Photography is Not a Crime

126 responses so far ↓

• 1 Bobby // Apr 17, 2009 at 10:45 AM

  You call yourself a free speech advocate?

  You are nothing but a liberal hypocrite.

• 2 Duane Kerzic // Apr 17, 2009 at 10:47 AM

  Carlos,

  I think he said he asked to attend and was told he couldn’t come because of his politics or some other reason, like he wasn’t a real journalist. I believe that is the reason for the smile, he’s proving his point that Katie Couric is a hypocrite. Maybe he just smiles like that all the time. But Couric did engage in activism during the campaign and call it journalism as did several others. Couric often does commentary and calls it journalism.

  I think that colleges, private or public, do have a duty to allow additional speech on their properties. BTW even the property of ‘public’ universities and colleges is private property. Private and public colleges and universities also get money from goverment and are allowed to not pay taxes. These institutions are supposed to be about freedom of expression and learning. I didn’t see him handing out his movie. But is giving something away soliciting? I’m not sure.

  Once they put handcuffs on him and moved him he wasn’t free to go. So he was arrested. Just because they offered to let him go later and didn’t file charges doesn’t mean he wasn’t at one point arrested.

• 3 Hazy // Apr 17, 2009 at 1:26 PM

  The problem I had with this guy is that when watching the video, this guy kept grinning as if what he was doing was a complete joke. Like he knew what he was doing was not protected free speech under the constitution because he is on university property. Whether or not universities that receive government funds make them public or not is something for debate for another day, but I agree, this guy gives journalists a bad name.

• 4 Duane Kerzic // Apr 17, 2009 at 2:27 PM

  I want to touch on his grin one last time. This is kind of like the ‘he was asking for it’ comments that we all seem to abhor in other situations.

  I did some checking on this one because it’s important for a few reasons. This kind of comes down to what is a public forum and what isn’t along with a few other questions.

  Since most college campuses are made up of people that are of majority age (over 18 in most places) rules, in general, are very different then for primary and secondary schools. The open spaces of many colleges are open to the public to be used as they wish. I live near both a public university (Rutgers) and several private universities (the most widely known Princeton). I walk and take photos on both types campuses regularly and have never been questioned about my activities by anyone. I attended a private college and the public was welcome on the campus at all times except for one day a year.

  I think it’s interesting that the google street view camera car was allowed into the campus and photographed everywhere a car can be driven. These photos are posted on the web.

  This was about making someone they don’t agree with leave. If he was someone they agreede wtih he’d be invited.

• 5 The Boise Picayune // Apr 17, 2009 at 3:29 PM

  We are very happy to have discovered your blog, and have included it in the Picayune’s National Feeds.

  Viva La Fourth Estate!

• 6 Karl Mansoor // Apr 17, 2009 at 4:29 PM

  My take on the “grin” is that some people have different responses to stress, fear, and embarrassment.

  Where one person may react with an angry expression and demeanor, another may react with smiles, grins, jokes, or consistent questions. Some people react with complete silence.

  It is not enjoyable to be detained or arrested by law enforcement officials no matter how polite, respectful, and restrained they are.

  People react differently.

• 7 Carlos Miller // Apr 17, 2009 at 7:33 PM

  Duane,

  Where did you hear that he asked to attend and was denied because of his politics?

  From what I see in the video, he just showed up there and was not allowed in with his two cameramen.

  But if you are familiar with any awards ceremony or banquets of this stature, you would know that you just can’t show up and expect to be accommodated.

  If you were just a print journalist with a pen and a notebook, perhaps this would be possible.

  But a guy with a microphone and two cameramen need to be specially accommodated so they can hook themselves up to the soundboard and stand in a designated area where they would able to get clear footage without getting in the way.

  That’s just the way it is. There is certain protocol when it comes to the media covering events.

  And yes, he was handing out his movie so he was soliciting. And that is something a real journalist does not do.

  You say his purpose was to prove that Katie Couric is a hypocrite?

  Then he was there as an activist, not a journalist.

  He has no business calling himself a journalist. He’s a fucking wanker.

• 8 Duane Kerzic // Apr 17, 2009 at 8:47 PM

  I thought I heard him say he asked. Now it’s not clear if it was on the day of or prior on my last listening. But it is clear that he’s not trying to get in to the event. He’s standing outside and he’s not in anyone’s way. So what if he asks some people some questions as long as they don’t mind answering and are over the age of majority. Also it’s obvious that the university allows anyone to walk across the campus and use the property unless you disagree with their political rules.

  I think he called himself as much of a journalist as Katie Couric. She’s a commentator that calls herself a reporter. He seems to claim he’s a commentator.

  I’ve found some other photos of him. He’s always smiling like that. So I’d guess it’s a combination that he always smiles and stress.

  Carlos, if Micheal Moore was to do this someplace where Rush Limbaugh was getting an award and got handcuffed in basically the same circmstancs what would you say? It wouldn’t happen however because Limbaugh would invite Moore in to the event.

• 9 Voice of Reason // Apr 17, 2009 at 8:55 PM

  Note to Carlos Miller:

  This is off-topic, but site-related. As you requested, I’ve added your Mariel boatlift article to the associated Wikipedia page (link here). You should check the modified page out now, as they might revert the change later. You’re in the External Links section, which is near the bottom of the page. Look for a line that says “related article by Carlos Miller”.

  I haven’t integrated your content (i.e., points from your article) into the body of the Wikipedia page. Presently, there’s a technical issue that complicates edits for me. If I can resolve it, I’ll merge the two pages. Of course, after that’s done, they’ll probably revert the changes.

  Note that anybody reading this could make exactly the same edits. However, I recommend that people not get involved with Wikipedia, even if it’s just to work on the Mariel boatlift page, unless they’re quite patient.

• 10 Carlos Miller // Apr 17, 2009 at 9:30 PM

  I really don’t have a problem with him standing there and asking questions.

  But I do have an issue with him handing out his movies.

  To do both is unprofessional and self-serving if you’re going to claim you are a journalist – or even a commentator.

  In this case, he’s a solicitor.

  Handing out your movies is propaganda. And it’s fine if you are invited by the university for a scheduled function, but you just can’t pop up on campus and start doing this and not expect the cops to throw you out.

  If Michael Moore did the same thing at a Rush Limbaugh event and got himself arrested, I wouldn’t be defending him for his First Amendment rights because he is an activist and is willing to subject himself to arrest for his cause.

  But I do agree with Moore on many things, so I would probably be cheering him on as a fellow liberal.

  Just as all the righties in the blogosphere are cheering on this fuckhead.

  But I wouldn’t be bitching about First Amendment violations like all the right-wing idiots in the blogosphere are doing because I’m a little more realistic than that.

  I’ve covered many protests where activists subject themselves to arrest. That’s the point of the protest.

  And that was the point in Ziegler’s case.

• 11 Carlos Miller // Apr 17, 2009 at 9:38 PM

  You see, Duane, most of the people I write about on this blog, including me and you, did not purposely set out to get themselves arrested.

  They may not have backed down when confronted by police – including me and you – but the issue wasn’t over liberalism or conservatism.

  It was about the First Amendment.

  You’re a conservative. The Phoenix blogger is a conservative. Many of my readers are conservatives.

  I’m a liberal.

  So the issue here is not partisan politics.

  And yes, it’s true he always wears that smirk. And it’s true that is one of the reasons why I don’t like him at all.

  Have you ever come across a guy that you just want to punch in the face?

  I just did.

• 12 Carlos Miller // Apr 17, 2009 at 9:50 PM

  Also, when they tried to escort him, he said, “no, you’re not … I’m not going to move.”

  When the cops who arrested me escorted me across the street, I walked with them across the street.

  When the cops who arrested you led you to that cell, you walked with them.

  Can you imagine how they would have reacted if you flatly refused and then plopped yourself down on your ass like a toddler?

  You would have gotten your ass kicked.

  I’m not saying it would have been justified but let’s be realistic.

  The cops here handled it very professionally and it should be commended because other cops would have lost their tempers.

• 13 Voice of Reason // Apr 17, 2009 at 9:53 PM

  Note to Carlos Miller:

  I see one place where you’d object to the original wording of the Wikipedia page. I’ve added one of the key points from your article. If they haven’t reverted the change, it’s the last paragraph of the section named “The end”. The old version ended with a discussion of felons, and that doesn’t seem appropriate. If technical issues mentioned previously don’t prove to be a problem, I’ll make some additional changes.

• 14 Voice of Reason // Apr 17, 2009 at 9:58 PM

  Note to Carlos Miller: You said, “Other cops would have lost their tempers”.

  The word taser comes to mind.

• 15 Carlos Miller // Apr 17, 2009 at 10:36 PM

  Thanks VoR,

  I’m heading out now for a bit but I’ll check it out when I get back.

• 16 Voice of Reason // Apr 17, 2009 at 10:56 PM

  Note to Carlos Miller: O.K.

  I did a bit more with the section named “The end”. I’d planned to move more of your article into the Wikipedia page later tonight. The Art Deco revitalization issue that you mentioned should probably go into the Popular Culture section. Additionally, the Exodus and Miami labor market sections need some work.

  However, I’ve run into the issue that I warned you about. I’ll do more with the page when I can, but it might be a good idea to call for additional volunteers.

• 17 Duane Kerzic // Apr 17, 2009 at 11:41 PM

  Carlos,

  Not really trying to put you on the spot.

  I lived in the south for a while. People down there smile all the time, think of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to a lesser extent. There is a saying about being ‘smile f__ked’. Basically you are being put down while they are smiling.

  So I understand why some people don’t like what looks like the smile this guy has. But he was a sportscaster for a while and that smile looks about what I’d expect to see on a sportscaster.

  I’ll be honest I don’t like Couric at all. Because she’s a commentator and activist that passes off what she does as journalism when for the most part it’s not.

  We aren’t going to agree on him soliciting or protesting. I think this boils down to the university not being willing to accept his political speech while allowing the opposite point of view to speak. So we have a private university, that accepts large amounts of goverment funding, who’s property and endowment earnings aren’t taxed, that is ruling on what speech is allowed. I think that’s something to be concerned about from either side.

  Also if you really want to be frightened read this new post on Karl Mansoor’s blog “Are you a terrorist ?”, http://bluemustbetrue.com/2009/04/17/are-you-a-terrorist-.aspx and the report he references by the Department of Homeland Security, http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

  If that’s not enough to make you concerned, what about when Obama ordered the pirates shot. Sounds like we are using the military to fight terrorism. Wasn’t that the problem with Bush?

• 18 Voice of Reason // Apr 17, 2009 at 11:47 PM

  Exactly how did the boatlift help to revitalize the Art Deco district? Is your article saying that the Mariel boatlift led to crime in the area (which various web pages seem to confirm), which led to Scarface and Miami Vice, which led to interest in the area, which led to investment? Did it happen because of that specific movie and TV show?

• 19 Voice of Reason // Apr 18, 2009 at 12:00 AM

  Note to Duane Kerzic: You said, “Sounds like we are using the military to fight terrorism. Wasn’t that the problem with Bush?”

  You were addressing Mr. Miller, but he said he’s going out for a bit. I’d like to offer you my two cents.

  The answer is that the question is a bit broad. Personally, I prefer questions that are more focused.

  “Using the military to fight terrorism” means anything that somebody wants it to, because “terrorism” means anything that somebody wants it to. We could be talking about starting wars overseas, or dealing with pirates, or deploying the military inside the United States. Different people have different views on each of these things.

  Of course, this doesn’t necessarily contradict the point that you were trying to make.

  BTW since Mr. Miller is out, do you happen to know the answer to the questions I raised in post 18?

• 20 Duane Kerzic // Apr 18, 2009 at 12:16 AM

  I was trying to leave it as a broad question.

  I just find it interesting how we were sold, “Change you can believe in” and the only apparent real change is the breed of dog the president has.

  Yes I know that’s also a broad statement.

  Sorry I don’t know much about the Art-Deco other then the look of the places there is very neat.

• 21 Voice of Reason // Apr 18, 2009 at 12:40 AM

  Note to Duane Kerzic: You said, “the only apparent real change is the breed of dog the president has. Yes I know that’s also a broad statement.”

  Not really. You’re making an assertion that’s simpler to debate. Change is easier to pin down than Terrorism.

  However, I won’t debate the assertion with you. From one perspective, the assertion is incorrect. From another perspective, it happens to be correct. WRT the kinds of issues that this site is concerned with, I believe that it might be a good idea for people to keep your point in mind. See my two notes to Vidiot on the recent UK anti-photo thread.

• 22 John // Apr 18, 2009 at 2:53 AM

  Couple of thoughts…

  Someones facial expression, like their clothing, should not be used as an indicator as to whether or not they are deserving of being arrested. Only whether they are breaking the law. Standing on a sidewalk in a public university while not blocking passersby does not seem to cross that threshold.

  Unbiased journalism does not exist. Period. Everyone brings a value system with them, a bias, wherever they go. It is up to the individual nowadays to take that into account and to find sources that admit their bias but who are FAIR. John Stewart at the Daily Show is a particularly good example.

  A particularly nauseous example of bias:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G3fvNhdoc0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxdayteaparty.com%2F&feature=player_embedded

  Also, if the guy is selling chachkies who cares? CNN and Fox do the same.

  CNN
  http://www.cnn.com/tshirt/#headlines/allshirts/2009/3/1
  Fox
  http://shop.ecompanystore.com/foxnews/FOX_Help_Returns.asp

• 23 Voice of Reason // Apr 18, 2009 at 3:42 AM

  Note to Carlos Miller: If you’d like to improve the chances that the Wikipedia changes will survive, review the last two paragraphs of the section named “In the United States”. I’ve gone out on a limb and attempted to address a controversial issue from what Wikipedia refers to as a “neutral POV”.

  If I haven’t got it right, feel free to post possible alternate wordings.

  BTW the External Links section no longer mentions you by name, but your article is still there.

  I don’t think that I’ve done anything significant to the following sections yet: Prelude, Exodus, Popular Culture, See Also, Footnotes, References, or Miami labor market.

  Most of the other sections have been cleaned up, at least a bit. Be advised that by the time you see this, people may have reverted some or all of the changes.

• 24 Voice of Reason // Apr 18, 2009 at 6:06 AM

  Disregard this message.

• 25 Frank Carr // Apr 18, 2009 at 1:44 PM

  While I like the information you’re presenting, I do hope that you come to realize that statism is the problem for freedom loving people no matter what ‘brand name’ it uses.

  The problem we’re seeing with increasingly militarized police forces goes beyond party lines, beyond right wing or left wing US politics. It goes to the fundamentals of how much power a government should be allowed to exercise over its citizens.

• 26 Voice of Reason // Apr 18, 2009 at 11:23 PM

  Note to Carlos Miller: If you address the questions I raised in post 18 above, I’ll try to cover that sequence of events in the Wikipedia page. Otherwise, I believe that the current changes might be sufficient for the moment.

