I tend to get a lot of e-mail from idiots. They’ve signed me up for various and sundry mailing lists, send me stories and articles from out-and-out moonbats (alter.net, The Nation, and some Artist are fairly common). I guess it’s their way of “educating” me. I’ve had to set up filters for them, but every now and then, they sneak past them.
But among the muck and mire, every now and then I’ll find something that’s worthwhile.
I don’t know much about Keith Olbermann. I understand he used to be mainly into sports, and was regarded as all right there. I hear he used to do political stuff before, but was fired or had to quit that. And I believe that he has some sort of running grudge against Bill O’Reilly that seems to be a bit like a 3rd-grade crush.
He is one of the current darlings of the far left, and his “commentaries” are widely regarded by those who seem to have only a passing familiarity with reality. And someone decided that I just desperately needed to see one of them, so they sent me a link to this one that runs almost 11 minutes.
I couldn’t watch more than a few minutes of it, but the gist of it involved the assault and near-beating death of Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts by Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina on May 22, 1856. Sumner had given a fiery anti-slavery speech some days before, so Brooks had sneaked up on him on the floor of the Senate and beaten him savagely unconscious with his cane, only stopping when his cane broke. Sumner spent 3 years recuperating from the assault, and never fully recovered. Brooks’ constituents, when they heard about the attack, sent him dozens of canes to replace the one he’d broken over Sumner’s head.
Olbermann’s point in bringing up one of the more shameful incidents in Congressional history was to liken Sumner to a current Massachusetts senator, John Kerry, who spoke out last week and was rhetorically beaten by President Bush and legions of others. Olbermann speculated about to whom Bush would send new canes, and who would be those canes’ targets.
Living next door to Sumner and Kerry’s home state, I happen to know a little about the incident, and I can look up more details — which apparently is beyond the grasp of Mr. Olbermann and his staff. His comparison might seem appropriate on the surface (if you’re a complete loon), but it falls apart when actual facts are brought into play. For example:
1) Sumner was a Republican, his assailant a Democrat.
2) Sumner was physically assaulted, nearly killed, and never fully recovered until the day he died. No one, to the best of my knowledge, laid a finger on Kerry. The parallel would be to Kerry’s presidential ambitions, not his person.
3) Sumner was assailed for speaking his opinion forcefully. Kerry was denounced for three inter-related reasons: A) his initial misstatement, which insulted not Bush, his intended target, but the men and women serving in Iraq; B) his refusal to admit error for days; and C) his non-apology apology, where he didn’t regret his own words, but that others had been wrong to interpret them as they did.
4) The rampant physical thuggery in the mold of Brooks’ craven attack on Sumner is still around in politics today, but it’s pretty much exclusively the domain of the far Left against those it sees as its enemies on the Right. Witness the treatment of the Minutemen at Columbia University. The trends of throwing pies at conservative speakers at colleges (William Kristol, David Horowitz, Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter) .(OK, Buchanan was hit by salad dressing, but the point is still valid.)
Even the counter-examples of “Republican thuggery” seem to show the Left in a bad light. Recently, a blogger was pysically hauled out of a George Allen campaign event by Allen supporters after he shouted rude questions at Allen. It was later revealed that the blogger himself had initiated the violence, forcefully shoving a security guard out of his way to get to the candidate.
And are these isolated incidents, aberrations from the norm? Considering the loud cries of support from the Left over these attacks (I seem to recall lots of approving laughter over these assaults, and a decided lack of criminal or other sanctions against the perpetrators), I’d have to say no.
Yes, the Sumner-Brooks incident is a good cautionary tale for today. But please take a hard look at who the modern-day Senator Sumners are, and who are the heirs of Representative Brooks — and remember that Brooks’ attack was a foreshadowing of the Civil War.
No, Hugh, you never replied to Jay’s questions–to back up your assertion of Rethuglicanism. And even now, can’t seem to read a simple post by JT and after being asked twice, still can’t answer the question.
You really may have a personality disorder as someone posted, above. You are certainly an anti-social type, if not delusional, from what I have seen of all your rants on this blog.
On the topic of Olby, which you can’t seem to follow or comment on in any reasonable way, I beleive Jay’s take is correct regarding all the strange stories surrounding this guy. I believe he also suffers from some kind of “disorder,” actually seems similar to Hugh’s. He’s never been able to hold a job for long without rankling the folks he works with. But his tv show has just gotten nutty as hell. Maybe Hugh and Olby will benefit from stem cell research one day!!
