I was a little late to the Janelle Monae bandwagon, but I picked up her LP, and I’ve been completely addicted. Monae has pulled off a task that very few can, which is to be both super poppy and arty weird. And don’t flap your gums at me about Lady Gaga, who has a self-consciously weird public persona, but whose music isn’t even in the same category of ear-catching freshness. My mind went to Roxy Music when I first heard it, but also to Prince and to Outkast. It isn’t a surprise that her big single is with Big Boi, therefore.
So here’s my Genius Ten. Leave yours in comments, or comment on whatever you like. As usual, this is an open thread.
Original song: “Tightrope” by Janelle Monae (featuring Big Boi)
1) “The Cell” by Eryka Badu
2) “Beep Me 911” by Missy Elliott
3) “Who’s Gonna Save My Soul” by Gnarls Barkley
4) “How Long Do I Have To Wait For You” by Sharon Jones
5) “Nothing Even Matters” by Lauryn Hill
6) “Adore” by Prince
7) “Who’s Loving You” by The Jackson 5
8) “Got To Give It Up” by Marvin Gaye
9) “All I Could Do Is Cry” by Etta James
10) “Don’t Leave Me This Way” by Thelma Houston
On one hand, the Iowa Republican party declaring that they want to instate what they call the “original” 13th amendment in a sad effort to kick Obama out of office is about as classic as wingnuttery gets:
*It’s winking at racism without coming right out for it---the actual 13th amendment banned slavery, and so this is a way of suggesting that wasn’t a super important thing to do, certainly not on the level of stopping people from accepting titles from foreign rulers. Playing footsie with racism with plausible deniability firmly intact is one of the top three favorite wingnut things to do.
*It’s about creating implausible schemes to attack the President’s right to hold office for the sole purpose of riling up their followers, giving them more shit to mutter about angrily, particularly after they’ve had a few.
*They get to take a swipe at scientists, intellectuals, and the idea of peace itself without coming out right for it. The scheme is there to suggest that the Nobel prize is the equivalent of taking a title such as “Duke” or “Baron” from a foreign crown. They may play off like it’s just an unfortunate side effect that this would strip the citizenship away from the hundreds of American Nobel prize winners who have been rewarded for science, literature, and peace-keeping efforts, but make no mistake. If this scheme worked out, they would enjoy showing those smarty-pants what for thinking they’re so special.
*This is stupid, ineffectual, and kind of crazy---much like freaking out over fluoride or black helicopters. Whatever the appeal of that is to wingnuts, it’s obviously there.
But the “men on Journolist are so ugly!” nonsense is also fucking awesome, for many reasons.
Julea Ward was a counseling student at Eastern Michigan University, and a devout Christian. The requirements of the program she entered complied with the American Counseling Association’s Code of Ethics. In part, a counselor is required to engage with clients who may possess values, whether cultural or religious, that differ from theirs. (PDF Link, Sections A.4.b and C.5.)
The short version of this story is that Ward didn’t want to counsel a gay client because it made her feel uncomfortable, and the school responded by expelling her:
The dispute that led to the litigation started in 2009, when Ward was enrolled in the practicum in which she was to engage in actual counseling. Faced with an appointment with a client whose file indicated past discussion of a gay relationship, Ward asked to refer the candidate to another counselor rather than engage in any counseling that could “affirm the client’s homosexual behavior.” Since this was two hours before the appointment, the supervising counselor canceled the appointment, but set off disciplinary hearings that eventually led to Ward being kicked out of the program.
Eastern Michigan’s counseling program—like many others—requires its students to practice in ways that are consistent with the counseling association’s ethics code, including requirements that bar behavior that reflects an “inability to tolerate different points of view,” “imposing values” on clients or discrimination based on a number of factors, including sexual orientation. The counseling association does permit referrals, but they are supposed to be for the good of the client, not for the comfort of the counselor. Typically, a referral that would be seen as legitimate might involve a counselor referring someone to a colleague with expertise on a particular problem.
A federal judge upheld the expulsion, which but for the religious aspect would have been largely uncontroversial. Of course, she’s a.) a conservative Christian; b.) represented by the Alliance Defense Fund; and c.) the government is involved, which means that it’s time to start wailing about the end of religious freedom as we know it.