  If you do address post 18, I may have some additional questions. The points that you’re making might be controversial, so the associated Wikipedia paragraphs would need to be worded carefully.

  Feel free to suggest additional changes. However, if you do so, I may need to ask you more about statements made in the original article.

• 27 Carlos Miller // Apr 19, 2009 at 5:16 AM

  VoR,

  Thanks for adding that to wikipedia.

  Here is the answer to your question:

  Since the 70s, a woman named Barbara Capitman was trying to get politicians and investors to renovate South Beach, which had pretty much gone to hell since its heyday in the 1930s.

  By the late 1970s, the only people living there were retired Jews. In the 1980s, many of the Marielitos settled there and drove the crime rate up.

  This was also during the time of the Colombian cocaine cowboys, so Miami had become murder capital of the world by 1981.

  Because of the crime, nobody wanted to invest in South Beach.

  But because of the cocaine and the crime, Hollywood took an interest in Miami. First with Scarface, then with Miami Vice.

  The creators of Miami Vice portrayed South Beach to be this trendy, colorful district with a thriving nightlife.

  The truth was, there really wasn’t a whole lot going on there. In fact, people would stay away from South Beach at night because it was so crime-ridden.

  But Miami Vice became an international success, so suddenly European tourists started booking their vacations in Miami. And they wanted to see the Miami of Miami Vice. The glamor and the glitz and the glitter.

  So this is what finally prompted investors and politicians to pour money into the area to revitalize it.

  By the early 1990s, it became an international hotspot because of the newly renovated Art Deco District.

  And South Beach is still one of the hottest international destinations.

  So yes, this was a case of life imitating art.

• 28 Carlos Miller // Apr 19, 2009 at 5:29 AM

  Here is an update from USC about this idiot’s “arrest”:

  UPDATE:

  This afternoon, the Huffington Post spoke to James Grant, the Executive Director of Media Relations for USC. Their version of events goes a little counter to Ziegler’s narrative.

  According to Grant, in the days before his eventual appearance on campus, Ziegler publicly announced his intention to demonstrate at the Couric event. USC was happy to accomodate Ziegler, and provided him with a designated area, where he could register his protest, be seen by event attendees and the student body, and pass out whatever materials he wished. These arrangements were ready upon Ziegler’s arrival.

  However, according to Grant, Ziegler showed up for the event making unexpected demands. He was no longer a demonstrator. Now, he was a journalist, with cameramen in tow, insistent that he had a right to enter the event. Told that the event was invitation only, Ziegler contended that he had the right to range up and down the entryway and stick microphones into the faces of attendees.

  Said Grant, “The University both respects and facilitates the right to free speech, but we reserve the right to set reasonable ground rules that respect the rights of everyone, and provide for the safety and security of the University community.” Ziegler, opting against the ground rules that had been mutually agreed to, was given the choice of leaving campus or being arrested, and eventually chose to leave campus.

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/17/john-ziegler-palin-activi_n_188209.html

• 29 Carlos Miller // Apr 19, 2009 at 5:58 AM

  Duane,

  You are not putting me on the spot. It’s just very obvious that right-wingers in this country are very pissed off that they lost the election and they’re not going to shut up about it.

  That’s fine, I guess, but they are just coming across as sore losers.

  This Ziegler guy thinks that Katie Couric somehow cheated by asking Sarah Palin tough questions, exposing Palin for the idiot that she was.

  I am personally not a big fan of Couric nor of any talking head for that matter, but I did like her interview with Palin because it showed she was not afraid to ask tough questions.

  I’m not saying that this necessarily qualifies her for a journalistic award, but it’s been my experience that journalistic awards are mostly a result of favoritism than anything else.

  As you can read above, USC was happy to accommodate Ziegler as a protester or as a solicitor or a commenter or whatever he wants to call himself.

  But they weren’t going to suddenly accommodate him as a journalist when he showed up with two cameramen demanding to be let inside.

  You can complain about this being a violation of his free speech, but you’re not being realistic.

  Just like you need to go through protocol to photograph those projects you want to photograph, so does any journalist wishing to cover an event like this.

  It’s really not that much of a hurdle. Just a simple phone call to the press office will do.

  But you can’t be a journalist and a protester. You have to pick one or the other, and Ziegler made his choice.

  If I would have shown up to the John McCain rally at the University of Miami and start handing out Obama literature, there would be no way they would have allowed me inside as a journalist.

  And are you saying that Obama was wrong to have ordered the shooting of the Somali pirates?

  And you are comparing that to Bush’s War on Terror?

  Bush invaded a country that did not attack us.

  At least Obama had the right people killed.

  And I find it ironic that all of a sudden the right-wingers are freaking out about the government labeling them as terrorists.

  Where the hell were they when Bush was infiltrating anti-war groups who consisted of aging hippies?

  Or when Bush was raping the Fourth Amendment and allowing domestic spying?

  Just remember, it was the republicans who created the Department of Homeland Security.

  And it was the republicans who created and supported the Patriot Act.

  But the right-wingers in this country didn’t raise a peep about it until now.

  So while I don’t agree that right-wingers should be labeled as terrorists for the reasons listed in that document, I really don’t have enthusiasm to join them in protest over this because they stood by silently for eight years when people like me were bitching about the Patriot Act.

• 30 PT // Apr 19, 2009 at 9:05 AM

  “It seemed as if it was going to be a fairly simple photo assignment for Nicole Thompson-Walker and her two classmates at Algonquin College. Thompson-Walker even knew a great spot — on National Capital Commission property behind her west-end Ottawa backyard where she played as a kid and still goes for walks.

  But what happened is still unsettling for the pleasant and seemingly well-grounded young woman. Thompson-Walker was arrested, manhandled and handcuffed by OC Transpo Special Const. Chris Villeneuve, who, in the end, certainly showed her and her friends who was boss. Thompson-Walker, 21, Lucas Timmons, 25, and Phil Dukarsky, 22, were all charged with trespassing under Ontario’s Trespass to Property Act.”

  http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ottawa/Power+trip+transitway/1511678/story.html

• 31 Duane Kerzic // Apr 19, 2009 at 12:39 PM

  Carlos,

  Sounds like Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. The same way that left wingers behaved over the last 8 years. They just came across as sore losers for 8 years.

  I’m not a fan or Ziegler. I’ve heard of him but that’s about it. I do think that some of the questions that Couric asked Palin were stupid rather than tough. I think the problem is with the perception of the coverage of the election is that Obama wasn’t asked very many tough questions. If you review what we have learned since the election about him you’ll see that perception is not very far off the mark. He was given a pass on those questions during the election. Perhaps that’s why Couric has lead CBS to the lowest news ratings ever.

  On USC accommodating Ziegler. I don’t know the facts as I haven’t seen any of the paperwork. If this had been a PD doing an investigation you would believe what they found yet you don’t question what USC says. I don’t know if it was a violation of his free speech rights or not. I think both sides acted foolishly. I just accept that Ziegler is an activist no different from Michael Moore. Same behavior on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

  On the shootings of the pirates. What is a pirate? It’s someone that terrorizes shipping, so a pirate is a terrorist. I’m saying that when actual terrorists where captured by the Bush admin, detained and interrogated that was criticized. Yet when Obama orders them executed without a trail fault is not found with that. Imagine the outcry if Bush had ordered the detainees in Guantanamo executed without trials, they are after all terrorists. The pirates in this case could have been taken prisoner and detained and tried. We could have given them full civil liberties and a right to a trail in the courts of the USA. Yet our president ordered their execution without due process. So which is it? The execution of 3 young Muslims without a trail is going to undermine the stature of this country in the Muslim world.

  The war in Iraq is a long discussion. Part of the problem was a lack of intelligence about Iraq and its capabilities. Just so you know I’m glad Saddam Hussein is gone. I think that’s a wonderful thing. Did I think that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? No. Did I think that the mess we have now was going to be the result? Yes. Do I think there is an easy answer on what to do at this time? No. There is one thing I do know. If we leave Iraq before the country has a stable civil government we will have created another Somali. Remember who lead that effort?

  The Patriot Act doesn’t allow any domestic spying; it also doesn’t prevent the taking of photographs. The Liberal Lion of the Senate Ted Kennedy voted yes for the Patriot Act in 2001 (98 yes votes) and again in 2006 (89 yes votes) as did just about every other Democrat including Obama. If this act was such a bad idea why didn’t any of these liberals speak out against it and vote no? In the house there was a bit more disagreement in 2001 with 132 democrats voting yes and 62 no. In 2006 the house democrats voted 66 yes, 124 no and 11 didn’t vote. Again if it was such a bad idea why didn’t those 77 additional democrats vote no. The Department of Homeland Security was also established by congress with similar votes. Where were the liberal democrats? Why didn’t they vote no?

  I’m not going to look for right wing dissent about the Patriot and the Department of Homeland Security but I can assure you there was at the time. The conspiracy theories about FEMA detention camps are very old and both of these acts fueled that theory. There were other actions by right wingers as well. They are as or more concerned about civil liberties as liberals.

  At least we seem to totally agree that document is a load of crap. To be honest that document shocks me. Because I think I could be considered a right wing possible terrorist and subject to investigation due to that document. Carlos I also think you could be, heaven forbid, considered a “right-wing” extremist. That’s what I find shocking about that document.

• 32 Duane Kerzic // Apr 19, 2009 at 1:09 PM

  I did miss making these point very directly.

  With this document it could be said that the left would have ‘expected’ this from the Bush administration if directed against a left organization. Yet it’s an example of the Obama administration doing exactly the same thing. Just focusing on a different group. So it’s things as usual in Washington with no change you can believe in. Well I have to take that last statement back it is change I can believe is happening. Don’t focus on left wing activities, they are harmless, focus on the right wing activities they are the bad guys.

  The Obama administration has adopted the Bush admins plans for the War in Iraq. No change to believe in.

  We aren’t going to call it the war on terror but if you commit an act of terrorism in international waters we will execute you without due process. Where is the change?

  The Obama administration is considering taxing health care benefits given to employees from employers but without an offsetting tax credit. Change?

  The Obama admin has already increased the budget deficit more then all the previous presidents combined. Change?

  Where is the change?

• 33 Voice of Reason // Apr 19, 2009 at 2:43 PM

  Note to Carlos Miller: Thanks for your remarks about the history of South Beach.

• 34 Voice of Reason // Apr 19, 2009 at 4:47 PM

  Carlos Miller and Duane Kerzic are having what appears to be a private discussion. Actually, they’re in full “side” mode, operating based on tribal instincts, and biological factors are now involved. Therefore, they’re not going to resolve any significant issues. Additionally, they’re not likely to welcome anybody who points this out.

  However, this is a public forum, which means that I’m free to play the role of Howard Cosell if I choose to do so. I’m not qualified to analyze the Ziegler case as a whole, but I’ll comment on some of the things that have been said. Just a few issues. This isn’t a complete summary. More importantly, some of what I’m going to say here is opinion as opposed to fact.

  CM says: Right-wingers in this country are very pissed off that they lost the election and they’re not going to shut up about it. This is correct. In fact, some of the “right wingers” are coming apart visibly at the seams. The phrase “foaming at the mouth” might be appropriate. It’s biologically programmed tribal impulses. No rational thought at all. However, there’s nothing to be accomplished by pointing it out in this manner. It muddies the waters. Minus one point to CM.

  CM suggests that it’s unfair to equate the Ziegler case with comparable cases that run in the other direction. He explains this in a sensible manner and without going over the top. In fact, he leaves out something important, which is that under Bush, it was standard operating procedure to evict ordinary citizens as well as journalists from public meetings for the crime of having the wrong bumper sticker. Bush’s people would check visitors’ cars for evidence that they were on the other “side”. When people on the other “side” tried to sit down, they were threatened with arrest. CM could also have mentioned the infamous First Amendment Zones (also known as “free-speech zones”) that Bush relied on for years. Bush didn’t originate the First Amendment Zones, but he greatly expanded their use. Even conservatives had reservations about this issue, in some cases. In my opinion, there’s no comparison, in general, between the Ziegler case and the things that Bush’s “side” did. One point to CM.

  DK says: Don’t focus on left wing activities, they are harmless, focus on the right wing activities they are the bad guys. I agree with the views that DK is expressing here. Not with the specific basis for those views that he explains elsewhere. However, he’s saying that decisions are made on a tribal basis and that this should be taken into account. This is absolutely correct. One point to DK.

  DK says: Sounds like Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. The same way that left wingers behaved over the last 8 years. They just came across as sore losers for 8 years. This is the flip side of one of CM’s statements. Same problems when DK says it. Additionally, it’s worse when DK says it, because there’s no comparison between the two situations. Most people focus on the 2000 election. Al Gore lost the election due to specific and inappropriate steps taken by Republicans. The steps in question ranged from the systematic removal of black voters from registration lists to an incident involving a Republican mob that physically attacked an office. However, the 2004 election is actually more significant. In 2004, the Republicans literally switched the votes. One of the programmers who’d been asked to work on the vote-switching software went public years ago. Tribal factors would lead Republicans to discount the programmer’s testimony. That’s how decisions are made: Is this person on my side? If not, then he must be lying. There’s some additional indications that the votes were switched, though. People who looked at the facts might find them unsettling. Minus two points to DK.

  DK says: I think the problem is … the perception … is that Obama wasn’t asked very many tough questions … that perception is not very far off the mark. He was given a pass on those questions during the election. For this assertion to carry any weight, he’d need to be a great deal more specific. Zero points to DK.

  DK says: I just accept that Ziegler is an activist no different from Michael Moore. Same behavior on the opposite side of the political spectrum. DK’s Michael Moore comparison is probably correct. He’s apparently making the comparison as a concession. It doesn’t seem to strengthen or weaken his case. Zero points to DK.

  DK says: On the shootings of the pirates. What is a pirate? It’s someone that terrorizes shipping, so a pirate is a terrorist. I’m saying that when actual terrorists where captured by the Bush admin, detained and interrogated that was criticized. Yet when Obama orders them executed without a trial fault is not found with that. With no offense to DK intended, this point seems to be palpable nonsense. Weren’t the pirates shot by snipers? This kind of thing is done all the time. DK and I discussed a hostage-case shooting on the first Pataky thread and DK didn’t express any qualms about the shooting in that case. If I understand the facts correctly, the pirates weren’t “executed”. The word implies that they were captured and put to death afterwards. Nothing of the sort happened. I’m aware that DK is concerned about the use of the military in this context. He’d like to call attention to possible hypocrisy related to how the different “sides” handle the so-called War on Terror. However, the specific point that he’s made here doesn’t hold water. Minus one point to DK.

  DK says: Imagine the outcry if Bush had ordered the detainees in Guantanamo executed without trials, they are after all terrorists. Part of the same issue, so no plus or minus to the score. However, I thought I’d note that many detainees were, in fact, executed without trials. In some cases, they were tortured to death in gruesome ways. I’m referring to the torture facilities as a group, as opposed to Guantanamo per se, but I assume that DK won’t try to split that hair. I haven’t seen the movie Taxi to the Dark Side, but it discusses a representative case. I remember reading an editorial about that case a few years ago. The writer said, “Jesus wept”. I agreed with him.

