Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Blog fun for the day

- I've noticed something of an inconsistency in the conservative mind-set. Shocking, I know.

When discussing immigration, their refrain is, "They must follow the law; otherwise they are illegal." They will say they have no problem with anyone coming into this country who crosses all the right T's and dots all the right I's. "STAND IN LINE," conservatives chant, content in the knowledge that the legal immigration process is flawless. Any attempt to engage in debate about whether or not anything about it could change out of general human decency is moot. It's the law! Like it or not!

Of course, such adoring devotion to the rule of law gets thrown out like the baby with the bathwater when it comes to the murder of George Tiller. No matter how hard many conservatives stress that they don't condone Tiller's murder, they can't help but add that he was an abortion doctor. It's not hard to read between the lines that many conservatives feel at least some justice has been served here. That Tiller is no longer in a position to administer procedures they feel are barbaric and go against their personal religious teachings.

But abortion is legal, backed by a solid Supreme Court precedent, and heavily regulated. Funny how the law is such dandy gospel when it comes to immigration but how it's such an immoral outrage with abortion. It's the law! Like it or not! (Apparently, you can "like it" AND "not.")

- There's a wonderful group on Facebook called BOAS (Breakdown of America - Staff). Their logo is an American flag-colored left-turn arrow underneath a black circle with a slash. I think they're trying to say "no left turn," as in, "liberalism sucks," but the colors should really have been flipped. As it is, the logo seems to say, "We hate America."

The group's stated mission is to "share ideas, brainstorm, vent, and help each other as we try to educate the ignorant nation that elected our current president and at this point...would probably re-elect him tomorrow if given the chance!"

That's smart. Say you're out to educate Americans, and then call the majority of them ignorant right off the bat. Yeah, that'll work! Good luck with that. Maybe the logo isn't as wrong as I thought.

- A St. Louis Catholic organization had this to say about its monthly community breakfasts: "The monthly breakfasts, begun in Saginaw by Carlson's predecessor, include everyone 'from the public relations person at Dow Chemical to the fellow who owned the local car dealership,' whether or not they were Catholic, Carlson said."

This quote's concept of diversity is very curious. It's kind of like saying a sorority includes everyone from blue-eyed bleach-blondes to blue-eyed dirty blondes. If inclusion is truly the idea of these breakfasts, shouldn't they invite people who don't own businesses or make lots of money spinning chemical pollution? And how does the car dealer feel about being on the low end of this comparison, especially next to a PR flack? They must serve a lot of comfort food at these things.

- Early this morning, a popular daiquiri place in Lafayette was gutted by fire. No one was injured, but the building is likely to be declared a total loss. As it was happening, my live Facebook stream became a virtual shrine to the place. People were despairing about it as if they'd lost their best friend in the fire. It was a popular hangout, granted, and I'd been there a few times myself; but after reading so many horrified reactions, I'm wondering if the suicide rate in Lafayette isn't about to triple. It's a building, guys! No one died! They'll get insurance money, and build another one exactly like it. In the meantime, you'll have to console yourself at one of Lafayette's other 1,689 daiquiri places.

Maybe I should take the official Tiller tack, and be grateful this place burned down because it served drinks through a drive-thru. Seriously, they do this in Louisiana. But as much as I hated driving in Lafayette at 2 a.m. thanks to this astonishing legal loophole, I would never call for anyone to lose their livelihood or their lives over it. Of course, that's silly even to say; no one would have such a skewed perspective anyway, right?

"Why couldn't this be New Orleans Original Daiquiri?? I love Daq Supreme!"

Once again, I stand corrected.

37 comments:

herb said...

god are you bitches STILL whining about this Tiller bullshit? You'd think the guy was fucking MLK the way you're going on about him.

Ian McGibboney said...

Yeah, I guess it is old news, seeing that it happened last week and all.

Hear any good Ted Kennedy jokes lately?

TJenkins said...