Hot Air (discussing a similar case in Georgia where a conservative Christian student was asked to be sensitive to the needs of gay clients):
It sounds to me like the ACA wants a “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule for religion. That runs square into the First Amendment, especially for a state-run school. The ACA’s idea of who comes first doesn’t get to trump the restriction on freedom of religious exercise. If clients get off-put by Keeton’s approach to counseling, they can look for another counselor. Now, the ACA can decide not to certify her; as a private organization, they have that prerogative. If they do that explicitly based on her religious belief, however, they may have a problem with that in court, especially as it will block Keeton’s ability to make a living.
Well, here’s the problem. Professional certification guidelines are, generally, constitutional. One of the requirements of the degree both the Georgia and Michigan students are pursuing is that they treat clients equally and respectfully, and don’t impose their personal beliefs on their clients. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the requirements of the job they voluntarily pursued. Sorry that they don’t want to do the job because of their religion, but it’s really not the school’s problem.
Erick “Everyone’s Fucking Goats But Me, Really” Erickson has the following to say:
In Michigan, a federal judge has upheld the expulsion of a graduate school student for believing homosexuality is morally wrong.
No. That’s not what happened. You have a First Amendment right to believe what you want without the government barring you from believing it or forcing you to believe something else. You don’t have a First Amendment right to grant yourself a blanket exemption from the religion-neutral requirements of the professional degree you voluntarily chose to pursue.
I understand why conservative Christians push these suits - it’s an effort to dominate and define the culture around their needs. But what’s telling is that these students chose to go into a profession whose requirements were readily accessible before they ever set foot in a classroom. You can read the ACA’s Code of Ethics, you can talk to counselors about their jobs. They shouldn’t be confronted or expelled because of their religious beliefs; they should be confronted or expelled because they went in intending to be bad counselors and are shocked - shocked!!! - when they’re treated accordingly.
UPDATE: Julea Ward would probably have a stronger case if she could, you know, keep her story straight. More below.
Once again, I’m forced to question if conservatives are capable of remembering that they gave women the vote nearly a century ago. The new faux scandal on the right is that President Obama is going on “The View”, and the reason that this is supposedly a disgrace is pretty blatantly argued as “bitches ain’t shit”. For all the right wing romanticizing of housewives, it’s pretty fucking interesting that they object so strenuously to the President taking time out of his schedule to speak directly to housewives, who, last I checked, have the right to vote. But to make the whole thing even more obviously about straight-up sexism, the way the “scandal” is being debated involves pitching a show aimed at a female audience against the Boy Scouts. Glenn Beck, CNS, Fox News, Laura Inagraham, etc.---they’re all faux angry because the President is speaking to adult women about politics instead of to male children.
I honestly can’t think of a better example of the conservative attitudes towards women than anger that the President appears to believe that adult women are more adult than minor children who happen to be male.
It’s an interesting sign of modern conservatism that some of the people are themselves women that are pushing this idea that boys are a more important audience than grown women. S.E. Cupp and Laura Inagraham are mentioned on Media Matters. Broadsheet quotes Antoinette Kuritz using female names to emphasize how silly “The View” is:
“Being on ‘The View’ trivializes the President and the office. Does he go on before or after Brittany, Paris, or Lindsay? Or even Julia? Does he sit between Joy and Elizabeth and bait one while pandering to the other?”
Did I mention that there are people named Sally, Mary, and Ann in the audience? Do you detect a theme of unseriousness here? Do we need to spell it out for you? (V-A-G-I-N-A-S.)
This is why I can’t take conservative “feminism” seriously in the slightest. The main theme of conservative “feminism” is, “Most women are too stupid to breathe, much less have rights. And you can trust me when I say this, because I’m a woman.” As logic, it’s self-contradictory, but it’s emotionally satisfying. It says that the truth of female inferiority is so obvious that even some women have to admit it. And the women who argue this get to feel good about themselves because they’re at least smart....for women.