  I tried to discuss the “Taxi” case once with a conservative, somebody who believes that he is a Christian. Spittle literally flew from the conservative’s mouth as he shouted that “terrorists” had been “captured on the battlefield” and that they deserved whatever they got. Little droplets all over the place. However, the victim in this case, as in most cases of this type, was simply an ordinary person going about his life. Then he was taken away and tortured to death. One moment, he had a family and they had him. The next moment, they took him away. After that, they beat him to death. They laughed while he was dying. DK’s point is not valid.

  DK says: The Liberal Lion of the Senate Ted Kennedy voted yes for the Patriot Act in 2001 (98 yes votes) and again in 2006 (89 yes votes) as did just about every other Democrat including Obama. Now DK is getting somewhere. This issue has nothing to do with the Ziegler case, but CM and DK are no longer even trying to focus on that case. If they’re talking about the big picture, this issue is quite relevant. Two points for DK.

  DK asks: The Department of Homeland Security was also established by congress with similar votes. Where were the liberal democrats? Why didn’t they vote no? I haven’t double-checked the assertion. However, if DK is correct about this, the answer to his question should be obvious. The answer is that they were quivering cowards. Is that too bold a statement? Part of the same issue, so no plus or minus to the score.

  Regarding Obama, DK asks: Where is the change? As I’ve explained to DK elsewhere, from one perspective, this point is valid, and from another perspective, it’s not. WRT the latter perspective, for various reasons, Bush is likely to be remembered as one of the most horrifying and grotesque figures that appeared on the world scene between the years 1910 and 2010, a parody of a human being and of a leader, a thing without a soul. Obama may or may not be successful, but regardless of what happens, he won’t be seen as anything remotely like Bush. That said, DK’s point is valid in some important respects. Two points to DK.

  DK says: right wingers … are as or more concerned about civil liberties as liberals. Actually, no. The fact that a minority of the Republicans had reservations about the things that Bush did doesn’t mean that the actions of the Bush administration can be swept under the rug. They’re an ugly stain on conservatism and on America as a whole that can never be excused or washed away. From a moral perspective, there’s no way for the conservatives or the Republicans to recover from the things that they allowed, supported, and even praised. They’ll need to restructure. Every week, something new comes to light. Recently, I learned that the Bush administration had fought for a minor law, and nobody understood why that particular law was significant. Then torture staffers started talking about forced sodomy. The law in question was designed to facilitate it. Bush had actually planned ahead to sodomize people, right down to the details. Incidentally, they didn’t use any lubrication. This was the Abner Louima case institutionalized and supported by the conservatives who are, DK says, “concerned about civil liberties”.

  However, it’s difficult to debate this issue or to assign a score to the assertion, because there are relatively few “liberals” left on the national scene. My feeling is that most of the people who are referred to as “liberals” these days are either “moderate conservatives” or “cowards”. They’re not “liberals”. Jesus Christ was a liberal. These people aren’t like him.

  I haven’t addressed all of CM’s and DK’s points, but I see that I’m probably out of room for this post. If I see any interest, and if time permits, I’ll say more about the remaining points later.

• 35 genewitch // Apr 19, 2009 at 4:59 PM

  Duane: As to why the “liberals” didn’t vote no on the US PATRIOT Act…

  When the country is in a state of fear and panic, the elected officials don’t want to go against the grain, because they would be ostracized. i know of several politicians that were waiting for the sundown clause on the USP Act to kick in. There was an extension granted a couple of years after it was drafted.

  Have you ever read the Act?

  There is a lot of stuff in the original act such as wiretapping, et al.

  I don’t really like getting into the middle of a debate about politics, as no one is going to change their mind; however, refraining from blatant logical fallacies is usually a good idea.

  I suggest looking up these topics:
  Argumentum ad Populum.
  Proof by Example (aka inappropriate generalization)
  Loaded Question / plurium interrogationum
  Tu Quoque
  “Clustering Illusion”
  and others.

  You’re not the only one here that’s doing it, but if you want to be taken seriously in a discussion about politics it helps to come from a foundation of logic and reason.

  Remember, 100% of people could think that the US PATRIOT Act was a good idea, and it still doesn’t make it so.

  –

• 36 genewitch // Apr 19, 2009 at 5:05 PM

  Oh, by the by, there are two (or more) different versions of the USA PATRIOT Act. The one established shortly after the attacks in new york, and the one established in 2006 or thereabouts.

  also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act,_Title_II
  (in prior post, US should read USA, to nitpick my own post)

• 37 Voice of Reason // Apr 19, 2009 at 7:17 PM

  Note to “genewitch”: You said, As to why the “liberals” didn’t vote no on the US PATRIOT Act… When the country is in a state of fear and panic, the elected officials don’t want to go against the grain, because they would be ostracized.

  That’s simply a polite restatement of something that I said in post 32 on this thread. In my opinion, you’re mistaken to phrase it so politely. I believe in rational discourse, and I try to speak that way most of the time. However, rational and polite are two different things. Most of the time, it’s a good idea to be both rational and polite. However, in some cases, bluntness is more appropriate than politeness. What you’ve basically said, and this is something that I agree wholeheartedly with, is that the people in question were quivering cowards.

• 38 genewitch // Apr 19, 2009 at 10:53 PM

  VoR: you posted 32 as i was writing 33, no way i could have known you weren’t going to be as polite with the same turn of phrase

• 39 Voice of Reason // Apr 19, 2009 at 11:13 PM

  Note to “genewitch”: I didn’t mean to suggest that your statement was redundant. You’d have been completely correct to post it whether or not you’d read my post first. In fact, you made points that I hadn’t addressed. Additionally, you’ve been polite enough to respond to me. I appreciate that.

• 40 Voice of Reason // Apr 19, 2009 at 11:38 PM

  Note to “genewith”: I didn’t mean to imply that post 33 was redundant. In fact, I didn’t assume that you’d read my post 32. I’ve only seen a bit of evidence which supports the notion that people are reading my posts at all. I only intended to express the opinion that you were being too polite.

  I do believe that the people in question are cowards. It is my personal feeling that they’re useless and that they serve no purpose. Look at what Nancy Pelosi said in 2007: We have many arrows in our quiver, and we are sharpening them. Rubbish. What did they ever do? However, when I addressed you, I should have worded things differently.

  You’d have been entirely correct to post your thoughts whether or not you’d read my post. In fact, you made some points that I hadn’t addressed, though I believe that you missed what Mr. Kervic was trying to say.

  Thanks for your response. I appreciated it.

• 41 Voice of Reason // Apr 19, 2009 at 11:49 PM

  Note to “genewitch”: I didn’t mean to imply that post 33 was redundant. In fact, I didn’t assume that you’d read my post 32. I’ve only seen a bit of evidence which supports the notion that people are reading my posts at all. I was expressing the opinion that you were being too polite. I do believe that the people in question are cowards. It is my personal feeling that they’re useless and that they serve no purpose. Look at what Nancy Pelosi said in 2007: We have many arrows in our quiver, and we are sharpening them. Rubbish. What did they ever do? However, when I addressed you, I should have worded things differently.

  You’d have been entirely correct to post your thoughts whether or not you’d read my post at all. In fact, you made some points that I hadn’t addressed, though I believe that you missed what Mr. Kervic was trying to say.

  Thanks for your response. I appreciated it.

• 42 Pinandpuller // Apr 21, 2009 at 1:41 AM

  Carlos,

  Not to interrupt this steel cage match but a few points:

  Democrats control the executive and legislative branches yet people like J Garafalo and K Olberman are more pissed off than ever. When do we stop talking about W?

  There is certainly precident for invading a nation that did not attack us: Germany.

  George Stephenopolis jumped in to correct Obama’s “Muslim faith” gaff. Do you suppose the media tongue bath was ritually correct?

  Katie Couric hasn’t had an in depth interview since her last colonoscopy

• 43 Carlos Miller // Apr 21, 2009 at 1:47 AM

  Pinandpuller,

  And what is your opinion on the douchebag who got handcuffed at USC?

  Does anybody have an opinion about him anymore or are we just go to divert the topic to avoid talking about how he made a mockery of journalists fighting for their First Amendment rights.

  Does anybody see the difference between this incident and the El Paso incident?

• 44 Voice of Reason // Apr 21, 2009 at 3:24 AM

  Note to Pinandpuller: You said to Carlos Miller, Democrats control the executive and legislative branches yet people like J Garafalo and K Olberman are more pissed off than ever. When do we stop talking about W?

  By writing this post, I might be going against Mr. Miller’s wishes, as he’d prefer to discuss the actual subject of this thread. However, I feel that I should respond to your question.

  The answer to your question, Pinandpuller, is never. As long as “W”, to use an informal and jovial term for a thing that is both an example and a symbol of all that is corrupt and cruel in human nature, is walking around free and even respected, albeit by the least intelligent and least compassionate elements of society, he should be discussed, and he will be discussed.

  We’re certainly not going to stop discussing “W” when he’s been gone for just three months and his crimes are still coming to light on a weekly basis.

  I’ll repeat some relevant points that I mentioned on another thread recently:

  Bush is likely to be remembered as one of the most horrifying and grotesque figures that appeared on the world scene between the years 1910 and 2010, a parody of a human being and of a leader, a thing without a soul. The fact that a minority of the Republicans had reservations about the things that Bush did doesn’t mean that the actions of the Bush administration can be swept under the rug. They’re an ugly stain on conservatism and on America as a whole that can never be excused or washed away. From a moral perspective, there’s no way for the conservatives or the Republicans to recover from the things that they allowed, supported, and even praised.

  I’d prefer to avoid the accusation that I’ve broken Godwin’s Law. Therefore, I’ll state indirectly that a man who did less genuine damage to America, its security, its reputation, and its Constitution, is still widely discussed six decades after his death. Bush and his supporters will be discussed for longer than that, and in less positive and glowing terms.

  For those who might be interested, the link to the posting that I quoted is here.

• 45 Voice of Reason // Apr 21, 2009 at 4:25 AM

  Note to Carlos Miller: You said, Does anybody see the difference between this incident and the El Paso incident?

  I’ll address three issues related to this incident and the subsequent discussion:

  First, it’s a bad idea to focus too heavily on intangibles such as attitude. This doesn’t mean that I disagree with your assessment. And, in fact, on another thread, I myself weighed in regarding whether or not somebody was being sarcastic.

  However, in a case of this type, it’s best to focus on the subject that both sides should be most concerned about: Fairness, or the question of whether or not people are judged by their actions as opposed to which tribe they belong to. Fairness is important, because otherwise, it’s about tribes and nothing else. Everything ends up as programmed behavior and reactions. You did make an attempt to address this issue.

  Second, you should have avoided the zoom-out that occurred in post 29 on this thread, whether or not it was a response to a similar zoom-out.

  Third, if by El Paso, you mean the incident involving two ABC-7 reporters, I don’t understand why you’re asking the question. These were totally different situations. It’s hard to see how anybody on either side could equate the ABC-7 incident with the Ziegler incident. Nor does it appear that anybody has done so. The Michael Moore comparison makes more sense. I might be missing something.

• 46 Peter // Apr 21, 2009 at 3:04 PM

  “Right-Wing”? So what?
  Smirking? So What?
  Endorsed by Rush? So What?

  So, if you or someone on your side of whatever ideological divide you honor get harrassed, it’s a big deal, but if it’s one of the “others” it’s a stunt?

  Seriously, are you *really* about keeping the police accountable, or is this your career path of a Professional Whiner? Any time someone in uniform (public or private) puts his/her hands on someone trying to document their actions, it’s a big deal.
  And since you were able to determine that this was some sort of publicity stunt, how come the Uniforms didn’t? And why isn’t that news as well?

• 47 Carlos Miller // Apr 21, 2009 at 3:13 PM

  And why isn’t that news as well?

  Peter,

  I think you answered your own question. This story wasn’t news outside of the right-wing blogosphere and Fox News.

• 48 Duane Kerzic // Apr 21, 2009 at 3:56 PM

  Carlos,

  His arrest was covered by the Huffington Post and other places like that as well. I didn’t know Huffington was part of the right-wing blogosphere.

  People are taking from this what they want depending on what they think ahead of time.

• 49 Pinandpuller // Apr 22, 2009 at 12:08 AM

  Carlos,

  Point taken. This is your house and I’m not here to put my feet up on your furniture.

  I heard ZJ on the Dennis Miller Show before and after this incident. I think he’s a lot more benign than code pink protestors disturbing conventions or others drowning out speakers or throwing pies or shoes at people. He did not gain entry or impede others from entering. Its likely that his announcement on Dennis Miller tipped off the authorities. I have a feeling that was his intention. I don’t really care about any credentials he may or may not claim. I think he had every right to be in front of the forum-no different than a citizen filming in a train station.

• 50 Pinandpuller // Apr 22, 2009 at 12:29 AM

  Voice of Reason,

  I guess I was trying to make a two-part point.

  The Democrats won-so why are they so put out?

  When will the Democrats step up and acknowledge that they voted for the Patriot Act et al? Last time I checked dictators don’t take votes and they don’t willingly give up power.

  “there’s no way for the conservatives or the Republicans to recover from the things that they allowed, supported, and even praised.”

  You forgot to mention John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and a few others.

  Look, to tie this all back in to the topic-the press has been covering for Democrats since at least FDR-JZ should have had no illusions showing up to comment on cover or protest KC’s award winning interview of the BOTTOM OF THE TICKET!

  How do you all feel about O’Reilly’s gotcha interviews btw?

• 51 Fascist Nation // Apr 22, 2009 at 1:54 AM

  I love your stuff, but you are so full of shit on this one. Who the heck are yo to decide whom is legitimate? How to behave professionally? And why in the first place?

  “He even tried to hand out copies of his movie – which is soliciting on private property – something a journalist would never do….”

  First soliciting only occurs if he was seeking some compensation is return.

  Second, you do not give up your free speech rights when you decide to cover an event…though a media person must consider the effects on their coverage.

  “Had Ziegler wanted to cover the event legitimately, he could have done what most media companies do. Call in advance to get his name on the list.”

  Fuck! Glad you’re proud making the list. Getting permission. Seeking permission.

• 52 Carlos Miller // Apr 22, 2009 at 2:07 AM

  If anyone has paid attention to anything I’ve said on this thread, then I wouldn’t constantly be asked my opinion on what would happen if it were the other way around.

  I’ve already stated that if this was Michael Moore getting arrested for acting the same way, I would not be crying foul over his arrest because I would know that was the intention.

  And that was the intention here.

  If anybody can’t see that then they’re blind.

  He got what he wanted. In the other cases I report about on this blog, they didn’t seek out to get arrested.

  And Duane, the Huffington Post called him a douchebag, I believe.

  Nobody is treating this as a story of a journalist who got arrested for trying to do his job.