You argument Ian, like all of your arguments, is flawed. No one on the right contests the legality of Roe, they oppose it on moral grounds. In fact when they say they want Roe "reversed" it's a sign that they know it is settled law, and hence they work to have it overturned. Illegals on the other hand are in fact breaking the law and the fact that those same righties you fear so much oppose their flagrant disregard for the law and also work to see Roe overturned legally doesn't show an inconsistency, it shows a pretty solid consistency of adherence to US law.

Your writing, as usual, is as shoddy and laughable as your sex life. Maybe you should give up writing..I know I know you spent all your parents money at that community college for that supposed degree, but man you suck at it. I can see why you were fired from your college paper gig.

Ian McGibboney said...

I'm all for revisiting laws if circumstances necessitate it, such as with immigration. But the abortion issue is, as you said, settled law. There has been no serious challenge to it and there likely won't be for decades. The recent murder of Dr. Tiller brought out a lot of qualified condolences from conservatives, but not a lot of forceful condemnation. Perceived "murder" of fetuses is decried, but the murder of a living adult - which DOES violate law - is not met with the same outrage. That suggests to me that allegiance to the rule of law is, at best, a politically charged notion.

By the way, I attended the second-largest university in Louisiana, and was not actually fired from my college writing gig. I held it until I graduated with my master's degree. That column was a joke, and not a particularly subtle one, so I guess the joke's on you.

NOLA Progressive said...

I think an important note here is that I haven't heard one single individual actually just condemn the murder of Tiller. Sure, some have said that it was wrong; however, they always throw a caveat in... "But he did voluntarily choose that career" or some such. The anti-choice movement absolutely views his death as a divine justice sort of situation.

Now you have the chucklehead who murdered Tiller saying he knows of numerous other similar attacks planned. Hmm that smacks eerily of organized terror talk. Where's Cheney Co. chomping at the bit to waterboard this putz and save American lives from terrorist plots?

TJenkins said...

"The recent murder of Dr. Tiller brought out a lot of qualified condolences from conservatives, but not a lot of forceful condemnation."

Are you serious? Pretty much every faction of the pro-life movement denounced his killer. I guess DailyKos didn't link to this? (or this, or this) so you didn't see it. I guess maybe because they didn't whine and flail around as much as you and that has-been NOLA think they should then they someone condoned the murder.

As for your point that it's settled law and therefore should never ever be questioned is so ridiculous it makes me seriously doubt you graduated with any type of degree at all....and he fact that you work the 3rd shift janitor rounds where you work solidifies that belief.

Ian McGibboney said...

Teej, it's funny how you constantly accuse me of parroting Daily Kos (which I most definitely don't) and then cite sites like CBN. But OK.

If the groups who have made this mostly eloquent statements truly stand behind them, then they should make stronger efforts to separate themselves from people like Scott Roeder. A simple statement isn't going to do it, not from a camp known for its extremely forcible protests. I think that many of them are just backpedaling, honestly. Restraint has never been the "pro-life" movement's strong point, which is why this sudden call for civility seems disingenuous.

Tjenkins said...

Oh please Ian, the pro-life movement is loud, but overall they are not violent. The last murder of an abortionist by a crazed pro-lifer before this Tiller murder was in in the late-90's, that makes the violent outbreak rate about 1 every 10 or so years, not really what I would classify as a violent movement. I marvel at your deft goal post moving though..

"They should condemn him!"

"uhh they did you dumbass, here's a couple links to articles showing that"

"Well...uh...they should separate themselves!"

It's funny how you don't think the left should "separate itself" from it's more violent factions. I guess it's just another example of you standing in a glass house throwing stones.

Ian McGibboney said...

Consider the shootings we've had over the past few months, and indeed even in the past few days:

1) A Pennsylvania man picked off officers from his home because, in his own words, he was worried Obama was going to confiscate his guns;

2) A Muslim extremist picked off military recruiters in Arkansas because he felt it was his divine duty, and said more attacks could come;

3) Tiller's murder, whose killer said more attacks were likely;

4) An 88-year-old white supremacist, who repeatedly boasted of his past assault attempts, killed a guard at the Holocaust Museum.