He sets up the same straw man that Hugh, Lee et al set up: you say something factually correct, but that insults the tender sensitivities of the Left, and you are set upon as some sort of Nazi, or goon, out to take away all your “liberties,” and who is incredibly unfair to others a la Fox. But, it doesn’t work out so badly for the Libs., as they are never the recipients of the real Lib. abuse that Jay outlined in his piece.
By the way, I, too, have a chronic disease that one day MIGHT be resolved with fetal stem cells, but I think Fox’s whole approach was phony and wrong, and uninformed. And, yes, adult stem cells have been where the only results have come from, despite continuing fed. funding of older lines of fetal cells, and private and state funding (California funds it as well).
So, you guys, as usual, are wrong, wrong, wrong on multiple levels and you can’t sustain an argument on Olbermann or the side-track stem cell issue here.
Mitchel old pal, old bud:
You do indeed suffer from multiple diseases.Let Dr. Hugh dx them for you:
1) Myopia
2) Constipation of the brain and its sequela (sp)
3) Diarrehea (sp/)of the mouth.
There is a cure for all those. Repent and move left.
As usual, you illustrate my point, Mr. Off-Topic Non-sequitur.
We’d do some stem cell research on your tiny clump of cells posing as your brain, but I’m afraid they wouldn’t replicate and would soon die.
Which would free up space on this here blog, damn straight!
Mitch:
Actually I have an additional dx for you. Dementia….what the hell were you just talking about?
Alas, moving to the left is no cure for that. Sorry buddy.
It’s really very simple:
The slightest criticism from the right of a lefty = a fascist attempt to silence those speaking Truth to Power.
Violent attacks by lefties on those they disagree with = exuberant activism, to be praised for its bravery.
Jay sez:
Physical assaults and batteries on those you oppose: THUGGERY.
Brian, if you go back to my original article, you will see a link to a series of photos taken before the incident, showing the “assaulted” guy shoving his way past a security guard to get to Allen. He STARTED the physical altercation he’s now complaining about.
Man, it’s almost disappointing when the trolls are this easy to bat around. I countered Brian’s point 13 and a half hours before he made it.
J.
I saw your video stills, Jay, along with your invented declaration that “it was later revealed that the blogger himself had initiated the violence”. Your stills show a man attempting to walk through a door, and a security guard attempting to physically block him. You don’t get to claim victim when you use physical force to block a man walking. Then the two of them tussling with hand and body for the upper-hand position. And no one, even from Allen’s staff, has claimed the guy initiated the violence.
But, since you’re so deflated after thinking yourself clever for lo those 13 hours, I’ll give you another chance. Feel free to point out the scenes from this interaction that support the tackle and headlock on the guy.
Oh… and please learn how to use the term “troll” correctly. You’re supposed to know these sorts of things.
(Fixing the broken link)
this interaction
A Google alert on Parkinson’s brought me here — fascination with this craziness kept me reading through the whole thread.
The ignorance expressed about Parkinson’s symptoms and side effects — as well as about stem cell research — is obvious, but not unusual in the general public. MJF is changing that by his courageous openness with his disease and its symptoms and by getting the issues surrounding treatment into the light. But it is not his disease that qualifies him for commenting. He has informed himself about the disease and the status of research and he has raised millions of dollars to help find a cure for this awful disease. That qualifies him to comment — he knows what he is talking about. His fame and popularity get him on camera to speak — his illness makes people stop to listen. He is demonstrating that the illness did not take away who he is or diminish his will and his character. Hopefully he is making people stop and think and come to well-considered personal decisions.
And that is something you guys are not doing — thinking or being rational. Finding a way to slam the guy you disagree with, baiting one another and quibbling over the words used reflects neither thought nor rational debate. It is a school ground wrestling match — verbal and virtual though it is.
That is the Rush Limbaugh style of public discourse — call names, ridicule your opponent, use scorn and derision and character assassination and accusations. And if your argument is really weak, just turn up the heat on those tactics.
This kind of behavior has become so pervasive on our political scene, it is paralyzing our leadership at a time when we need to be taking decisive action to solve very real problems.