  Everybody is politicizing it because it was nothing but a political stunt.

  On many threads on this site, we’ve already determined that they cannot take your images away from you or keep you from taking photos if you are on private property.

  But they can ask you to leave. And if you don’t leave, they can arrest you for trespassing.

  That point has never really been an issue of debate until now. USC is a private university.

  Duane, you can argue about them receiving public money or whatever. It is still a private university.

  Don’t republicans pride themselves on understanding the concept of private property more than democrats?

  Obviously not in this case. Suddenly a private university becomes public. Wouldn’t that be socialism?

  And as far as bringing all the other distractions to the conversation such as Olbermann or Kerry or Clinton (is there anything you can’t blame him for?) or Obama or Bush or Couric or whatever … this has nothing to do with them.

  This is about some jackass who wanted to make a name for himself.

  I know all you righties are pissed about the election, but you guys had your eight years and your president fucked it all up.

  Now it’s our turn.

• 53 Voice of Reason // Apr 22, 2009 at 2:43 AM

  Note to Pinandpuller: You said, When will the Democrats step up and acknowledge that they voted for the Patriot Act et al?

  That’s an excellent question. Obviously, they’re never going to “acknowledge” it in the way that you mean. I’ve stated my feelings about this issue before. As a matter of personal opinion, as opposed to fact, the people that you’re referring to (the ones who went along with it because they feared for their jobs) were, and remain, quivering cowards.

  You asked me two questions and raised some related points. This question was easy to answer. I’ll try to address the other issues shortly.

• 54 Voice of Reason // Apr 22, 2009 at 3:15 AM

  Note to Carlos Miller: You said, If anyone has paid attention to anything I’ve said on this thread, then I wouldn’t constantly be asked my opinion on what would happen if it were the other way around.

  It’s not that people aren’t reading what you wrote. It’s that the point you’re referring to is now perceived as a minor detail in the “big picture”. This was inevitable after your exchange with Mr. Kerzic, which addressed relevant points but also invited (actually, begged for) the broader discussions that followed.

  When people see things that matter to them, things that trigger tribal and therefore biological instincts, they tend to focus on and respond to those things.

  If it matters, I’ve already made it clear that I don’t understand what all the confusion is about. At an earlier point, you implied that people might be going so far as to equate the ABC-7 incident and the Ziegler incident. This doesn’t seem to be true. I’m sure that quite a few people agree with your position on this case.

• 55 Voice of Reason // Apr 22, 2009 at 3:34 AM

  Note to Carlos Miller: Actually, the Michael Moore issue would have worked well as part of the original posting. Your position on this issue strengthens your position on the Ziegler incident that you wanted people to focus on.

• 56 Voice of Reason // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:01 AM

  Note to Pinandpuller: In post 50, you asked me some questions and raised some related points. I answered one of your questions in post 53 (the question about the Patriot Act). I’ll try to address everything else now.

  You asked me, The Democrats won – so why are they so put out? Based on remarks that you made in post 42, you’re referring to specific commentators on TV. I watch very little TV these days except for clips that show up on the Web. Additionally, I haven’t watched online clips of the commentators in question recently. I consider these people interesting, but they’re not essential viewing. Therefore I can’t address specific statements that they’ve made.

  However, I can offer you a few thoughts on the matter. If the Democrats are put out, it might be due to the fact that they’re expected to clean up the worst mess that this country has seen in five generations, and the Republicans are trying to shift the blame for the mess to them. That’s absurd, and it must be irritating.

  Yes, I saw the points that you made related to the Democrats’ share of the responsibility. I started to address these points in post 53, and I’ll say more in this post.

  If you add it all up, the financial impact of the Bush Wars, torture (and I’m referring to innocent people, sodomy with objects, cutting genitals with blades, forced positions, sleep deprivation, beating people to death, suffocating people to death, and other issues, not simply waterboarding), damage to America’s reputation and its position as leader of the Free World, one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression, Free-Speech Zones and other attacks on the First Amendment, systematic disenfranchisement of voters (i.e., purging black voters), the vote switch in 2004 (one of the programmers involved went public years ago), managed media (see the Jeff Gannon story and numerous similar stories), the carefully-planned emasculation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the elevation of policy over science (for example, memos ordering Federal employees to say that the Grand Canyon is only 6,000 years old), the plans for a so-called Permanent Republican Majority, the time that Bush told somebody who tried to warn him about 9/11 to “get out of my office” (exact quote), and a startling number of additional issues, there’s been no period remotely as destructive to America, its values, and its future since the Civil War ended nearly 150 years ago.

  Bush has been gone for only three months, and the Republicans are trying to put all of this on the Democrats. If I was a Democrat, I’d be “pissed” (post 42) or “put out” (post 50) too. No, I’m not a Democrat, and I dislike them. They didn’t even try to stop Bush.

  You asked me, When will the Democrats step up and acknowledge that they voted for the Patriot Act et al? As I’ve said before, they won’t acknowledge it, because they were (and remain) quivering cowards. They believe that people will simply forget about this inconvenient fact. Regrettably, they’re correct. People on the Republican “side” are, as I’ve said elsewhere, simply “frothing at the mouth”. Since the election, they’ve done everything wrong. If the Republicans had focused on specific points such as the one you’ve made, as opposed to confirming every distasteful stereotype that people have about them beyond the shadow of a doubt, they might have accomplished something useful. However, for the time being, the Republicans are out of commission. There’s very little that wild-eyed and arguably unwell people at Fox News raving about madrassas, birth certificates, Acorn, socialism, “tea parties”, and violent revolutions can do about it. The Republicans are frantically searching for something that might “stick”. Anything at all. They’ve missed the point.

  You said, Last time I checked dictators don’t take votes and they don’t willingly give up power. This doesn’t seem to be a question. If you asked me whether or not Bush was a “dictator”, or if you asked me about “votes”, I’d probably suggest that you read up on the plans that Karl Rove made for a Permanent Republican Majority and the connection between the finalization of those plans and the U.S. Attorney firings that took place subsequently. I’d also suggest that you try to form your own opinions, as objectively as possible, about the vote switch that occurred in 2004.

  Additionally, I might point out an event that doesn’t seem to be discussed much these days. I’m referring to the specific event that may have stopped a United States attack on Iran shortly before the 2006 election was scheduled to take place. It wasn’t a secret. If you were on active duty at the time, and you subscribed to the military papers, you saw what I’m referring to. In all seriousness, Pinandpuller, if the military hadn’t done something that strikes me as unusual (issuing a blunt, direct, and coordinated public warning to the President), something that made their position on a potential October Surprise reasonably clear, it’s possible that you’d have a different perspective on things today.

  Finally, if you’re not familiar with the details of the coup that Prescott Bush set up in 1933, research the coup using sources of your own choosing. If you know any older Republicans who are knowledgeable about the FDR era, ask them about the coup. You’ll find the details in question interesting. They’re relevant to the subject that you’ve alluded to. “W” is no Prescott. However, if things had gone a bit differently over the past decade, it wouldn’t have mattered.

  Referring to the events of the past eight years, you pointed out, You forgot to mention John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and a few others. Yes, this is correct. These people were like the Good Germans. Are you familiar with the story of the Good Germans? The Good Germans were the people who were afraid to make waves in Nazi Germany. They were the ones who wanted to “go along to get along”. Did they share the Nazis’ guilt? Yes. Were they as culpable? In the eyes of God, perhaps. From a legal perspective, no. Do I support and defend the people that you’ve mentioned? No, I consider them to be useless cowards. They allowed Bush to damage America. They may actually have hoped for the damage to be as bad as it was, though I’m not aware of any solid evidence related to this. None of this changes the fact that Bush belonged to the Republicans. He was their “brand”. Bush’s people boasted about this. After Bush, the Republicans don’t deserve to come back.

  As you may or may not have gathered, it would be an exaggeration to describe me as a major fan of “W”. However, I’ve tried to answer your question in as sensible a manner as possible.

  I’ll summarize my feelings this way. When I was a child, we used to salute the Flag in school. This seemed important. Since that era, I’ve watched the Democrats treat the Flag as packaging material, something to be used for profit. At the same time, I’ve watched the Republicans urinate on the Flag or use it as a cheap and affordable substitute for toilet paper. That’s the difference. You can keep John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and a few others. I don’t consider them important or especially relevant to the future of this country. “W” and his supporters are in a different class entirely. Godwin’s Law prevents me from speaking more bluntly.

  You asked me, Look, to tie this all back in to the topic – the press has been covering for Democrats since at least FDR – JZ should have had no illusions showing up to comment on cover or protest KC’s award winning interview of the BOTTOM OF THE TICKET!

  WRT your first point (covering since FDR), with all due respect, I believe that you’re mistaken. We can discuss this point further, if you like. For the moment, I suggest that you read about Jeff Gannon and the Downing Street Minutes, to name two separate issues that come to mind.

  WRT your second point (JZ should have had no illusions), I don’t understand what you’re saying. No sarcasm is intended. The sentence is garbled. If you’re asking me to comment on the Ziegler case, the fact that Mr. Miller and the other “side” are both willing to characterize Mr. Ziegler as a “Michael Moore” type should settle the issue. Mr. Miller states that if Michael Moore were arrested under similar circumstances, he’d be comfortable with that. If this is true, then, given that both sides agree with the “Michael Moore” analogy, I’m not sure what people are arguing about.

  Finally, you asked everybody, How do you all feel about O’Reilly’s gotcha interviews btw?

  Speaking personally, I feel that it would be amusing if the victims would do as somebody (possibly Mr. Olbermann) suggested once. They simply need to say the words “Andrea Mackris” over and over again. That’s all that they need to do. It’s a magic talisman. If you’re confronted by Mr. O’Reilly’s crew, just say “Andrea Mackris” repeatedly. Nothing else. The “gotcha” interview will never air.

  For the benefit of Fox News viewers who aren’t familiar with the magic words “Andrea Mackris”, this is the name of a woman. She was an intern for the first Bush and worked as a producer for Mr. O’Reilly later on. Mr. O’Reilly masturbated to ejaculation during a phone call to Ms. Mackris some years back. A recording of Mr. O’Reilly’s masturbation session apparently exists, but as of yet, has not made its way to Bill O’Reilly fan sites and so on. If you’re curious, you can read the things that Mr. O’Reilly said while masturbating online. His sexual interests are oddly focused. In some circles, they would be referred to as “fetishes”. This wasn’t voluntary phone sex. Ms. Mackris resented it. In my opinion, Mr. O’Reilly’s behavior was inappropriate. Republicans seem to feel that Mr. O’Reilly’s masturbation was socially acceptable and that Ms. Mackris shouldn’t have taken offense at it. However, it’s usually considered impolite to do this kind of thing in somebody else’s presence. Mr. O’Reilly has been at least moderately embarrassed by his actions ever since, so the words “Andrea Mackris” affect him in much the same way that sunbeams and crosses affect vampires.

• 57 Duane Kerzic // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:08 AM

  I’ve been meaning to say a few things about this. If the actual ownership of the property is public or private doesn’t matter so much as if it’s a public forum or not.

  The concept of a public forum overrides the actual ownership of the property. This issue of a public forum has come up in this post and the one about the Liberty Memorial. Both the Liberty Memorial and USC are limited public forums. They both allow and invite certain political speech on their properties. I’m sorry but when USC made that award to Couric it was a political event.

  Ziegler’s complete intentions and plans aren’t in evidence. I expected the reply from USC. On the other hand Ziegler hasn’t produced any documents showing some other agreement. I think the truth is some place between what Ziegler has said and what USC has said.

  Back to the public forum concept. When you are operating a public forum you can make reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech. These restrictions have to be equal for all. This is where I have my problem with what was done by USC.

  Couric is invited inside and allowed to speak politically and that speech is protected. Ziegler is excluded from witnessing and recording that speech because USC knows it’s going to be political and Ziegler is going to use the content in a manner it doesn’t approve of. When you make political speech you give up the right of approving what your adversary will say about it.

  From what USC has said. Oh we agreed to allow Ziegler to make political speech on our property, we pride ourselves on allowing people with dissenting views to express themselves. We designated a place for him. What they don’t say is that they placed him in a place where no one would see him so they could control him.

  This is very simple to do. For example, there is a walk between the entrance to the building where the award is to be given and the parking deck where people coming to the ceremony are directed to park. There is another walk that intersects perpendicular with this walk. Ok, Mr. Ziegler you can stand on this intersecting walk 10′ from the intersection.

  USC has used a time, place and manner restriction as a form of prior restraint to silence Mr. Ziegler. This is hardly fair and equal treatment of both side of the issue by USC. They effectively cut Mr. Ziegler out of being able to state his point of view by placing him in a place where he is invisible to the attendees.

  No for a political statement of my own. Remember Micheal Moore was admitted to the Republican Convention.

• 58 Carlos Miller // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:34 AM

  So let me get this straight, Duane.

  You believe a person or a group of people are entitled to crash an event that they were not invited to because it is a political event?

  So does this mean I can crash any number of democratic or republican fund raiser events that are constantly held down here, even though they are charging thousands of dollars a plate?

  Most of these functions are held in public forums so what right do they have to deny me entrance?

  Or anybody entrance for that matter.

  What right do they have to charge me thousands of dollars if I have no intention of eating. If maybe I just want to voice my displeasure as they are wining and dining.

  Is that what you truly believe?

  Then you’re not a republican. You’re an anarchist. And more power to you.

  And now you have an issue with USC not wanting him to stand in front of the place even though they gave him a designated area to stand?

  This is not a rare thing. Even on public streets, demonstrators are forced into “free speech zones”.

  And it was mostly used during the Bush Administration to seclude anti-Bush protesters.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zones

  So maybe you should take it up with the republicans if you have a problem with “free speech zones” rather than act as if USC suddenly came up with this concept to force this idiot aside.

  But of course you didn’t have a problem with free speech zones back then, did you?

  And do you really believe Michael Moore showed up to the RNC without making prior arrangements?

  I’ve met Michael Moore. I’ve was an extra in his last film. I almost went to Cuba with them.

  He covers all his bases.

  And he actually attended the event without disrupting it, which is the professional thing to do.

  http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2004-08-30-moore-gopamerica_x.htm

• 59 Duane Kerzic // Apr 22, 2009 at 9:55 AM

  Carlos that’s a lot to respond to. I know during some of our phone conversations it might appear I’m a republican but while I do often vote that way I don’t consider myself a party member.

  I didn’t say he had a right to be inside, but that it would have been in their best interest if they had just allowed him to attend. There would be no controversy, it would be a non-event. If he had been allowed inside and he was disruptive he should be asked to leave. If he didn’t leave he would be wrong and should be arrested. If however he behaved as Michael Moore did at the republican convention he should have been allowed to remain, observe and record. I don’t know what arrangements Moore made to attend the RNC, just that he was allowed. I have no interest in knowing what arrangements he made; all that matters to me is that he was given access. Ziegler seems to contend he did attempt make prior arrangements to attend. I’m not debating the issue of if he should have had access to the event. I don’t have the facts to debate it either way.