“The View” can be a very silly show, but no more so than any other political talk show that encourages “fair-and-balanced” over smart and factual. That they do celebrity coverage shouldn’t change this---so do all the supposed hard news networks. Fox is particularly egregious in calling the kettle black on this one, since they openly reject real news for scandal-mongering and stories about how sexy ladies are bringing down society. “The View” has different segments, some which don’t even pretend to be hard news. So what? The NY Times has a Style section. At least “The View” doesn’t do what the NY Times does, and relegate important political stories about feminist issues to the Style section. A lot of the ongoing outrage over “The View” is that it dare exist at all, since the premise of the show is that its intended audience---mostly female, mostly staying at home (at least during the day)---is interested in political talk and actual debate and even sometimes analysis. Hell, I think if Obama decided to come on to a show purely about homemaking so that he could condescend about his wife’s decorating preferences while avoiding all political talk the squawkers wouldn’t be raising a peep.
It’s interesting to me that the Daily Caller has chosen right now to hump the “OMG liberals talk to each other!!!!!!” non-story, since this is right on the heels of a legitimate media scandal---Andrew Breitbart’s smear campaign against Shirley Sherrod, and how it was shamefully taken seriously long enough to get Sherrod fired, when it should have been ignored right off the bat, due to Breitbart being a known liar. Even worse, there’s still an aching silence where media and government mea culpas for taking the ACORN lies seriously should be. CNN did blow the doors off Breitbart’s latest racially motivated smear campaign, but there is still a lack of follow-up coverage exposing Breitbart and his entire crew for being the racist fuckwit liars they are.
The timing of the Journolist faux scandal could be a coincidence. The Daily Caller realized that they were getting a lot of hits with this, because above all other things, movement conservatives are motivated by resentment. Simply having a list of people they could enviously deem the “liberal elite” and obsessing over the fact that they talk to each other is basically enough to get movement conservatives riled up. The rationalizations for this whole non-scandal mongering are paper thin; the ugly reality is that the theme of the Daily Caller expose is, “The cool kids think they’re so cool, but we totally eavesdropped on their conversations. So there!” If there was any doubt in my mind before this that the whining about the “liberal elite” was pandering to jackasses who are jealous that other people who aren’t jackasses live well, this wiped it out. Screeching about the “liberal elite” is about as transparent as screeching about the evils of hipsters who think they’re so cool because they bother to keep up with new music whine whine whine.
Still, I worry that this whole thing is being parlayed into an attempt to play the “both sides” card, which is conservatives’ last ditch cover story when they’re exposed as dirty motherfuckers. Indeed, reading whining from the likes of Roger Simon about how a listserv is the end of journalism after the disgraceful Sherrod episode convinces me that this is exactly what conservatives are aiming for. But there is no “both sides” here. The right wing noise machine shamelessly pushes blatant lies into the public discourse, the mainstream shamefully reports on them, and the Democrats shamefully ask “how high?” when known liars like Andrew Breitbart tell them to jump. The Sherrod thing only ended up well because of a couple of lucky breaks, as Ari Rabin-Havt explained on a panel at Netroots. Most of the time, the truth doesn’t come out until much later and then is summarily ignored. And we’re supposed to think that a bunch of liberal journalists using each other as a way to sharpen their thinking, get information, and vent is some scandal. I’m beginning to think that the Daily Caller and Politico folks are mostly offended that the journalists on the list still think there’s value in journalism that reports on real issues and explains actual policy to the public. Why do that when you could be riding fake scandals, smearing innocent people, and passing off Beltway gossip like it’s news?
Luckily, it does seem to me that, for once, the mainstream media is actually doing its job here. The real scandal---Andrew Breitbart’s shamelessly smearing of an innocent woman and the Obama administration’s shameful cowering in front of bullies---is getting big time media coverage, whereas the non-scandal is mostly being ignored (from what I can tell). I’d like to say I think this bodes well for the future, but honestly I doubt it. Things just broke the right way this one time, but it’s almost surely coincidence. Hell, I doubt that even Andrew Breitbart is really over, even though in a right-thinking media environment, he would be.
You didn’t think I’d leave you hanging, did you? Not when I’m fairly obsessed with “Mad Men”. I wrote a piece for Alternet before the premiere with some speculation about season four. A lot of what I predicted remains to be seen, but my biggest prediction, which is that the season finale of season three hinted at stylistic changes on the show, seems to be panning out.
