What Kind Of A Sorry Right Wing Noise Machine Are We Running Here?

Bad Lord - the new world record for DUMB has been set by Jeffrey Lord of The American Spectator, who advances the absurd claim that Shirley Sherrod's story was false because she used the word "lynching" to describe a vicious, fatal beating.

Radley Balko provides some history and context demonstrating the dumbness of that argument.

The term lynching refers to a mob execution unsanctioned by law. It's often associated with hanging, but there are dozens of documented, racially-motivated lynchings in American history that had nothing to do with hanging. (The murder of Emmit Till is probably the most famous example.) Lord is also flat wrong about federal anti-lynching legislation. These bills sought to punish local governments for sanctioning or refusing to prevent all forms of lynching, not just hanging.

Taking a a more pedestrian approach, I simply Googled the word "lynching".  These are all on the first page; Wikipedia is number one:

Lynching - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lynching is extrajudicial punishment carried out by a mob, often by hanging, but also by burning at the stake and shooting, in order to punish an alleged ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching

Lynching

Lynching is the illegal execution of an accused person by a mob. The term lynching probably derived from the name Charles Lynch (1736-96), a justice of the ...
www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAlynching.htm

New Georgia Encyclopedia: Lynching

Of Georgia's victims of lynch mob "justice," the overwhelming majority (95 percent) were black, and they were murdered primarily, although not exclusively, ...
www.georgiaencyclopedia.org › History and Archaeology

79.02.04: The Negro Holocaust: Lynching and Race Riots in the ...

Most of the lynchings were by hanging or shooting, or both. However, many were of a more hideous nature—burning at the stake, maiming, dismemberment, ...
www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/.../79.02.04.x.html

Even a casual clue-seeker might have guessed that there were problems with equating "lynching" and "hanging".

Sweet Jiminy - Jeffrey Lord is embarrassing himself and annoying the rest of us, even at the American Spectator.

LET'S GET GRAPHIC:

This is safe for work, but maybe not safe for lunch:

Furthermore, mobs used especially sadistic tactics when blacks were the prime targets. By the 1890s lynchers increasingly employed burning, torture, and dismemberment to prolong suffering and excite a "festive atmosphere" among the killers and onlookers. White families brought small children to watch, newspapers sometimes carried advance notices, railroad agents sold excursion tickets to announced lynching sites, and mobs cut off black victims' fingers, toes, ears, or genitalia as souvenirs. Nor was it necessarily the handiwork of a local rabble; not infrequently, the mob was encouraged or led by people prominent in the area's political and business circles. Lynching had become a ritual of interracial social control and recreation rather than simply a punishment for crime.

And some background:

Vigilantism, or summary justice, has a long history, but the term lynch law originated during the American Revolution with Col. Charles Lynch and his Virginia associates, who responded to unsettled times by making their own rules for confronting Tories and criminal elements.

LORD TO THE DEFENSE:  Jeffrey Lord shows a bit of a sense of humor and rallies to his own defense:

First, for the definition issue.

Random House Webster's College Dictionary defines lynching as: "to put to death, esp. hanging by mob action and without legal authority."

I have read the Court's decision. Three people are not a "mob." A mob is defined as a "large crowd." So there was no "mob action" because there was no mob. Second, the Supreme Court specifically said the Sheriff and his deputy and a local policeman acted "under color of law." Which means they had legal authority.

So to say that Bobby Hall was lynched is, factually, according to the Supreme Court and, if you prefer, Webster's, not true. No mob. Therefore no "mob action." And the three had "legal authority." So my new friend Radley "Boo" Balko over at Reason pounced…and got it wrong instantly.