  Sometimes it’s best to do things you don’t have a requirement to do because you end up looking better in the long run. Imagine the outcry if the RNC had refused to admit Michael Moore. He would have started another conspiracy report about him being denied access to the RNC for some nefarious reason. So best to let him in and shut him up. So I’m clear the conventions are not public forums.

  You have to be careful with your definition of a public forum. If a political event is held in a hotel ballroom the ballroom is not a public forum. If they are held in a museum, park or convention center that is normally and customarily rented out exclusively and that has been rented for the exclusive use of the fund raiser it is not a public forum at the time of the event. Also the amount of the ticket isn’t tied to the cost of the food, so if you are eating or not is moot. However it’s in the interest of most of these fund raisers to also get press coverage and they tend to allow access for that purpose without charging.

  I want to thank you for your link to the free speech zones and yes I’ve had a problem with them always. They had lots of information about the free speech zones set up at the DNC as well. Also I have to point out that Obama has done nothing to stop the use of free speech zones, why is this? Free speech zones date to the time of JFK and LBJ, I think we can all agree they were stanch democrats.

  Interestingly in that Wikipedia post USC is mentioned specifically. In regards to this incident, http://www.dailytrojan.com/news/students-challenge-speech-policies-1.214644. So this is not the first time that USC has done things that are a little off color with regards to free speech on campus, which by the way they support. I was born at night but not last night. USC only supports your right to free speech if they deem it appropriate. There are lots of articles in the Daily Trojan about this problem, search of free speech http://www.dailytrojan.com/search-7.816?q=%22free+speech%22&from=MM%2FDD%2FYY&to=MM%2FDD%2FYY (I don’t know if this link will work or not). I’m sure you’ll figure that out just by reading.

  What I did say was that as long as Ziegler was on a sidewalk outside they should have left him alone. So what if he asks people attending some questions. They are adults. They can decide for themselves if they want to talk to him or not. So what if it was his intention to get arrested by the jackboots. They proved his point by doing what they did. This was their second chance to make this a non-event and they failed. Think of how funny he would have looked if he was there asking questions and nobody paid any attention to him.

  That’s been my point all along.

• 60 LuisR // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:19 AM

  Sorry Carlos, This time you and some of your readers are clearly wrong. First i want to mention that i am an independent. I don’t have any clear party affiliation. Hell, i didn’t even vote this past year, both candidates didn’t deserve my vote. I have watched your blog for a while because i firmly believe that the police in the United States use bullying tactics like these to stroke their own ego instead of serving the people.

  I fail to see what his attitude, political affiliation or so called “smart remarks” have to do with him not being able to film past this artificial barrier that that created solely for him. He had every right to be there just like every other journalist that covered the event.

  Shame on you for bringing your political bias into this story. In the blink of an eye i have lost all respect for you. You of all people should have understood this guy and looked past his political beliefs. You speak about his remarks towards police and security yet you continually do the same thing from the comfort of your own home on your blog. He had every right to be there just like you had every right to film and photograph during your incident.

  Hypocrisy at it’s best.

• 61 Duane Kerzic // Apr 22, 2009 at 12:26 PM

  LuisR,

  Sometimes we all end up on the wrong side of an issue so I wouldn’t judge anyone on just one issue.

  This is a difficult one in many ways. What exactly is Ziegler doing? Is it political speech, reporting or mocking? It could be any and all three at the same time.

  He is clearly on private property. Does he have a right to be there or not? That depends to an extent on his purpose and the degree to which USC is a public forum. If his purpose is to make political speech, reporting or even mocking I think he has a right to be there because I believe that the walk ways and other open spaces of college campuses are public forums. I also believe there can be reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on college campuses. It would be unreasonable to have people conducting free speech activity at 3am when most people are sleeping. It would be unreasonable if the free speech activity used 5,000 watt amplifiers (if that was tolerated for music performances this might have to be rethought). It would be unreasonable if the free speech activity interfered with classroom activities or was conducted inside of the offices, classrooms and other such spaces unless they were reserved in advance for that purpose. It would be unreasonable to expect to be able to conduct free speech activity in the middle of the football field just prior to kickoff, during the game or even post game.

  The stadium is an interesting example. I do believe that first amendment activity needs to be tolerated just outside the stadium entrances and exits. Exactly where the majority of those that are attending can observe the activity.

• 62 genewitch // Apr 22, 2009 at 1:36 PM

  Duane @ 48:

  HuffPo is pretty freaking right wing. They’re also insane and completely worthless as a news source.

  I had to resist the temptation to just inline quote you and say “LOL”

  No one takes the HuffPo seriously.

• 63 Duane Kerzic // Apr 22, 2009 at 2:21 PM

  genewitch,

  HuffPo is pretty freaking right wing. They’re also insane and completely worthless as a news source. huh?

  Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Huffington_Post The Huffington Post is an American liberal news website and aggregated weblog founded by Arianna Huffington and Kenneth Lerer, featuring various news sources and columnists.[1] The site, often referred to as HuffPost or HuffPo, covers a wide range of topics, including sections devoted to politics, entertainment, media, living, business, and the green movement. The Huffington Post was launched on May 9, 2005, as a commentary outlet and liberal alternative to conservative news aggregators like the Drudge Report, and has expanded to cover news of politics and many other things.[2]

  I never said I took the HuffPo seriously. Just that the liberal media covered Ziegler. Now if i was after a right wing report I would have looked at Drudge but I was looking for a very left wing report.

  I’ll even comment on the contents of the report. They thought that the last in-depth interview Couric gave was during her last colonoscopy and that Carlos’ assessment of Ziegler being a right wing activist was accurate.

• 64 Carlos Miller // Apr 22, 2009 at 3:27 PM

  Duane,

  Your response to me ended up in my spam filter and I just noticed it now, which is why it took this long to appear.

  As I mentioned before, you usually need to make prior plans to be allowed inside a function as a journalist.

  This is just to allow them to set up accommodations and not give them a chance to pick and choose who gets to go in. If that had been the case, then this would have been a different story altogether.

  But USC says he made prior arrangements with them to stand outside and pass out his movies. He does not deny this.

  They say the problem only started when he insisted on going inside. He does not deny this.

  In fact,this is evident from the video. He is trying to go inside and they are telling him he is not an “invited guest”.

  Now here is where his attitude comes up. First of all, it’s extremely difficult to suddenly allow a commentator and two videographers into an event at the last minute.

  Spaces for photographers are extremely tight. And the videographers need to set up a microphone or plug into the soundboard.

  If I show up to a function with just my still cameras and try to get in at the last minute, there is no guarantee.

  If I play my cards rights, they might let me in.

  But this boils down to how professional I act. It’s really a matter of business etiquette than it is a First Amendment issue.

  So yes, his “smart remarks”, his smirk and his attitude played a huge role in this.

  If he really wanted to get inside, he could have made some calls and pleas to people in charge and perhaps come up with some sort of compromise, like only one videographer being allowed inside or whatever.

  If he was more sincere about it, then maybe they would have tried to accommodate him because as you say, it doesn’t make the university look good to not let him in.

  But instead, he chose to mock their system on camera, which is basically playing to his audience, but does nothing to win him favors.

• 65 LuisR // Apr 22, 2009 at 3:46 PM

  Duane Kerzic

  With all due respect, bringing those arguments to this discussion is just being legalistic. Anyone can put a “spin” distort anything that goes on in the tape to fit your beliefs or political views. Be it the fact that it was in a college, stadium or on the sidewalk of a local public park. That’s one of the biggest issues in the United States today, everyone is enthroned in their own form of immoral legalism and political bias.

  The fact is, other reporters were allowed to cover the story. In fact, doing a simple google search came up with a few stories on the subject with zero mention of the arrest that happened just outside of the building. Clearly, plenty of other people were allowed to not only get closer to the building but also be able attend the event and take pictures. If it was someone else like Michael Moore, this would have been completely different and thus so would the original blog post by Carlos Miller.

  You don’t have to be a Rocket Scientist, a delusional political cronie or corrupt politician to see that he was unjustly singled out. What disappoints me the most is that Miller uses this story as a premise to bash the right-wing and to put over his own cause. Miller, of all people, should understand what this guy just went through. So much for the first amendment crusade.

• 66 Carlos Miller // Apr 22, 2009 at 3:50 PM

  LuisR,

  If you’re under the impression that my “first amendment crusade” is anything less than credible, then why even bother reading this site anymore?

• 67 Duane Kerzic // Apr 22, 2009 at 3:56 PM

  Carlos,

  I’m going to beat the dead horse one last time.

  I agree he did try to get inside at one point. It’s not clear to me when they are taking him in to custody that he is still trying to get in. I don’t think he is, you do. I think he’s just bringing that up as an additional argument.

  I’m not saying they didn’t have the right to not let him in if that’s what they decided for whatever reason. It was after all an event that was planned and scheduled to make exclusive use of that building for that event. So I don’t believe that the event in the building was a public forum and would argue that it wasn’t.

  I understand what it’s like to get into an event. I also know at the last minute you have no way to know if you’ll get in or not. I understand that video might need a connection to the sound board depending on what you want. I also know that sometimes photographers get in the way of an event and sometimes the length of time they have to work is limited.

  I believe he should have accepted he couldn’t get in. If he did or not I’m not sure.

  I know from what I’ve read that USC does in fact have a problem allowing and accepting free speech they don’t politically agree with on the campus and they try to limit unacceptable speech to the utmost while claiming they don’t.

  This is what I see in the video. A guy out on the sidewalk trying to talk to attendees and ask a reasonable question. I see the campus police / security guards under the direction of the USC administration limiting speech they don’t agree with. I get the feeling that no compromise on either side would have been acceptable.

  So we are left with what happened. In the end USC looks foolish, Zeigler looks foolish. Which one looks more foolish depends on your politics.

• 68 LuisR // Apr 22, 2009 at 4:25 PM

  Carlos Miller

  I’m a big fan of your site. It’s freely available on the internet which so far has little government regulation. I’m not here to insult you or continually bash you. At the same time there is no denying that you taint your own image with this kind of rhetoric. If you don’t wan’t me here, that’s also perfectly fine. You can ban username, IP etc. That would probably make you just as bad as those you claim to be against though.

  Most people that visit your site do not do it as a democrat or republican, they do it as believers in the first amendment. This kind of nonsense just tarnishes your image.

  If you don’t want me to visit, that’s fine. Most people can get biased political viewpoints at thousands of other sites too.

  Have a nice day.

• 69 Voice of Reason // Apr 22, 2009 at 4:33 PM

  Note to Duane Kerzic: You said, I didn’t say he had a right to be inside, but that it would have been in their best interest if they had just allowed him to attend. There would be no controversy, it would be a non-event. This point jumped out at me. How would it have been in their best interest? Why would “they” care if this was a non-event or not? Remember, from Mr. Miller’s perspective, this was a non-event. Controversy per se isn’t the thing that matters in these situations. Embarrassment is the thing that matters. This incident isn’t like other incidents documented by Mr. Miller. Embarrassment isn’t likely to be a factor on either “side”.

  Note to Carlos Miller: I see that the Michael Moore issue has been raised yet again (LuisR in post 65). I assume that you find this irritating. However, the other “side” is obsessed with Mr. Moore and the perceived hypocrisy here. Your position on the matter is lost in the middle of a battle about big-picture issues that you yourself participated in. Perhaps you should consider a new post that tackles the Michael Moore issue head-on and lays it to rest. For the time being, anyway. Given the nature of the topics that you write about, Mr. Moore is likely to surface again in the future.

  Note to Carlos Miller: You said to LuisR, If you’re under the impression that my “first amendment crusade” is anything less than credible, then why even bother reading this site anymore? The question that you asked LuisR is a non-sequitur, and you’re already aware of this. LuisR isn’t here to be educated by you. He’s here to educate you or failing that, to educate other people and to balance what he perceives as misinformation that you’re distributing to the general population.

  That’s what you get for dealing too heavily in intangibles and overly-broad issues. It’s perfectly reasonable that you’d write a post about Mr. Ziegler’s “mocking antics”, his “smirk”, and his lack of “earnestness”. This site is, after all, your soapbox. However, those bluntly-worded remarks, the unfocused discussion that you and Mr. Kerzic engaged in, and the infamous Michael Moore issue (more precisely, the perception of hypocrisy due to your failure to take control of the issue) have added up to produce something that might be described as a territorial battle or flame war.

• 70 Carlos Miller // Apr 22, 2009 at 4:42 PM

  LuisR.

  Of course I want you to visit. I appreciate my readers. Even if they don’t always agree with me.

  This issue was a political issue to begin with because Zeigler made it that way.

  For me to deny the political implications would be to basically be in denial.

  I’ve defended republicans plenty of times on this site, including Duane of Amtrak fame, the Phoenix blogger who was raided, the pro-lifers who were arrested in Alabama and a Fox News reporter arrested at the RNC.

  I have an issue with this guy not because of his politics but because he makes legitimate journalists look bad.

  It’s sometimes hard enough as a journalist to get the information that he is entitled to.

  One has to be assertive yet professional.

  We expect the cops to be professional so why shouldn’t we demand the same of journalists?

  By openly mocking the cops, who were acting professionally, Zeigler discredited himself and his profession.

  This is why I pointed out that even Daily Show reporters show more professionalism than he did. And they are all about mockery.

  The reason this bothers me so much is that it makes it harder for me next time I’m trying to cover such an event.

• 71 Duane Kerzic // Apr 22, 2009 at 5:32 PM

  About Micheal Moore, the Huffington Post also compared Ziegler to Moore so I’m not the only one.

  In considering access to an event like this the appropriate question isn’t the obvious question. The obvious question is, “Why should we let him in?” Any number of reason can be found to keep him out with this logic. It’s obviously the question that was used in this case.

  The appropriate question is, “Why should we keep him out?” This might sound like a matter of semantics but the questions are very different. This is the question I ask. This requires us to think of what harm he can do if we let him in. What can he do if he gets in that he can’t do if we don’t let him in.

  If you sit back and think about it you’ll see there isn’t much he can do if you give him access that he can’t do if you deny him. So he’s got some B roll for his movie of the inside of Couric getting an award if they can’t give him sound. If other media is present he doesn’t have a choice other than to behave and be gracious. If he misbehaves they will report that and Couric wins the argument that he is a fool and can minimize him. End of problem for good.

  I was president of a motorcycle club. I had a member that was being disruptive to the running of the club in many ways. I just let her go and make an ass out of herself in front of everyone. Soon she was no longer a problem because no one paid any attention to her. Now if I had gone out of my way to keep her from attending meetings and other things I would be the fool.

  While I know that Carlos doesn’t like this comparison here goes anyway.

  Think if the RNC had denied access to Moore. They could have said he wasn’t welcome for any number of reasons. That would have given him more too attack with. So you let him in, let him watch. He’s got other media watching him so he can’t misbehave. Heck even encourage Fox to interview him at the convention. He’s effectively disarmed, what can he say other then thanks for the invite which is basically what he said.