The finale of season three signaled a shift in the world of “Mad Men.” Viewers have no doubt that when the curtain comes up, the advertising industry players will find themselves living in the nascent days of the Swinging Sixties of our collective imagination: miniskirts, the British Invasion, the birth control pill, desegregation, and of course, the creative explosion in advertising.
(Yes, I’m aware that Peggy got an Enovid prescription in 1960, but at the time, that would have been off-label use. By late 1964, though, millions of married women and even some single women were switching to the pill.)
As I predicted, the energy of the show went up a couple of notches, as did the height of women’s hair. Matt Zoller Seitz noted that along with the faster pacing of the show, the characters speak to each other more forcefully and with a bluntness that they didn’t have before. This doesn’t strike me as accidental; Weiner is trying to suggest that the changeover from the 50s mentality to the 60s mentality brought with it this energy, freedom, and frankness. The last scene, where Don decides to drop the mystery man act and instead portray himself as a brazen, exciting guy who is a bit of an asshole, reinforces how much this is all intentional. The meditative “Mad Men” may be over, replaced with a faster-paced show that reflects the faster pace of the time the show is set in.
GD wrote about the season premiere at Ta-Nehisi’s place, and an interesting debate broke out in comments about Don Draper’s tantrum with the Jantzen people. Was it a sincere moment of overwhelming anger, or did Don plan for it after the Advertising Age article made him realize he needed to remake his public image? Answering that question struck me as the linchpin of the episode. On one hand, we’ve seen sparks of Don’s temper before, such as when he yelled at Rachel Mencken in the series premiere, or when he stomped out of a meeting with the new British owners. In most cases, his temper tantrums actually resulted in him getting his way, either immediately (as with the Brits) or after he smoothed things over (as with Rachel). But all this is just more reason I think that Don may have planned this bigger, more explosive temper tantrum. After all, his previous tantrums weren’t nearly as over the top, and he rarely ended them with a delighted instruction to a secretary to capitalize on what just happened. Last season, Don spent months bowing and scrapping to Conrad Hilton, and he got shit for it. He’s realizing this is a new era, where the advertisers are going to be the stars and the clients are going to line up to be a part of it all. So he staged the temper tantrum, and attacked clients that we know for a fact are having meetings with every advertising firm in town. In other words, he made sure that when he exploded, he did so in a way that the news would spread all over town in minutes.
But what is really telling is something that a commenter at Ta-Nehisi’s blog pointed out---the B plot is all about feigning conflict to get attention. Don scolds Peggy for the Sugarberry ham stunt, but just a couple scenes later he’s pulling a similar stunt in order to attract attention to the firm. Of course, the actresses who got into the ham fight really did end up having a fight, and I suspect that’s because we’re meant to assume that Don is going to start inhabiting this new role he’s created for himself just as thoroughly. But as a stunt, it will work. There will be fallout, but the primary objective of drumming up business will be achieved.
I had mixed feelings about Don’s conclusion that he should create and trumpet conflict, and use gossip as a marketing tool. On one hand, it was delightful to see him get his mojo back after what had obviously been a trying year for him. On the other hand, we were also witnessing a fictionalized version of the creation of the celebrity-centric culture that has grown particularly tawdry in recent years. In Don’s glowing account of the way they got away from Sterling Cooper, I could hear the end game of that kind of journalism, which is a nation of assholes enjoying Lindsay Lohan’s personal crisis, as if she’s not a human being who deserve sympathy instead of abuse. I heard an impeachment trial over an adultery. But perhaps I’m overthinking it. The era of holding your cards so close to your chest didn’t do much for people’s well-being. The benefits of a culture based around individual stories and even gossip have been profound, as well---the second wave of feminism was able to ride the use of personal stories documenting sexism straight to massive social and policy change for women. The high note of rock music as the episode went out was there to encourage us to view this new personability with enthusiasm; we’re meant to feel its liberating effects.
Is there such a thing as a negative IQ? The View’s Elisabeth Hasselbeck goes for the gold standard. Via The Advocate:
The View’s Elisabeth Hasselbeck says she knows why lesbians come out later in life: there are simply no available men.
