opposition to gay marriage, choice and the often negative role it has played in the lives of millions for centuries (all in the name of politics and power), I have this to say to those Catholics offended by Amanda Marcotte's exercise in free speech:
Boo hoo.
Paddy Mac doesn’t like Jay Bullock. The Macmeister’s blog post titled: So, Folkbum, is 'mother...' how you want your religion referred to?, is so waggish and drips of so much pathos that I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Basically, Mac-the-dull-knife attempts to take folkbum to task for supporting John Edward’s blogger, Amanda Marcotte. He says this about her: “She is not about being colorful and outspoken in support of some view. She is about insulting Catholicism in gutter terms.” Fine. Edward's choice (sorry, not a very bright choice, though). But, this from the same guy who said Ann Coulter could be “mean.” MEAN.
A little perspective, please.
Of course, the Macman, who is a quiver short of being a full arrow, leaves himself open to this thought … what about the pious Muslims in the world who might not like having their faith dragged through the gutter, or does pathos only work one way?
Piss off, Putzmeister. And, your prose is still too gooey.
Patrick McIlheran and Thomas Sowell once again show their true colors in the “marriage” debate. I don’t have a problem their nitpicking about the stats used in a story that claimed that only 51% of women were married, the story, I guess, insinuating that marriage as an institution is fading away. I do have a problem with this sentence:
“In one way or another, however, the left has for more than two centuries tried to undermine families -- including today redefining the words ‘marriage’ and ‘family’ to include whatever kind of people want to live together in whatever way for whatever reason.
Whatever kind of people? The sentence would have worked perfectly well if the word “whomever” had been used instead. No, the use of this phrase enunciates quite clearly what Sowell and McIlheran think of gays … somehow they are a different kind of people.
Both should be ashamed, but you know that won’t happen. Both obsfuscate. Because, it’s not liberals who are tearing down the institution of marriage. It’s multiple divorce people like Newt Gingrich, Charlie Sykes, etc. who are doing it fine all by themselves.
One butthead says something absolutely stupid and the entire wing-nut brigade goes into mass hyper-ventilation. One dummy says that bloggers and talk (hate) radio are irresponsible for challenging this person, and the hot air gets hotter.
Let’s get one thing clear: what this employee said was unfortunate and wrong. Our troops deserve support. This soldier did not deserve to hear this. However, the employee also had a right to say what he said, regardless of how unprofessional and immature it was.
Right wing bloggers and talk (hate) radio have a right, too, to mouth off in response. However, contrary to what Jeff Wagner or Paddy Mac might think, it is not the left that needs to GROW UP. The right needs to rein in the rhetoric and stop making mountains out of molehills. Charlie Sykes tried to say today that liberals were using the victim card. After eight years of victim card usage by Sykes and his fellow card players on the right, all I could do was laugh (and turn the channel).
A commenter at Media Matters said this about Ann Coulter:
The only difference between Ann Coulter and a streetwalker is the streetwalker's honest about being a whore.
Remember that our own local brilliant mudwrestler, Pat McIlheran, has referred to Ann Coulter as genius. Snicker.
Patrick McIlheran, known in liberal blogging circles as Paddy Mac, takes the Brew City Brawler to task for the Brawler's evisceration of McIlheran’s post about the death of former right-wing Chilean dictator August Pinochet, and his favoring of Pinochet over Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. McIlheran had this to say:
Pinochet killed a lot of people unjustly, I said, but his reign could not be seen as unrelieved darkness: At least he left peacefully and he did liberalize the economy.
The Brawler retorted in fine fashion and I have nothing to add except this thought: Using McIlheran’s logic I suppose that the relieved darkness of Adolf Hitler was preferable to the Marxist, Josef Stalin. Hitler did cause the Autobahn system to be created and he provided the impetus for the modern use of rocketry for warfare.
What a putz!