  If you kept Moore outside he’s got the cameras rolling and he would make an excuse to get arrested and embarrass the convention.

  Same thing here on a smaller scale with smaller players.

• 72 Peter // Apr 22, 2009 at 5:39 PM

  “I know all you righties are pissed about the election, but you guys had your eight years and your president fucked it all up.

  Now it’s our turn.”

  Ah, now we come to the point: We won, STFU. Thanks for that inadvertant bit of truth telling, Carlos.

  I’ll keep visiting, because holding the police accountable is important, but I’m disappointed. The PD is, in many places, the only government that most folks see, other than the Post Office. The activities you document here, so far as I’ve been able to tell, don’t involve political afflilation; that is to say the police seem to be equal opportunity infringers.

  As I write this, there’s a HuffPo article critcizing Ms. Garofalo (sp?) for citing racism as the driving force behind the tea parties, followed by pages and pages of comments basically saying ‘but we *know* that they’re poopyheads, so I’m gonna keep saying this’. There’s similar stuff over at both Kos and C&L. These are partisan sites, so this, however odious, is to be expected. I’m sure if I read the right-wing sites, I’d find the same thing directed at the Dems.

  I am involved on the pro-gun side of the gun control debate, and I come up against this sort of thing all the time: someone’s Second Amendment protections are violated by the State, and after the original story gets posted, out comes the Troll Tsunami ™. Anyone without a visible halo is thrown to the wolves. That, BTW, is why “Heller” got heard last year: they spent literally years looking for the perfect plaintiff. Those of us who disagree with this tactic call it “don’t scare the white people”, which is why (for instance) David Olofson is sitting in a Federal prison. He had a AR15 malfunction, and the BATFE prosecuted him for possessing a machine gun using laughable testimony. He didn’t have a halo, the NRA was nowhere to be found, and a fellow citizen is sitting in the hoosegow as a result. Unless he gets a pardon, he can never own a gun or vote again.

  Michael Moore (a complete toad, IMHO) is as deserving our concern as that grinning idiot who is the topic of this whole thread. When uniformed authority figures, however limited, put their hands on someone, political affiliation should not be some kind of filter.

• 73 Carlos Miller // Apr 22, 2009 at 5:49 PM

  Peter,

  Have you read through this thread? I’m not the one who made it a political issue.

  I’ve maintained that this was an issue of professionalism (or lack of).

  It was the other commenters that turned this into a political issue, which made it very obvious to me that there is a lot of anger and resentment since the election.

  So what you’re saying, Peter, is that I should basically give a free reign to all the right-wing commenters to twist and turn the issue into something that it is not – including yourself who is now turning this into a second amendment debate – and that I should remain quiet about my partisan politics?

• 74 Peter // Apr 22, 2009 at 6:39 PM

  Carlos,

  That quote is you, not one of the commenters. And I would suggest that if you don’t like the reaction, you should avoid titling your posts the way you did this one.

  You’re clearly both intelligent and educated, so I’m not willing to buy the notion that you innocently wrote out that title and are shocked (shocked, I tell you) at the tone of the responses.

  I’m not suggesting this, I’m *telling* you this: our free speech depends on tolerating the fringes, including this obvious attention whore. Will he make your job harder in the short run? I hope not, but the possibility exists. Throwing him overboard will only hurt us all in the long run.

  The police overreaching their authority is, or should be, a non-partisan issue. At least that’s my take on it.

  You are critical of the ‘right-wingers’, so I believe you to be, um, ‘not right wing’. They’re not the enemy, Carlos, they’re the competition. The enemy here is the expanding assertion of power by the Government. Politicizing this doesn’t help or further the conversation. Like it or not, we’re all in this together, and self-dividing only helps those who would control us.

• 75 Carlos Miller // Apr 22, 2009 at 6:49 PM

  Peter,

  But nobody was denying this guy’s his free speech. He was allowed to stand there and hand out his movies.

  It was just when he started trying to get in that the problem arose. And he knew that would happen. He’s been in the business long enough.

  He is also on private property, so it’s pretty eye-raising that all these conservatives don’t care about that.

  He has every right to speak his mind, which is why he has his own website and has even made a movie. I don’t see anybody clamping down on that.

  We have the First Amendment to speak our mind whether it pisses people off.

  But do we have the First Amendment right to disrupt a private event?

• 76 Carlos Miller // Apr 22, 2009 at 6:59 PM

  Like it or not, we’re all in this together, and self-dividing only helps those who would control us.

  Maybe you should tell Zeigler that because he has it in for Katie Couric for asking Palin tough questions.

  Here is Couric’s interview with Palin. What did she do that was so unethical?

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbQwAFobQxQ

• 77 Voice of Reason // Apr 22, 2009 at 7:14 PM

  Note to Carlos Miller: It’s been interesting to see Michael Moore pop up again and again. Then again. Whack a-mole. He’s the issue that keeps on giving. In my opinion, you really ought to consider doing a post on him.

  Additionally, you said, It was the other commenters that turned this into a political issue. Not from their perspective. You waved a red flag at a mildly psychotic bull, a bull that’s seen better days and that’s looking for something to charge at. From the other “side’s” point of view, you taunted a First Amendment hero, somebody who did “exactly what Michael Moore does” and who was treated unfairly. Yes, I’ve read your position on Michael Moore. However, if tribal allegiances, or calls to battle, become a factor, the people that you’re addressing have difficulty focusing on details. In some cases, they may be physically unable to do so.

  As a side note, your remarks in post 70 worked better than the original post. They came across as reasoned and sincere.

  You also said that this discussion made it very obvious to me that there is a lot of anger and resentment since the election. Mr. Miller, some of these people are psychotic. As I implied in an analysis of Mr. Kerzic’s remarks about the elections of 2000 and 2004 (and no, he isn’t one of the unbalanced people), the contrast between the comparative restraint that liberals showed after two elections were literally stolen (right down to the actual switching of the votes) and the frothing at the mouth insanity that’s been visible for the past few months is startling.

  Before I explain the difference between the two “sides”, I’d like to make two personal remarks.

  First, the phrase frothing at the mouth isn’t intended to offend. It’s based on experience, and the experience is relevant to this issue. I discussed Iraq once with a conservative. The discussion didn’t go well. I was struck by droplets of saliva flying from the conservative’s mouth as he shouted that the “terrorists” who were being tortured had been “captured on the battlefield”. I replied that some of the “terrorists” were simply ordinary people who’d been going about their lives. Then, in the blink of an eye, their lives as they’d been were over. They were taken away from their families, tortured, and in some cases, killed. The conservative was quite upset with me. The facts didn’t matter to him. The part that mattered was that the victim was a terrorist, so he deserved whatever he got. He talked about this killing exactly the same way LEO apologists talk about police killings. These reactions are tribal in nature. It’s important to understand this.

  Second, and on a related note, when I interrupt these discussions to state my opinions, I’m not speaking from the perspective of an armchair theoretician or that of an automaton who’s here to propagate “talking points”. The conservative miasma was a defining characteristic of my life. I spent too much of my life around conservatives. The only thing that I’ve got to show for it is that I do know how conservatives think.

  The explanation for the contrast between liberal acceptance of two stolen elections and conservative rejection of one legitimate election is straightforward. Conservatism is the result of a specific mental problem.

  To be more precise, conservatism is nothing more or less than an expression of an evolution-related mechanism that leads people to react to things based on tribal and territorial factors as opposed to reason. Everybody has this condition, and everybody demonstrates it on a daily basis, including you. However, as a group characteristic and not as an absolute rule, the people known as “conservatives” or “Republicans” are at the high end of the scale.

• 78 Duane Kerzic // Apr 22, 2009 at 7:33 PM

  VoR,

  I really need to see some hard evidence of vote switching. In addition information on those that were tortured to death would be nice to have. If people were tortured to death way isn’t Obama proposing to try them for their crimes?

• 79 Voice of Reason // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:46 PM

  Note to Duane Kerzic: Thanks for responding.

  You asked or implied three questions. Two of the questions were related to the people who were killed. You said: In addition information on those that were tortured to death would be nice to have. If people were tortured to death why isn’t Obama proposing to try them for their crimes?

  I wasn’t aware that the deaths were still a little-known issue at this late date. Even the conservative who sprayed saliva on me didn’t dispute the fact of the killing that we were discussing, and that was a few years back. He focused more on the point that the victim was a “terrorist” who’d been “captured on the battlefield”, though none of that was true.

  If you honestly aren’t familiar with this issue, start by renting the following DVD or purchasing it from Amazon:

  Amazon link: Taxi to the Dark Side (2007)

  The DVD in question covers the “Jesus wept” case that I referred to elsewhere. If you’re genuinely interested, work your way outwards from there and you’ll find plenty of unsettling stories. While you’re at it, you might wish to read up on genital slicing, sodomy with objects, sleep deprivation, stress positions (these caused some of the deaths), and other techniques that don’t necessarily cause death but are less pleasant and enjoyable than waterboarding. Incidentally, I’m referring to techniques that the Bush administration fought in advance to legalize, and not to the actions of a “few bad apples”. Don’t use the same argument that the LEO apologists use. That would be ironic.

  Regarding Obama’s position on the killings, it goes further than you said. In the past week or two, the Obama administration has dispatched envoys to various parties specifically to reassure them that they won’t be prosecuted. If you’re asking me to explain why the Obama administration has taken this position, the answer should be obvious. It’s for the same reason that the new administration won’t make anything but cosmetic changes to certain of the other programs and policies that are left over from the Bush era.

  I should add that some of the killers have been prosecuted. I believe that the DVD addresses this point. However, prosecutions of this type are carried out for a specific reason. It’s the reason that soldiers were punished when Bush’s torture policies first came to light, even though the soldiers were doing exactly what they’d been trained to do, right down to the use of Vietnam-era techniques that were older than some of the soldiers were. It’s a distraction and a whitewash. It’s to protect the people who make the decisions. The people who are in charge. None of those people are likely to be prosecuted.

  I’ve got an indirect but not distant connection to one of those people. For that and other personal reasons, I find the whole thing both interesting and distressing at the same time.

  On a related note, with all due respect, why do I need to explain Obama’s actions to you? You, Mr. Kerzic, are the person who made the sardonic Change you can believe in remark in post 20 on this thread. You said that Change might refer to nothing more than the breed of the President’s dog. I respect certain things about Obama. However, if you believe that you’re interacting with a blind Obama booster, you’re mistaken. When it comes to tribal issues, I’m a bit different than most of you.

  I’ll need to address the remaining question, your implied question about votes, separately.

• 80 Duane Kerzic // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:09 PM

  VoR,

  You have said thousands of people tortured to death by the Bush administration. You gave one example which dates from 2002, hardly supports the contention you have made that 1,000’s were tortured to death. You also fail to mention in this case that the Army investigated, charged those involved with crimes and convicted them. So it wasn’t covered up, in fact the very people that killed Dilawar were convicted of crimes by the Army under the direction of Donald Rumsfeld. So Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld knew that when Dilawar was struck he shouted “Allah” and instructed the guards to repeatedly strike any prisoner that did that? I doubt it. Everyone has a mean streak in them. You just have to dig deep enough to find it. It’s just how your tribe wants to paint Bush.

  Please provide some specific provable instances of genital slicing and sodomy. I’m sure it happened a couple of times because people thought they could get away with it. All one has to do is look at the prisoner / guard experiments. Exactly what did the Bush administration do to legalize in advance these techniques? Specifics please.

  I didn’t say you had to explain Obama’s actions to me. It’s just that he seems to want to advertize all the dirty laundry so why stop at water boarding. Why doesn’t he come out and tell us about the genital slicing and forced sodomy without lubrication?

  Don’t try to distract us by talking about Martha Stewart. She had a choice to make. She chose to lie and obstruct a federal investigation into insider trading. Something which as a ‘control person’ as defined by SEC Rule 144 she knew all about. All she had to do was tell the truth and she would have not been charged with anything. Or she could have been smart enough to realize in advance it wasn’t enough money to be concerned about and refused to take part. But her greed got in her way, not once but twice.

• 81 Duane Kerzic // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:17 PM

  Oh,

  In wars people die under suspicious circumstances and atrocities happen. They are still finding things out about the Nazi’s for example. There are times when Soldiers take revenge that they aren’t authorized to. There is no such thing as a perfect war and never will be.

  I like believe that the people involved try to do their best.

  Want to learn about some truly atrocious behaviour. Investigate the civil war both the north and the south. That will be enough to blow your mind. The ‘War on Terror’ pales in comparison.

• 82 Voice of Reason // Apr 22, 2009 at 11:19 PM

  Note to Duane Kerzic: If I may use an informal and even jocular phrase, Whoa! Before I respond to your post 80 in detail, I’d like to understand one important point. It appears that wires might have been crossed somewhere.

  You said, You have said thousands of people tortured to death by the Bush administration. You gave one example which dates from 2002, hardly supports the contention you have made that 1,000’s were tortured to death.

  Where did that come from? I’ve never said any such thing or anything remotely resembling it, in this thread, on this site, or in real life. I haven’t implied it anywhere either. Your statement is very specific, specific enough that you must have seen it somewhere, but you certainly didn’t see it in anything that I wrote. If I remember correctly, the actual figure is about 90% lower. That’s a pretty big difference. If it’s possible to address this issue, I’d be pleased to comment on the other points that you made.

  I’d rather not touch the primary issue until this point is cleared up. However, I don’t mind addressing three lesser issues right now:

  First, the “tribe” remark that you made as an attempt to reflect my own statements back at me doesn’t really fit. There’s nobody at all in my tribe but me. This is true in a more literal sense than you might imagine.

  Second, I haven’t even stated a thesis yet. You’ve conjured a thesis out of thin air. That’s where both you and Mr. Miller got sidetracked earlier. It was entertaining to watch the two of you, but you’ve got to admit that the discussion could have been more productive.

  Third, as far as “painting” Bush any particular way goes, the implication being that the “painting” is obscuring the true and noble character of the man, his compassion, his sense of fair play, his intelligence, his warmth, his humor, and his positive accomplishments and praiseworthy deeds, history will assemble the final portrait. For my part, I stand by the things that I said in post 44 on this thread. However, I also acknowledge that they’re personal opinions, no more and no less. It’s important to distinguish between facts and opinions.

  Our respective schedules may make the sort of in-depth discussion that you had with Mr. Miller impractical. However, I look forward to exchanging at least a few thoughts with you over the next few days.

• 83 Pinandpuller // Apr 22, 2009 at 11:34 PM

  VOR

  “However, I can offer you a few thoughts on the matter. If the Democrats are put out, it might be due to the fact that they’re expected to clean up the worst mess that this country has seen in five generations, and the Republicans are trying to shift the blame for the mess to them. That’s absurd, and it must be irritating.”

  If you agree with me that all the incumbents should be broomed then we have something in common. It’s like Bush had a house party and the Congress went running off when the cops showed up.