Her theory is that older men tend to date younger women, “leaving older women with no one,” she said.
My question - someone willing to say something so asinine on the air cannot possibly have any close gay or lesbian friends. She needs to invest in rent-a-lez or some such before opening her piehole.
My good friend Joe Sudbay of Americablog and I were interviewed by former Air America radio host Sam Seder while we were at Netroots Nation (you can see me in the background, but my vid isn’t available so far). Joe’s is up, so take a peek.
BTW, I also just put up a FB album called NN 2010 The Homosexual Agenda, ”An album of activists, bloggers, and allies gathering to collude on how to overthrow the enablers of the equality status quo.”
It’s a stream of photos from one of the parties that Greg Rae of Living Liberally and Mike Rogers, organizer of the National Blogger and Citizen Journalist Initiative, threw for LGBT bloggers and allies while at Netroots.
It may look like just a party, but think about the LGBT online political power in the room. We’ve been meeting in groups offline for some time, with this conference being one of the most prominent non-LGBT related ones. It dispels the notion that we’re all just a bunch of online armchair critics sitting in Cheetos-stained PJs spouting off. Nearly every person in that room is on the same page strategically (and we know exactly who isn’t), and believe the approaches we are taking are compatible.
Right: With Palm Springs, CA Mayor Steve Pougnet (who is challenging and will defeat Mary Bono Mack), Mike Rogers, Rep. Jared Schutz Polis.
We are human beings who do care about the LGBT and progressive movements, and our roles to play in helping move equality forward. Our progressive colleagues at NN certainly recognized the unprecendented LGBT attendance and cross-pollenation of ideas that Netroots Nation provides, and that we are committed to pushing the envelope. It’s sad we have to with a self-proclaimed LGBT-friendly administration and Congress, but there you have it. Sitting back and waiting for change isn’t cutting it.
And because of the work of Mike Rogers with the National Blogger and Citizen Journalist Initiative pre-conference this year, we had representation from a wide variety of LGBT Beltway legacy orgs and news orgs who sat down with bloggers to bridge some of the communication gaps that are painfully apparent as everyone tries to navigate the new power and communication structures that have quickly emerged and continue to evolve. We’re past the head-in-the-sand time. Now perhaps the White House might think about sending someone to attend next time around.
One of the feminist bloggers who attended my panel on electing more progressive women to office approached me afterwards and was crestfallen that there was only one panel on women in politics and noted how prominent LGBT issues were at this NN. I told her that I’ve been to all but the first NN, and have seen tremendous growth in LGBT influence at NN after starting with just a handful of attendees and no panels on our issues. Building the coalitions and actively pushing your way in the door is the only way to be heard above the many voices and inertia the progressive movement has had toward LGBT (and women’s) issues to date.
***
One last note: I get mobbed by fans/readers at this event; my fellow bloggers call me a “rock star” (ahem, Joe Sudbay). The rock star thing is hilarious.
I do get fan mobbed at NN. Maybe not like Markos, but it’s true that I cannot make it down any corridor without several people wanting a photo of/ with me or an interview. I am very appreciative of being able to meet readers, many of them are lurkers, not commenters. It’s quite humbling when many of these people are actually pols, other bloggers and activists much more important than I am (IMHO). I still don’t get it. That whole ‘imposter syndrome” thing, I guess. But since I am really just an average person working an average job in the real world, it is disconcerting to recognize how popular my online work is to so many. So thank you all; I enjoy meeting and speaking with you.
I can at least report to my wife that no one hit on me in Vegas. I don’t think she has anything to worry about; I’m a rock star without the sex appeal, LOLOLOL.
I’m still boggled that right wingers have convinced themselves that they have a right to have a snit over the fact that some liberal journalists had a listserv. The whole concocted controversy gets stranger by the minute, and not just because some wingnuts are using Journolist to replace the made-up Protocols of the Elders of Zion as the focal point of anti-Semitic propaganda. For instance, Andrew Sullivan threw a hissy fit because some folks on Journolist made some fun of him because he pushes the “Sarah Palin faked her fifth pregnancy” nonsense. I fully expect before the week is over for conservatives to take umbrage if it’s discovered that someone said something mildly critical of Richard Nixon on the listserv.