These are just off the top of my head. Combine that with multiple threats on Obama's life, as well as inciteful right-wing punditry and a surge in firearms ownership, and you have what could potentially be a right-wing uprising. Yes, there are left-wing extremists, but the worst they've ever done (if you consider Earth First! to be left, which is debatable) is torch a Hummer dealership in the middle of the night. That's not excusable, but neither is it the deliberate homicide of people over political disagreements.

There's no inconsistency in my arguments. I said that if the "pro-life" movement really has a commitment to life and law, they should condemn this killing with all the force with which they protest abortions, and take pains to tone down their rhetoric so that there isn't even the appearance of incitement. That would be the responsible thing to do, but somehow I don't see it happening.

NOLA Progressive said...

Ian haven't you learned anything lately? It is completely socially unacceptable to point out that there is an extremely violent wing of the Christian fundamentalist movement in this country. In fact, researched government reports must be suppressed that show the possibility of threats from these demographics.

The public face of the anti-choice movement has definitely created a dichotomy over the issue. Pandering with we will pray for him and his family, but repeatedly talking out of the other side of their mouths with the "reap what you sow" bit. I am happy to see that a few links were able to be dug up which didn't dissemble; I simply wish that was the prominent face on the entire issue.

Until we cease to be a nation full of religion obsessed activists, this problem will cyclically continue to get worse.

Tjenkins said...

"1) A Pennsylvania man picked off officers from his home because, in his own words, he was worried Obama was going to confiscate his guns;"

Has nothing to do with this conversation about pro-lifers

"2) A Muslim extremist picked off military recruiters in Arkansas because he felt it was his divine duty, and said more attacks could come;"

Has nothing to do with this conversation about pro-lifers

"4) An 88-year-old white supremacist, who repeatedly boasted of his past assault attempts, killed a guard at the Holocaust Museum."

Has nothing to do with this conversation about pro-lifers


"These are just off the top of my head. Combine that with multiple threats on Obama's life, as well as inciteful right-wing punditry and a surge in firearms ownership, and you have what could potentially be a right-wing uprising. "

oh my god, you're a fucking idiot. You really buy into this media-fueled bullshit don't you? I'm sure, during the last 8 years you decried the so-called POLITICS OF FEAR but now that it suits your ideology it's OK to partake in it!

I particularly love the "inciteful right-wing punditry" part, how dare they...HOW.DARE.THEY talk bad about GOD KING OBAMA, why that's INCITEFUL! of course Olbermann can call Bush a terrorist and war criminal for years without a peep from you, but heaven forbid Glenn Beck call Obama a socialist, why that's hateful all of a sudden.

Oh no RIGHT WING UPRISING! run for the hills! I can see why you get fired from jobs in which your opinion is committed to paper, you're a goddamn idiot.

Ian McGibboney said...

This blog is, in big part, about conservative adherence to the rule of law. They're all about it when it works to their benefit, but are selective about it when that suits their means.

There's a profound difference between the overreaction that occurred after 9/11 - detaining people because they looked like terrorists, or had the same name, affixing cameras everywhere and issuing ridiculous directives such as duct tape and plastic sheeting - and keeping an eye on paranoid, ignorant and reactionary far-right groups that have openly stated a revolutionary disgust of the Obama administration. They're fed by the most vicious and irresponsible elements of the media, presented as real news. And they have lots and lots of guns. That sounds like a real threat to me, even if individual in nature.

Here in Missouri, a state agency apologized after issuing a report suggesting that some extremist militia elements could be a domestic danger. The findings of the report got twisted into the notion that anyone conservative or libertarian was on a government watch list. Such simple minds. The agency had to withdraw the report and promise not to do that again. Why? This isn't racial profiling or blind rage; this is a case that's building more every day. It's worth looking into.

Tjenkins said...