  Yes, I saw the points that you made related to the Democrats’ share of the responsibility. I started to address these points in post 53, and I’ll say more in this post.

  “Yes, I saw the points that you made related to the Democrats’ share of the responsibility. I started to address these points in post 53, and I’ll say more in this post.”

  I guess my point is that if Bush=Sisphyus in your view then you need to make the boulder big enough for 430 pairs of hands.

  “Finally, if you’re not familiar with the details of the coup that Prescott Bush set up in 1933, research the coup using sources of your own choosing. If you know any older Republicans who are knowledgeable about the FDR era, ask them about the coup. You’ll find the details in question interesting. They’re relevant to the subject that you’ve alluded to. “W” is no Prescott. However, if things had gone a bit differently over the past decade, it wouldn’t have mattered.”

  I’m guessing you are referring to the coup Smedley Butler refused to participate in?

  “For the benefit of Fox News viewers who aren’t familiar with the magic words “Andrea Mackris”, this is the name of a woman. She was an intern for the first Bush and worked as a producer for Mr. O’Reilly later on.”

  In addition, there are files out there from a novel BOR wrote-you should check it out.

• 84 Voice of Reason // Apr 22, 2009 at 11:47 PM

  Note to Duane Kerzic: I’ll need to address another point now, or people may be confused. You said, Don’t try to distract us by talking about Martha Stewart. She had a choice to make. She chose to lie and obstruct a federal investigation into insider trading.

  The confusing part is that people won’t find the Martha Stewart reference in my original posting. Therefore, I should explain that I removed the Martha Stewart part while you were working on your posting. I removed the text in question because it was a distraction, though not in the way that you mean.

  If you’d like to discuss Martha Stewart further at a later point (after we’ve dealt with your primary concern), I’d be pleased to do so. I didn’t think that I’d said anything controversial. However, if you disagree, that’s O.K. The relevant and debatable assertions on my part are as follows:

  1. Karl Rove and others in the Bush camp broke the same law as Martha Stewart. However, they were not prosecuted for this.

  2. The law in question is a law that you, personally, should be concerned about.

  3. Martha Stewart wasn’t prosecuted because she broke the law or because the Bush administration had a specific grudge against her. She was prosecuted as a matter of practical necessity.

• 85 Pinandpuller // Apr 22, 2009 at 11:49 PM

  Duane

  To me this is similar to the Red Carpet at award shows. Did you see the video of the guy who shot Tom Cruise in the face with water? I could see that guy riding off in handcuffs. JZ? Not so much.

• 86 Pinandpuller // Apr 23, 2009 at 12:05 AM

  VOR-”Note to Carlos Miller: I see that the Michael Moore issue has been raised yet again (LuisR in post 65). ”

  Well we could take him out of the game and sub Sacha Baron Cohen

• 87 Pinandpuller // Apr 23, 2009 at 12:12 AM

  Duane-”The appropriate question is, “Why should we keep him out?” ”

  If those journalists aren’t doing anything wrong they won’t mind if we look around.

• 88 Duane Kerzic // Apr 23, 2009 at 12:21 AM

  well there is a lot in the air. I’ll take the easy one first.

  Pinandpuller. Exactly. Thanks for providing some humor.

  VoR, I looked but there isn’t a good way to search the comments that I can find. I tried the search box on the site and google directly. I could be remembering you said he ordered the torture of thousands and not tortured thousands to death. I’ll give you that. I still can’t find 100 deaths. There were 2 in Bagram. Anytime people are in any kind of detention I would expect some to die.

  I’m also not saying that people weren’t mistreated at times. I expect that to happen, I’m a realist. It’s also not without precident in any war this country or any other country in history has been involved in.

  I looked and can’t find anything about sodomy or genital cutting that was ordered.

  Martha Stewart is a side issue. She was also aware that if she told the truth she wasn’t a target. I’ve sat in the same seat on a different matter so I’m very aware of the law.

• 89 Pinandpuller // Apr 23, 2009 at 12:29 AM

  Carlos-”It was the other commenters that turned this into a political issue, which made it very obvious to me that there is a lot of anger and resentment since the election.”

  As long as you don’t call in the Navy SEALS for hijacking your thread-we’re cool.

  I don’t think its been since the election either, btw, more like since the massive spending by all the assholes on the hill.

• 90 Voice of Reason // Apr 23, 2009 at 12:29 AM

  Note to Pinandpuller: Thanks for responding.

  You said, If you agree with me that all the incumbents should be broomed then we have something in common. If by broomed you mean something similar to chasing mice out of the kitchen with a broom, that’s an amusing picture. Yes, we do have something in common.

  You said, I guess my point is that if Bush=Sisphyus in your view then you need to make the boulder big enough for 430 pairs of hands.

  I don’t follow the first part of this observation. Based on one anecdote, the amusing story about Hades’ handcuffs, Sisphyus was quite clever. Wasn’t that the same Sisphyus? I don’t see Bush that way. If Hades comes for Bush and starts to put the handcuffs on, it’s hard to see what innate qualities Bush will be able to draw upon to save himself. Additionally, I’ve never said that Bush should be condemned to push a boulder for eternity. Therefore, it’s not clear how Sisphyus figures into this.

  The second part makes more sense. You’re saying that the Good Germans deserve the same punishment as the Bad Germans. You don’t appear to be asking me to comment further on this issue.

  You said, I’m guessing you are referring to the coup Smedley Butler refused to participate in? Yes, that’s the one. The name sounds like it’s from an old novel, but Butler appears to have been a hero. According to Wikipedia, most-decorated Marine, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, lots of other medals. However, his military career was affected when he stopped a coup that had apparently been organized by Prescott Bush (patriarch of the Bush clan). Bush apologists question Butler’s story, but Butler seems to have been a man of considerable integrity, and he did pay a price for coming forward.

  Referring to Andrea Mackris, you said In addition, there are files out there from a novel BOR wrote – you should check it out. You’re apparently referring to audio clips where Mr. O’Reilly plays a crack-dealer character from his novel and acts out sex scenes. My guess is that it’s more amusing to visualize this than to listen to it.

• 91 Pinandpuller // Apr 23, 2009 at 12:53 AM

  Carlos-”Here is Couric’s interview with Palin. What did she do that was so unethical?”

  For me its not going after Republicans that’s the problem- its not going after all the candidates equally.

  Here’s a question Matt Lauer asked Obama:”Does it ever bother you that the people love you so much and that you are more popular than John Lennon?” As Charlie Gibson put it,”Exact quote.”

  And then there’s having Gwen Ifill, who was rolling out a book about Obama, moderating a debate. No conflict there.

• 92 Carlos Miller // Apr 23, 2009 at 12:56 AM

  I didn’t hear any republicans complaining when the media was heavily on Bush’s side during the previous two elections.

• 93 Pinandpuller // Apr 23, 2009 at 1:01 AM

  VOR-”While you’re at it, you might wish to read up on genital slicing, sodomy with objects, sleep deprivation, stress positions (these caused some of the deaths), and other techniques that don’t necessarily cause death but are less pleasant ”

  I think that’s a show on MTV called “Scarred”.

  You’re not going to post this on Youtube-are you?

  You might be interested in a book called “Other Losses” about the aftermath of WWII and the killing by neglect of a million Germans kept in camps by Eisenhower.

• 94 Pinandpuller // Apr 23, 2009 at 1:11 AM

  VOR-”The confusing part is that people won’t find the Martha Stewart reference in my original posting. Therefore, I should explain that I removed the Martha Stewart part while you were working on your posting. I removed the text in question because it was a distraction, though not in the way that you mean.”

  I found the text you were going to just delete and turned it into napkin holders.

• 95 Duane Kerzic // Apr 23, 2009 at 1:16 AM

  I didn’t hear any republicans complaining when the media was heavily on Bush’s side during the previous two elections.

  Carlos be real. Remember this, CBS and Dan Rather initially defended the documents and the report,[43] but on September 20, CBS News stated that it had been “misled” and that it could not authenticate the documents and should not have used them.

  The media was so intent on hurting Bush they didn’t even bother to fact check stories.

• 96 Voice of Reason // Apr 23, 2009 at 1:20 AM

  Note to Duane Kerzic: You said, I looked but there isn’t a good way to search the comments that I can find.

  There’s actually three ways to search the comments. I tested one of them the other day. If that’s showing off, I apologize, but I do that sometimes. I’ll need to double-check the procedures involved before I explain further. That’ll take a day or two.

  WRT the “torture of thousands” or “thousands of deaths” issue, the odds are that you’re not thinking of me. It’s possible that you haven’t noticed this yet, but when I’m discussing facts, as opposed to opinions (and I draw more of a distinction between the two things than you do), I’m usually quite careful. If we’re able to locate the post that you’re thinking of, I’ll address it at that time and apologize if necessary.

  WRT various additional things that you’ve said in other posts, I’ll reiterate that you’re essentially shadow-boxing right now. I stated three debatable assertions about Martha Stewart in post 84 that you’re free to contradict. As a side note, your post 88 doesn’t appear to dispute or contradict my three Martha Stewart assertions at all. As far as Martha Stewart being a “side issue” goes, you’re correct, and that’s exactly why I removed her from my original post.

  However, the rest of it, the parts you were most concerned with, were primarily responses to your request for information. Of course, I’m obligated to discuss or debate anything that you’re concerned about, but the points that I mentioned weren’t intended to be the first punches in a brawl.

  And, by the way, may I point out that at least one of the paragraphs in post 79 (the post that you apparently took exception to) was devoted to agreeing with an important point that you’d made, a point that people on several “sides” are apparently concerned about? You wouldn’t do well on the TV show Survivor, would you, Mr. Kerzic?  

  I mean no offense, but I avoid the sort of random fisticuffs that you and Mr. Miller engaged in earlier. This doesn’t mean that I’m not interested in debating things. However, I don’t swing at the empty air, and I encourage other people to avoid this as well.

  I’ll review everything that you said in the next two or three days. There’s quite a lot, but I’d be the last person to complain about that. If you’re interested, I’ll address every single issue that you’ve raised. Then you can, and absolutely should, tear apart anything I’ve presented as a fact that’s incorrect. If my opinions are unreasonable, you should certainly educate me about that as well.

• 97 Pinandpuller // Apr 23, 2009 at 1:25 AM

  VOR-”I don’t follow the first part of this observation. Based on one anecdote, the amusing story about Hades’ handcuffs, Sisphyus was quite clever. Wasn’t that the same Sisphyus? I don’t see Bush that way. If Hades comes for Bush and starts to put the handcuffs on, it’s hard to see what innate qualities Bush will be able to draw upon to save himself. Additionally, I’ve never said that Bush should be condemned to push a boulder for eternity. Therefore, it’s not clear how Sisphyus figures into this.”

  I could have sworn that you said(Charlie Gibson-exact quote)that Bush is the worst guy in the last 5 generations barring Godwin’s jurisdiction-ergo any punishment befiting him would be of mythical proportions so it follows that those who helped him pass his legislation in life should join his punishment in the afterlife. I made allowances for people like Kusinich in my numbers-arbitrarily choosing 430. Are you sure your first language isn’t Austrian?

• 98 Pinandpuller // Apr 23, 2009 at 1:32 AM

  VOR-”. Bush apologists question Butler’s story, but Butler seems to have been a man of considerable integrity, and he did pay a price for coming forward.”

  Well since we are making circles in the Indian Ocean waiting for the ranson to arrive dare I bring up Jekyll Island? Its a litlle off course perhaps.

• 99 Pinandpuller // Apr 23, 2009 at 1:36 AM

  Carlos,”I didn’t hear any republicans complaining when the media was heavily on Bush’s side during the previous two elections.”

  Isn’t that like the story of the upper East Sider who couldn’t believe Nixon got elected because she didn’t know anyone who voted for him?

• 100 Voice of Reason // Apr 23, 2009 at 1:37 AM

  Note to Duane Kerzic: You said, The media was so intent on hurting Bush they didn’t even bother to fact check stories.

  It’s going to be difficult for me to stick to my resolution to address everything that you’ve said in a measured way. I’d very much like to engage you on the Dan Rather issue. You must be aware of the existence of a woman who was present decades ago when the original events took place and who confirmed the salient points. I watched the interview in question. You had to have seen it. If not, I’ll make a note that I’ll need to identify her.

  Additionally, I’d be surprised if you weren’t aware that Bush, as Governor, paid out state funds (millions of dollars, if I remember correctly) as part of a deal to prevent somebody from coming forward about precisely the same issue? If not, I suppose that I’ll need to identify the recipient of the payment as well.

• 101 Duane Kerzic // Apr 23, 2009 at 1:42 AM

  I don’t even watch survivor, fake drama. I’ve traveled on my own, on a motorcycle in 3rd world countries, where I hardly knew the language, for months at a time.

  I’m not here to actually box with anyone. I just say what I think. I know when I’m stating an opinion and a fact. But to me this site is about stating what we think about issues. Not necessarily about sticking to facts.

  This post is a perfect one to illustrate that point. The known facts of what actually happened are very thin. We know that what Ziegler has provided is spun his way, we know what USC has provided is spun their way. As a matter of fact it’s impossible to have any discussion of this matter without making assumptions and forming opinions based on life experience. I’ve known that from the get go.

  My experiences tell me it would have been better to be more accomodating.

• 102 Pinandpuller // Apr 23, 2009 at 1:50 AM

  VOR-

  Hey, how do you italicize?

  “You must be aware of the existence of a woman who was present decades ago when the original events took place and who confirmed the salient points.”

  So you are saying don’t hate the player hate the game? No wait, don’t shoot the messenger when the message is forged? Why don’t you get some actors together and recreate the missing 18 minutes from the Nixon tapes?

• 103 Pinandpuller // Apr 23, 2009 at 1:53 AM

  Who is Paula Jones for a thousand Alex?

• 104 Duane Kerzic // Apr 23, 2009 at 1:56 AM

  pinandpuller,

  you use the following with out the quotes, “” and “” I hope it worked.

  Recreate the missing 18 minutes? Interesting idea.

• 105 Duane Kerzic // Apr 23, 2009 at 1:58 AM

  I’ll try again you surround the “em” and “/em” withe angle brackets

• 106 Voice of Reason // Apr 23, 2009 at 2:02 AM

  Note to Pinandpuller: You said, You might be interested in a book called “Other Losses” about the aftermath of WWII and the killing by neglect of a million Germans kept in camps by Eisenhower.

  You’ve suggested that I look at some events that are clearly important. Thank you.

  I’d need to think things through before I drew any conclusions about the events in question. However, some questions come to mind. They’re not intended for debate, because I don’t know the answers myself.

  What is the lesson, exactly?

  Is the death of one million people due to neglect better, or worse, than the intentional death of one person?

  Does the fact that nobody was held accountable for what happened to the Germans at the time mean that nobody should be held accountable for their choices now?