The fundamental argument justifying the fit is that liberal journalists don’t have a right to speak to each other in confidence, a right that conservatives apparently get to enjoy on the grounds that they’re specialer than us. I imagine that if this all works out for them, they’ll be delighted to know they have a new line of attack on liberals. It’s way more than listservs, after all. Liberals communicate with each other in private in all sorts of ways. Now that they’ve managed to make this fact controversial, there’s no end to the possible scandals. I’ve made a list of what we can expect next, in terms of created controversy.
Scandal will erupt when it’s discovered:
*Many liberals are married to or dating other liberals, which often includes actual sexual congress going on behind closed doors.
*Liberal homes are often installed with telephones, and most phones made from them go unrecorded.
*To make this worse, most liberals nowadays carry their phones with them. At any point in time, they have access to confidential conversations with other people who are often also liberal. And just to add to the wickedness of it all, many also employ text messaging.
*Liberals are permitted to enter restaurants that serve dinner to people without recording their conversations. No doubt many of these liberal take advantage of this to discuss politics over dinner with other liberals.
*Did you know there’s no law against liberals having cocktail parties?
*To make it even worse, many liberals working in media or politics have offices where they work with other liberals, and therefore have unfettered access to unrecorded conversations with each other.
*But it turns out even those who don’t work in physical proximity with other liberals often use instant messaging services to conduct conversations with each other as if they worked together. Not only does instant messaging create a scandalous veil of privacy over these communications, but it’s also rumored that they use improper grammar and spelling.
*Liberals are permitted to both purchase books written by other liberals or check them out of the library. Either way, they brazenly read those books quietly, and enjoy thoughts about them that they aren’t forced to share with other people.
Taken to its logical conclusion, the only form of communication we’ll be allowed is blogging, but only if every reader reports their thoughts straightaway in comments. Maybe also Facebook, but only if all the privacy controls are turned off. And then they’ll have to create new rules to explain why it’s scandalous to allow us even this.
I’m back! Sorry it took so long to get back in the saddle; we were in Vegas forever it seems. (The cats certainly think so.) I did see the premiere of “Mad Men” and should have thoughts on it later. But right now, I want to talk about this stupid story about how Senate Republicans are trying to get hearings---again---to look at this stupid New Black Panthers case. Greg Sargent asks a question that I’m sure he knows is just rhetorical:
But what some folks may not remember is that Senate Republicans already quizzed Justice officials on this very case several months ago, in a public hearing on Capitol Hill. So why do we need more hearings?
Answer: Because Republicans are doubling down on racism as an electoral strategy.
One of the great things of many great things about Netroots Nation this year is that they finally took on the influence racism still has over our political landscape in the U.S. It was an imperfect approach to be sure---I heard the “Urban Blogosphere” panel was a nightmare, for instance---but on the whole, I think the conference was really educational for a lot of people on the issue of racism and why it’s still a massive political issue on basically every level. Tim Wise was dropping truth bombs like a motherfucker during a lunch time panel convened by the organizers. His entire presentation was about something that doesn’t get talked about very much, which is how movement conservative opposition to social spending is all about race. They rarely say so out loud, but they don’t have to. Talk of “redistributing wealth” has the unspoken corollary “from white people to black people” attached to it. Since the 60s, this unspoken corollary has been modified to include Hispanic people, but the basic idea hasn’t changed a bit. When conservatives talk about lazy people on welfare, lazy people on unemployment, lazy people sucking up government health care? The faces they’re imagining are black.
What’s interesting is that what has been so implicit for so long that a lot of people don’t even perceive it is being made pretty fucking explicit recently. Republicans don’t trust that the euphemisms they’ve always used are going to provoke enough racism to get them the majority in 2010. The non-stop hyperventilating over “reverse racism"---which is a myth---is just a way to be racist while acting like some kind of victim. The targeting of black bureaucrats like Van Jones and Shirley Sherrod is about creating a narrative for the base, that Barack Obama tricked the white majority into voting for him out of racial guilt,* and now that he’s President, he’s trashing the country by appointing a bunch of white-hating black people to powerful offices so they can ruin the lives of white people while enriching black people in an overt act of revenge.