Hmm yes, something must be done about these citizens buying weapons and voicing opinions about public officials. Before you know it they might come together and...OH NO...what if they form protests and have marches!? The pure horror that will spread must be contained. What do you say Comrade McGibboney, maybe we can find some type of patch for them to wear and possibly confine them to a small area, like a ghetto with armed guards? Eventually maybe GOD KING OBAMA came dream up some kind of Final Solution to quell this coming RIGHT WING UPRISING! It will be glorious!

NOLA Progressive said...

Well what I worry about is these folks getting all rowled up, buying guns, marching protesting and one of them...I don't know reading a book formatted like a liberal hitlist of sorts...Then I dont know maybe tweaking and murdering some people with those guns. Sheesh that's preposterous. The odds of that happening are astronomical and could never actually...Uh oh

Ian McGibboney said...

Remember that when Bill Clinton became president in 1993, an abortion doctors was murdered and George Tiller was shot in both arms. In 1994, a guy crashed a plane into the White House. This has been the reaction whenever an ideologically bankrupt right has to deal with being out of power. Frankly, it's scary. But that's what happens when people are fed a steady diet of hatred, lies and righteousness, and already possess a propensity toward guns, violence and defensiveness. It's not an indictment of all conservative people, but definitely some of them.

NOLA Progressive said...

You know its not that I truly think that if a person is conservative he or she condones these actions i am fully aware that is not the case Hell I dont even think Teej thinks this even though I dont care for his attitude or way he goes about expressing his thoughts (Yes Teej im fully aware you could give a rat's ass what i think;just making a point here). I do however think there is a significant element to the conservative movement which does condone it overtly and covertly.

The likes of Bill Oreilly touting the baby killer line and purporting that anyone with five grand could get him to kill their baby doesnt help anything. People take Bill very seriously and poorly researched claims about the exact process of late term abortion incites people tremendously.

Michael said...

What was that you were saying, Teej, about being so blinded by ideology that you failed to recognize facts? You assert, airily and without reference to actual facts:

The last murder of an abortionist by a crazed pro-lifer before this Tiller murder was in in the late-90's, that makes the violent outbreak rate about 1 every 10 or so years, not really what I would classify as a violent movement.

First, let's examine your assumption that murder is the only form of violence engaged in by the "pro-life" movement. Even if you were correct in your assumption that there's only one "violent outbreak" every ten years (which you're not), that's surely enough to discredit any movement which allegedly dedicates itself to the sacredness of all life.

In point of fact, however, according to statistics compiled by Religious Tolerance from the U.S. and Canada, there were 24 murders or attempted murders at abortion clinics from 1989-2004. That would make the rate of murder and attempted murder not one every ten years, but 1.6 per year.--a difference of an order of magnitude. Let's not even get into the number of bombings, arsons, death threats, vandalism, burglary, bomb threats, harassment, and the like--we'd be into the tens of thousands of incidents. So yes, I think Ian can correctly characterize the "pro-life" movement as violent.

Tjenkins said...

I find it funny that proponents of a process that is centered entirely around killing innocent babies has the gall to call opposition to that process violent.

Ian McGibboney said...

Are you suggesting that homicide over a political disagreement is not violent? I'd call it terrorism.

NOLA Progressive said...

This is a pretty lame attempt even for you Teej. You know good and well that in the case of Tiller late term abortions are performed as mercy abortions for fetuses that would either be non viable out of the womb or tragically malformed or brain dead. This man is not offing babies like some mafia hitman. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous at best

As for the broader topic of overall abortion there is a huge difference in walking into a church
, putting a gun to someones head and murdering him and having a safe and legal medical procedure which terminates a potential baby while it is a lump of dividing cells.

I personally believe that in the vast majority of cases women should carry and deliver their prospective child. I can not imagine a reason my wife and I would ever decide to terminate a pregnancy outside of medical crisis, but you nor any movement member of any kind has a legal or moral authority to be a part of that decision.

You are lending yourself to the dichotomy I spoke of earlier that in some way pays lipservice to equating these violent actions and murder to safe, legal and profound medical decisions a woman and her doctor make. A paltry excuse and attempt at veiled justification.