  Does it matter that the dead people then were “just Germans”, even though they didn’t deserve this? Does it matter that the dead people now are “just terrorists” (i.e., random civilians, as the Germans might have been) ?

  If something like this is unintentional, does that make a large number of deaths O.K. ? If it’s intentional, isn’t it called a “war crime” ? After World War II, didn’t U.S. forces execute people who were only guilty of a small number of deaths? Was that the right thing to do?

  Should modern-day war criminals be allowed to appear on talk shows and write their memoirs, or if World War II is relevant, should they have the same fate as the World War II war criminals?

• 107 Voice of Reason // Apr 23, 2009 at 2:11 AM

  Note to Pinandpuller: You said, Hey, how do you italicize?

  I see that Mr. Kerzic has addressed the issue. If you’re still having difficulties, copy and paste the following line, then modify the text as necessary:

  <em>Your text goes here</em>

• 108 Voice of Reason // Apr 23, 2009 at 2:31 AM

  Note to Duane Kerzic:

  You said, I don’t even watch survivor, fake drama. I’ve traveled on my own, on a motorcycle in 3rd world countries, where I hardly knew the language, for months at a time.

  Yes, I’d have guessed that it would be something like that. I haven’t watched much TV of any type since the 1990s myself, though my life is much less interesting. FYI Survivor is about people who need to balance common ground and conflicting interests.

  You said, I’m not here to actually box with anyone. I just say what I think. I know when I’m stating an opinion and a fact. But to me this site is about stating what we think about issues. Not necessarily about sticking to facts.

  Of course you’re here to box with people. If it’s done correctly, it’s excellent mental exercise, isn’t it? In some cases, it’s beneficial to people and possibly to society. There was a poster on another thread who took part in a brawl, but seemed to feel better as she left. Additionally, I’d never tell somebody to stick to facts. Look at all the opinions that I’ve offered. Finally, if you’re going to talk about fair and unfair, or right and wrong, that’s always an opinion, right?

  However, if people are debating things and they’d like to settle something, they need to determine what it is, exactly, that they’re in disagreement about. After that, facts can be checked. Opinions are more difficult, and more interesting.

  You said, the Ziegler case is a perfect one to illustrate that point. The known facts of what actually happened are very thin. We know that what Ziegler has provided is spun his way, we know what USC has provided is spun their way. As a matter of fact it’s impossible to have any discussion of this matter without making assumptions and forming opinions based on life experience.

  And you and Mr. Miller have had different life experiences, you’ve made different assumptions, and the end result is different opinions. The only thing that you’ll be able to settle is the question of exactly where you disagree.

  You said, My experiences tell me it would have been better to be more accommodating. I meant something that I said earlier. I honestly have no party-line opinion related to this specific assertion. If pressed, I’d focus on tangible issues that I’d be comfortable debating. For example, the infamous Michael Moore assertions could be tested, but I don’t know if Mr. Moore would be willing to get himself arrested simply to facilitate this discussion.

• 109 Voice of Reason // Apr 23, 2009 at 2:45 AM

  Note to Duane Kerzic: You said to Pinandpuller, I’ll try again you surround the “em” and “/em” with the angle brackets.

  If you need to explain this kind of thing to somebody again, it’s much easier to show them. For example, most users would be able to understand this example:

  <em>This is text</em>

  The problem with this approach is that you can’t use certain punctuation characters in posts reliably, so it’s difficult to present examples of this type. The solution is a bit complicated, but I’ll explain it for the benefit of anybody who might find this useful:

  If you need an ampersand, use &amp;

  If you need a greater-than sign, use &gt;

  If you need a less-than sign, use &lt;

• 110 Voice of Reason // Apr 23, 2009 at 3:17 AM

  Note to Pinandpuller: You said, I could have sworn that you said… that Bush is the worst guy in the last 5 generations … ergo any punishment befitting him would be of mythical proportions so it follows that those who helped him pass his legislation in life should join his punishment in the afterlife.

  That’s pretty good. You’re one of the rope reasoners, aren’t you? Hyper-inductive, is that the term? High scores on pattern-based IQ tests, or does it only work in one direction?

  Check the post. I said that the country was facing the worst mess that it’s been in for five generations. I didn’t say that Bush was the worst person in five generations. Bush isn’t personally responsible for all of this. The notion would be ridiculous.

  I’ve said before that Bush is both an example and a symbol of the things that are the worst in us. That’s the best way to put it. He’s not a mythic figure. He’s a small man. He’s what we’ll become if we’re not careful. A fair number of people agree with this assessment. Actually, at this point, it might be a majority view. Quite often, majority views are mistaken, but it’s reasonable to point them out and to discuss them.

  However, I wouldn’t condemn somebody to pushing boulders forever simply because they’d been a failure or a bad person. That would be wrong. My biggest concern would be that they should take responsibility for the choices that they made. This is something that Bush was rarely willing to do.

• 111 Voice of Reason // Apr 23, 2009 at 4:01 AM

  Note to Pinandpuller: You said, I found the text you were going to just delete and turned it into napkin holders.
  

  It took me a minute to get this. I’ve never watched Martha Stewart on TV. I gather that she’s similar to MacGyver, the difference being that she turns everyday objects into household tools or decorations instead of explosives or solvents. If that’s the case, it would be interesting to see these two team up.

• 112 Voice of Reason // Apr 23, 2009 at 5:03 AM

  Note to Pinandpuller:

  I said, You must be aware of the existence of a woman who was present decades ago when the original events took place and who confirmed the salient points.

  You said, So you are saying don’t hate the player hate the game? No wait, don’t shoot the messenger when the message is forged? Why don’t you get some actors together and recreate the missing 18 minutes from the Nixon tapes?

  I assume that you’re being obscure because you felt that I was being obscure. If that’s the case, I honestly didn’t remember the woman’s name. It’s been years since she was interviewed. Additionally, I worded the post as politely as possible because I didn’t want to make Mr. Kerzic feel that this was an attack. Would you have preferred that I type something like RATHER GOOD BUSH BAD in all-caps? Possibly add some exclamation marks? That wouldn’t have accomplished anything.

  Regarding the “forged message” that you’ve mentioned here: There’s always been speculation, in my opinion speculation that’s worth thinking about, that the “message” was forged by Karl Rove. It’s exactly the way that he would have handled the problem. And you’ve got to admit, if Rove was responsible, it was a stroke of genius. If Bush did, in fact, pay blackmail to Ben Barnes before the Dan Rather incident (apparently 23 million dollars total), he never had to pay a penny afterwards. They solved two problems in one stroke.

• 113 Voice of Reason // Apr 23, 2009 at 5:21 AM

  Note to Duane Kerzic: As promised, here’s how to search sites of this type including comments.

  The only major drawback to this method is that it may not work until a few weeks after the fact. For example, you can search last month’s comments, but you may or may not be able to search yesterday’s comments.

  Go to Google and enter something like this in the search box:

  site:carlosmiller.com  ”el paso”

  Replace “el paso” with any regular search terms. This will search both the official site content and the comments. Searches will be limited to the specified site. The results list won’t take you directly to matching comments, but it’ll take you to the pages that contain them.

  There’s a second possible approach that’ll work for most WordPress sites. Under this approach, the site admin installs a WordPress plugin named Search Everything (or a similar plugin). The WordPress plugin adds comments support to the existing search box. Mr. Miller knows a WordPress person who’d be able to comment on this approach.

• 114 Voice of Reason // Apr 23, 2009 at 6:37 AM

  Note to Pinandpuller: You said, Who is Paula Jones for a thousand Alex?

  Pinandpuller, you’re good with patterns or, more precisely, chains of thought. However, you’ve made a low-IQ statement. You can do better than this. If you say CLINTON SEX SEX SEX LIE IMMORAL BAD, your opponents are going to say BUSH LIE LIE LIE WAR WAR TORTURE MONEY GONE COUNTRY WRECKED. There’s no comparison. After everything that happened, it’s a foolish tack.

  BTW I’m not a Clinton fan. Charismatic is not the same thing as character.

  If you’d like to debate things, you should probably wait until I have a chance to state a thesis or I intentionally pick a fight. My short essay on Bush was an honest attempt to respond to one of your questions and it was intended as an opinion piece.

  I do intend to state a thesis as part of an eventual response to Mr. Kerzic’s set of concerns. You may non-sequitur the response or the thesis to pieces, if you like. That’ll be interesting. I’ve no doubt that somebody with your talents will be able to bring Dr. Who or Baffin Island into it somehow.

• 115 Pinandpuller // Apr 26, 2009 at 9:06 PM

  My mama always said,”Better to be a smart-ass than a dumb-ass.” That’s how I roll when I don’t have time to write a script.

  I could bring up ET since you brought up thesis pieces.

• 116 Voice of Reason // Apr 26, 2009 at 9:24 PM

  Note to Pinandpuller:

  You said, My mama always said,”Better to be a smart-ass than a dumb-ass.” I’m going to use that one. I gather that it’s on bumper stickers and T-shirts, but I’ve actually never heard the line before.

  You also said, I could bring up ET since you brought up thesis pieces. I try to present the thesis as a whole, and not as pieces. If there’s too many pieces laying about, it might attract minotaurs. I’ve sometimes wondered if John and Forrest Mars felt foolish about the fact that they’d turned Spielberg down. If you think about it, their last name would have been a good fit for an S.F. movie.

• 117 Pinandpuller // Apr 26, 2009 at 9:24 PM

  Is the death of one million people due to neglect better, or worse, than the intentional death of one person?

  Well it depends on who gets to vote. Stalin? Ford engineers? If the victims get to vote I suppose that it would be a million to one.

  Also shouldn’t you be saying “alleged” war criminal re Bush? Don’t you believe in innocent until proven guilty? Isn’t that working back from a conclusion like you accuse fundies of doing?

• 118 Pinandpuller // Apr 26, 2009 at 9:35 PM

  BTW VOR-

  The Paula Jones reference goes to the lady you cited who was present or knowlegeable about Bush actions (National Guard or whatever) which coroborated a fake document put out by Dan Rather. Do you see the connection?

• 119 Pinandpuller // Apr 26, 2009 at 9:41 PM

  VOR

  Mama also claims I have ADD so maybe you better stick to three easy theses.

• 120 Voice of Reason // Apr 26, 2009 at 9:57 PM

  Note to Pinandpuller: You said, Well it depends on who gets to vote. Stalin? Ford engineers? If the victims get to vote I suppose that it would be a million to one.

  The question was directed at you, or more accurately, the reader.

  You also said, Also shouldn’t you be saying “alleged” war criminal re Bush? Don’t you believe in innocent until proven guilty? Isn’t that working back from a conclusion like you accuse fundies of doing?

  Useful points. I’ll address them in the order that feels right, which differs from the order that you’ve used.

  First, to be clear, everybody works backwards to some extent. Fundamentalists are simply the baseline.

  On a related note, this is why science is important. It’s also why science and religion are fundamentally incompatible (to coin a phrase). It’s not that science is going to “disprove” the existence of the Fundamentalist God, though it is driving Him farther and farther into the shadows, into the places just beyond the reach of the light. It’s that science is the one, and only, approach that allows us to move forward. Science is the only approach that allows us to build on existing knowledge, to consistently and reliably produce facts we don’t already know (or, more precisely, believe).

  Science is the light. Working backwards is religion. It’s the darkness. When you’re talking about the human mind, working backwards is also the most natural thing that there is.

  Second, regarding the innocent until proven guilty question: If somebody isn’t ever going to be tried, how does your question apply? I’m not saying that it is, or isn’t a, valid question. But it’s not valid just because it sounds valid. In the context that you’re referring to, this question strikes me as a non-sequitur.

  Third, regarding the “alleged” war criminal question: As I’ve just noted, Bush won’t be tried, so it would be inappropriate to refer to him as a “convicted” war criminal. However, by the same token, the word “alleged” seems inappropriate as well. Bush will never be formally punished, but he’ll never be formally cleared either. History will be the judge, and there’s nothing wrong with the debate over what history is likely to say.

• 121 Voice of Reason // Apr 26, 2009 at 10:01 PM

  Note to Pinandpuller: You said, Mama also claims I have ADD so maybe you better stick to three easy theses.

  Then you probably have an indigo coat or jacket. You can put the extra theses in the pockets.

• 122 Voice of Reason // Apr 26, 2009 at 10:43 PM

  Note to Pinandpuller: You said, “a fake document put out by Dan Rather”.

  This phrase wasn’t the important part of your question, but I’d like to address it briefly.

  The documents in question (plural) were almost certainly “fake”. However, let’s be clear about a few things. A key piece of evidence that was cited at the time wasn’t valid at all. Contrary to common belief, the documents were actually never proven to be “fake”, and CBS never actually admitted that they were “fake”. CBS did acknowledge that the producers had failed to authenticate the documents, and this was certainly correct.

  Whether or not the documents were “fake”, CBS mishandled the entire affair. They ended up looking like idiots. More importantly, and some people believe that Karl Rove planned it this way, the incident obliterated any further interest that the mainstream media had in reporting on what actually had happened three decades earlier. In my opinion, CBS has a great deal to answer for.

  Incidentally, Roger Stone, who’s been accused of setting the whole thing up with Mr. Rove’s assistance, has offered a valid argument in his defense. He says, “I believe in bank shots, but that one was too big a risk”.

  You also said, The Paula Jones reference goes to the lady you cited who was present or knowlegeable about Bush actions… Do you see the connection?

  Yes. There’s more than one possible parallel. Originally, I assumed that you were simply making the following carefully-reasoned argument, which I still encounter from time to time:

  CLINTON SEX LIE IMMORAL BAD

  Arguments of this type bore me, so I usually dismiss them. Upon further reflection, you were probably talking about male Presidents who are associated with women that can embarrass them. If that’s what you’re referring to, it’s a valid parallel, but it wouldn’t be especially relevant or amusing unless Bush had been sexually involved with the woman that I referred to. That wasn’t the case.

  If I remember correctly, the woman that I referred to was simply somebody who was in a position to authenticate what the documents said, as opposed to whether or not Dan Rather’s copies were the originals.

• 123 Pinandpuller // Apr 26, 2009 at 11:37 PM

  Since I’m to some extent German I’d have to say that one million negligently killed are worse than one purposefully killed. Just kidding, Germans don’t lay awake at night worrying about that kind of thing.

  I feel bad about the people slaughtered at Cannae and Carthage and Babylon and the like. Being human sometimes can pretty well suck ass.

• 124 Voice of Reason // Apr 26, 2009 at 11:42 PM

  Note to Pinandpuller: I agree with your conclusion.

• 125 Pinandpuller // Apr 26, 2009 at 11:48 PM

  Then you probably have an indigo coat or jacket. You can put the extra theses in the pockets.

  I had to kill Montoya’s father to get the jacket so I’d better get it dry cleaned first.

• 126 Voice of Reason // Apr 27, 2009 at 12:19 AM

  Note to Pinandpuller: I’m not going to attempt to outdo you. I just thought I’d try my hand at it.

Leave a Comment

Name

Mail

Website