The problem is that our news media isn’t getting this, at all. Sargent, for instance, is on the side of right on this Black Panthers thing, but even he makes the mistake of using the term “Black Panthers” instead of “New Black Panthers”. This isn’t a minor issue by any stretch, because not making that distinction leaves the audience to believe that the assclowns who were legitimately trying to threaten voters have anything to do with the Black Panthers of old. As Denise Oliver-Velez pointed out during a panel, the real Black Panthers were anti-racist, and would have never deemed it appropriate to try to fight the oppression of black people by trying comically ineffectual strategies to oppress white people. The real Black Panthers still have quite a bit of esteem, so allowing people to believe that this whole voter intimidation scheme had anything to do with the real Black Panthers is to imply that the left really does tolerate this kind of behavior.
*Even though the majority of white people actually voted for McCain.
As I’ve looked over the reams of blog posts about the Journolist “controversy” (just Google the name if you’re unfamiliar with it) one thing keeps standing out: the conservative obsession with all the Jews on the list.
From the American Spectator to Free Republic, there’s an underlying conservative obsession with the Jews running Journolist, and therefore the media. The Bookworm post I linked above goes into further detail:
What’s also disturbing for me about the Journolist is the fact that so many of its members have Jewish names. You’ll notice my careful phrasing there. I don’t know if they’re actually Jewish or not. I don’t know if those who are Jewish actually practice the religion. And of those who practice the religion, I don’t know whether they practice the religion in a way that has traditional religious resonance, or is just the Jewish liberal bow to Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, and the Sabbath candles. As to the latter group, assuming it existed on the Journolist, it’s easy to claim religion when you just go through the rituals. It’s a little harder when you try to align your Torah with the Democratic handbook and the Alinsky rules for living.
Look at all the Jews! Well, I don’t know how many of them are real Jews and how many are Jew-blood infiltrators. Either way, though...Jews.
Instapundit, of course, links to this, but focuses on the fact that Journolist is somehow composed of Jew-hating Jews who really like Oliver Stone, because of all their anti-Jew Jewishness.
Part of it is that a certain (and prevailing) conservative definition of anti-Semitism begins and ends with criticism of Israel - and by begins, I mean, begins at the point that you disagree with them in any way about Israel, American foreign policy towards Israel, or the particular shade of blue on the Israeli flag. The other part of it is that this same definition of anti-Semitism is often itself inherently anti-Semitic. As we see with the Journolist theories, it’s perfectly fine to theorize about secret cabals of powerful Jews out to pervert good Christian morals...so long as you can lump in a few other Jewish people and say that your Jewish conspiracy is actually aimed at your preferred set of chosen people.
The most important lesson to come from Journolist isn’t that a few hundred liberals talked to each other over e-mail. It’s that this simple and otherwise routine act of people in a given field discussing related issues with each other has taken on the specter of a religiously-motivated conspiracy to do...something evil, although we’re not quite sure what.
The bloodbath continues along our southern border and now word is coming in that Los Zetas, the highly trained killers formerly with the Gulf Cartel, have crossed into the United States and taken over at least two ranches in the Laredo, Texas area. I am receiving word that the owners of the ranches have evacuated without being harmed. The source is law enforcement in the area.
To be fair, in large areas of Texas, “law enforcement” is “anyone with guns”, so this sort of makes sense. In another and more accurate way, however, it does not.
“We didn’t have any incidents on the American side. It’s hard for people to understand who don’t live here,” he added. “They’re not Vikings, they’re not going to invade us, it doesn’t work that way.”
Then, again, from actual law enforcement officials:
Local law enforcement was bombarded with calls from across the country Saturday asking about a report that the Zetas had taken over two ranches off Mines Road.
But officials with the Laredo Police Department, Webb County Sheriff’s Department and Border Patrol said they knew nothing about such an incident, while Erik Vasys, an FBI spokesman in San Antonio, said the agency does not comment on rumors.
The report, which spread like wildfire among blogs Saturday afternoon, appears to have initially been posted on a blog called Diggers Realm.
The blogger wrote that he got a tip from a San Diego, Calif., minuteman named Jeff Schwilk, who said that the Zetas, former enforcers of the Gulf Cartel, had crossed into the United States and taken over two ranches off Mines Road, about 10 miles northwest of Interstate 35.