Tjenkins said...

"Are you suggesting that homicide over a political disagreement is not violent? I'd call it terrorism."

Of course it's terrorism you stupid fucking idiot. My point is you can't paint the whole movement because of a few bad apples. I seem to recall you lefties getting your panties all in a bunch when conservatives did that to you the last 8 years when any idiot with a "I support the troops when they kill their officers!" sign was held up as a representative of the entire anti-war movement. It's weird, almost like you have an agenda or something.

NOLA Progressive said...

The prevalence from one issue to other isnt even in the same ballpark. The frequency and pervasiveness isnt nearly the same. However you are ver right in that you can not or at least should not paint the entire movement with that broad stroke. The problem there is it doesnt seem anyone has in this thread. Its been pointed out that there is a significant portion of the movement that advocates violence and intimidation.

So if that is what has you hyped up let me emphatically state NOT ALL ANTI ABORTION ACTIVISTS ADVOCATE VIOLENCE.

Many do and they are killing people That is wrong and I would like to see public and influential figures take a measured approach in there rhetoric. I cant force this nor would I if I could, but i believe it is the responsible and ethical thing to do.

TJenkins said...

"many do"? many?

"I would like to see public and influential figures take a measured approach in there rhetoric."

That pesky freedom of speech thing again, you liberals just HATE it unless it's used for liberal causes like advocating the violent overthrowing of the US government or calling elected leaders criminals.

Michael said...

You are full of fail, Teej. You assume--incorrectly--that I'm a "proponent" of abortion (whatever that would be), and then you totally ignore the facts which prove the "pro-life" movement is in fact routinely and ordinarily violent. Then you compound the error by failing to take note of the obvious distinction between an inchoate mass of protoplasm and a living, breathing human being.

Pathetic. To quote your own words back to you, it's almost as if you had an agenda or something.

Ian McGibboney said...

I really wish a smart conservative would come on here, instead of a typical one.

Tjenkins said...

Ian, I'm sure you wish you had any kind of traffic, but sadly you're too inconsequential for any one of merit to care about.

As for you Mike, I wasn't even talking to you. I know you must be so desperate for interaction considering how dead your own blog is but you are so far left that talking to you is pointless because all you'll do is spout ridiculous liberal boilerplate and then walk away with that false smugness liberals are known for.

Ian McGibboney said...

Teej, I love your blog, Hot Chicks With Douchebags. It's great you have such a great sense of humor about yourself.

Tjenkins said...

I don't need to have a blog to be able to criticize yours Ian.

Ian McGibboney said...

It would help to not be an anonymous coward when personally attacking everyone who comes here.

Michael said...

So let me see if I have this correct. Writing a blog is supposed to be all about attracting a huge audience. If you don't have a huge audience, your opinions don't matter. Teej doesn't even write a blog. Teej, therefore, has zero audience. It therefore inevitably follows, Teej, that your opinions don't matter at all.

Yeah, I think you might want to consider re-examining that paradigm. Not to mention working on your grammer and speling.

Ian McGibboney said...

I gotta say, Michael, my blog traffic has really shot up since Teej brought his brilliant clown act to the Not Right stage.

Tjenkins said...

I'm not anonymous, my name is attached to every comment. And as I already stated Ian, I have more Twitter followers reading my words than you have visiting your blog in a month.

Ian McGibboney said...

That's all that's attached. So where can I read this awesome Twitter feed of yours? I want to see what a hive mind truly looks like. It's National Geographic time for me.

Michael said...

Turning to more pleasant matters, Ian, there really are places in Lafayette that specialize in daiquiris? That's a bit of American culture I've yet to experience. Sounds like fun, though.

Ian McGibboney said...

Oh yes indeed, Michael. And you can drive right up and nab them!

Michael said...

Not wild about the drive-through idea, but I rather like the idea of a daiquiri place. Do they have, I don't know, flavors of the month or something?

reagleburger said...

Ian,

thanks for posting the BOAS website. I like it a lot.

Rich