I have no idea who the KO person is that you guys are arguing about. If what he does and says is as outrageous in tone as what you are doing, I have no interest in knowing. It is time for sensible discussion of real issues.
Leave the craziness and come back to reason.
Gee, Brian, the “victim” wrote a letter to Alter.net, and that’s your evidence?
Photo 1: Stark has his right hand on the guard’s lapel.
Photos 3-4: Right hand on lapel, left grabbing wrist.
Photos 5-6: Right hand pressing on guard’s chest, left still on wrist.
Seems pretty clear to me…
J.
Gee, Brian, the “victim” wrote a letter to Alter.net, and that’s your evidence?
You know full well I linked there for the video. But go ahead, try to distract from the point.
Photo 1: Stark has his right hand on the guard’s lapel.
Wrong. He’s touching the book, not the lapel. And he’s trying to push past someone who’s obviously using the physcial force of his own body to push Stark away. Or do you think the guard is just standing there passively minding his own business?
Never mind that you’re pretending that when the photographer snapped “Photo 1” is the start of the action. The video shows a different view.
Photos 3-4: Right hand on lapel, left grabbing wrist.
Wrong again. But I wonder why he’s holding his wrist. Do you think he has a wrist fetish? Or perhaps he’s trying to hold back the hand that had been trying to push him back?
Photos 5-6: Right hand pressing on guard’s chest, left still on wrist.
Well yeah, when you push your body forcibly towards someone, they might use their hands to push you back. Unless they’re an umpire.
Now, let’s talk about photos 9, 10, and 11, shall we?
Well, seeing as 9, 10, and 11 all seem to happen AFTER the ones I cited, I still feel fairly safe in sticking by what I saw earlier: the security guard was in his way, and he shoved the guy aside. Considering the other incidents I mentioned above, I don’t think the response was an overreaction.
Or don’t you remember Robert Kennedy?
J.
MJF admitted in his own biography that he has mislead his audience regarding his symptoms by not taking his meds, or is it that he takes to much, to impress his audience. He, himself, admitted he did so when he spoke before congress.
So, it’s a bit damaging to his credibility now to know what he did then, is it not?
And there was no mention of the actual merits of his claims. He may have the disease, but it does not give him carte blanche on the topic.
Brian said:
Or do you think the guard is just standing there passively minding his own business?
Actually, I’d say the guard IS minding his own business — his business being to keep whackos like Stark at a respectful distance. Kind of the job description of “guard.”
J.
Considering the other incidents I mentioned above, I don’t think the response was an overreaction.
So when you make the first offensive move and block someone with your body, and they try to squeeze past you, the proper response is to tackle them, put them in a head lock, and throw them into window. Got it.
Actually, I’d say the guard IS minding his own business — his business being to keep whackos like Stark at a respectful distance.
And he does that by standing by passively? Or by forcibly using his body to push someone back?
You’re equating the first use of a hand touch with the first use of force. That’s naive, or (more likely) disingenuous.
So, of course, irrational and vocally abusive individuals with a history of violent actions should be given unrestricted access to federal officials?
Ah, I love the smell of napalm in the morning. Smells like . . . victory.
I’ve never had any training as a security guard, Brian, but yes, I think that is an accepted method:
If you’re supposed to keep someone from going some place, you place yourself physically in their path. This forces them to either back off or commit to physical means to get past you. Either they have been deterred and are no longer a threat, or they have committed to their goal and have established themselves as a threat and can be dealt with accordingly.
I’ve never been a security guard, but that matches nearly every confrontation I’ve ever seen one have. They’re not supposed to initiate contact, but the best ones are damned good at arranging matters so that the aggressor HAS to make the first contact, or be deterred from their goal.
J.
Give it up, guys. Stark came in exhibiting verbal and physically agressive behavior. The guard was doing his job in protecting a vulnerable political figure. Did they get too rough? I don’t know, but the guy initiated the scuffle by pushing his way through a door and a guard and continuing to resist.
This sounds like a complaint of someone who hit someone else and then complained because they got hit back harder.
You guys are freaking out about those who defend Rush Limbaugh’s perceived verbal infraction, but now you defend this guy? And had this been the other way around, you’d be screaming bloody murder.
You can blather technicalities all you want, but Stark deserved a beating and should be grateful he was handled as gently as he was.