To summarize: an idiot called up another idiot and told them that now was the time for Total Ultimate Warfare against the Messicans. But how far could such a rumor go in the discerning realm of conservative blogging? Surely, nobody would pick up a story that was the equivalent of your cousin calling you at 2:30 in the morning to tell you that he thinks he’s going home with Katy Perry after doing a round of Jaegerbombs at a TGI Friday’s. Surely.
In what could be deemed an act of war against the sovereign borders of the United States, Mexican drug cartels have seized control of at least two American ranches inside the U.S. territory near Laredo, Texas.
Two sources inside the Laredo Police Department confirmed the incident is unfolding and they would continue to coordinate with U.S. Border Patrol today. “We consider this an act of war,” said one police officer on the ground near the scene. There is a news blackout of this incident at this time and the sources inside Laredo PD spoke on the condition of anonymity.
In case you were wondering, any state west of the Mississippi has the right to declare what is or isn’t an act of war. Particularly when they’ve employed super-awesome Laredo Police Officer Buff Killington, MBA/Krav Maga Expert.
The Cypress Times has 100% confirmed this report with a second law enforcement official, presumably Lt. Cinnamon Sweetbottom-Grant, who took up protecting the people of Laredo after her husband was brutally murdered in the parking lot of an H-E-B during a shootout between rival Mexican gangs Las Bibliotecas and Los Fuentes de Agua.
Dan Riehl, even though he admits that it’s false, still can’t help fantasizing over Team America: Texas Edition going all Special Forces on the invisible Mexican Menace.
This can’t actually be happening, can it? What, do they figure the numb-nuts in the WH is so weak they can get away with a move like this? Okay, on second thought, maybe they have a point. But still. Hell, the right configuration of Texans could end this nonsense. Retired special forces, anyone?
From all of this, I predict the following. One: within a year, a group of Brazilian tourists in Orlando will be attacked as a roving Mexican street gang. Two: we will see a roughly 600,000% rise in in the number of Tea Party YouTube videos using clips from The Expendables to simulate an elite commando group killing half of Mexico. None of them will be racist, and the ones that are will secretly be made by MoveOn.org.
I’m still at Netroots Nation (you can follow updates at my Twitter feed or at hashtag #nn10), so I don’t have a lot of time to write. But if you’re interested, I was recently on the skepticism-oriented podcast the Big Cigarette. You can listen here. They got me to talk about the oh so fun pleasure of being targeted by a right wing smear campaign years ago, and about my new book. Check it out!
After a long, hard summer of legal work, today is my last day, which means I’ll be back to full-time posting.
Also, Amanda and I and sundry other funny fuckers have a panel tomorrow at Netroots Nation on being snarky after winning elections, which is the most useful thing you will ever encounter. In life. Sorry, CPR classes.
Julea Ward was 
Once again, I’m forced to question if conservatives are capable of remembering that they gave women the vote nearly a century ago. The
It’s interesting to me that the Daily Caller has chosen right now to hump the “OMG liberals talk to each other!!!!!!” non-story, since this is right on the heels of a legitimate media scandal---Andrew Breitbart’s smear campaign against Shirley Sherrod, and how it was shamefully taken seriously long enough to get Sherrod fired, when it should have been ignored right off the bat, due to Breitbart being a known liar. Even worse, there’s still an aching silence where media and government mea culpas for taking the ACORN lies seriously should be. CNN did blow the doors off Breitbart’s latest racially motivated smear campaign, but there is still a lack of follow-up coverage exposing Breitbart and his entire crew for being the racist fuckwit liars they are.
You didn’t think I’d leave you hanging, did you? Not when I’m fairly obsessed with “Mad Men”. I wrote 
BTW, I also just put up a FB album called 
Right: With Palm Springs, CA Mayor Steve Pougnet (who is challenging and will defeat Mary Bono Mack), Mike Rogers, Rep. Jared Schutz Polis.
I’m still boggled that right wingers have convinced themselves that they have a right to have a snit over the fact that some liberal journalists had a listserv. The whole concocted controversy gets stranger by the minute, and not just because 
The big rumor of the day is that