Hmm.  Here is what Lord wrote yesterday:

Anyone who has lived in the American South (as my family once did) and is familiar with American history knows well the dread behind stories of lynch mobs and the Klan. What difference is there between a savage murder by fist and blackjack -- and by dangling rope? Obviously, in the practical sense, none. But in the heyday -- a very long time -- of the Klan, there were frequent (and failed) attempts to pass federal anti-lynching laws. None to pass federal "anti-black jack" or "anti-fisticuffs" laws. Lynching had a peculiar, one is tempted to say grotesque, solitary status as part of the romantic image of the Klan, of the crazed racist. The image stirred by the image of the noosed rope in the hands of a racist lynch mob was, to say the least, frighteningly chilling. Did Ms. Sherrod deliberately concoct this story in search of a piece of that ugly romance to add "glamour" to a family story that is gut-wrenchingly horrendous already?

A day ago, the emphasis was on the absence of a noose, not the absence of a crowd.  But let's cut to Wikipedia:

Today lynching is a felony in all states of the United States, defined by some codes of law as "Any act of violence inflicted by a mob upon the body of another person which results in the death of the person," with a 'mob' being defined as "the assemblage of two or more persons, without color or authority of law, for the premeditated purpose and with the premeditated intent of committing an act of violence upon the person of another."

Three people certainly meets the "Two or more" requirement.  As to whether a police officer is always acting within the color or authority of the law regardless of what they do, well, I would be surprised to learn that.  The police had legal authority to arrest their victim, but not legal authority to beat him to death.

In any case, I don't think splitting hairs will change many minds here.

FWIW:  A total reader revolt in his comments.  But quite an erudite one...

Comments

[centralcal]

Oh, bad grief!

[Buford Gooch]

Can someone give a link to information on what actually happened to her father? I'm still trying to find an account of the death.

[BB Key]

escaped prisoner, resisting arrest ?

[BB Key got this point, too.]

OK, now I read it, and Jeff has a point. This would better be described as 'police brutality' and since the word 'lynching' is racially charged, Shirley has perhaps misused it with malicious intent. But he's out of line to say it impeaches her whole story.

This is not about her Dad, BG.
===============

[Neo]

How long before lynching appears in the NYT crossword ?

[It might be true, though. Any way to know in this day and age?]

It's not shown that the beating was racially motivated. There is a hint of a grudge between the Sheriff and the victim. Shirley's alleging that this is a racial lynching is unsupported.
==============

[Jim]

Maybe I'm about to break Lord's dumbness record, but it seems to me that lynching is usually considered to involve a mob acting to avenge a real or imagined crime. Here, it seems that there were three killers -- a little short of a mob, maybe -- motivated by a private quarrel. In short, Lord has a point that this looks more like an ordinary murder than a lynching.

Of oourse, since Sherrod's point in using the term "lynching" was to stress the racial motivation, and the murder does seem to have been racially motivated, it's a pretty pedantic point, and Lord seriously overplayed it.

[boris]

IMO everybody is exaggerating now. Three cops beating a handcuffed alleged thief in their custody to death is bad enough without looking for an excuse to call it lynching. There's good argument to make that it's worse for law officers to commit race murder than a killer mob of bitter clingers, but it doesn't seem like the same thing to me.

[And I don't think there is any way to know the truth, now. So we are stuck with the narrative. Which is why it is being challenged. Because it can, and should be.]

The more I think about it the more I think Jeff has a point. This was mid century Southern White on Black violence, but it doesn't fit the popular conception of lynching. That it fits the legal or dictionary definition is sort of beside the point. It may well be disinformational.
================

[But probably won't get to know.]

So, is the term 'lynching' taken over by its meaning as a racial crime? I would say popularly so, and it was paid for by those who were lynched for their race. But with that admission, given freely, was this a lynching or was it a brutal police murder? Enquiring minds want to know.
==============

[narciso the harpoon]

Good god, what possessed him to make such an argument. epic face palm with octopi, if they had any,

[Rick Ballard]

Boris,

Do you mean that semantic gymnastics should take a back seat to a review of the NAACP Lynching Records at Tuskegee Institute (with a nice, tidy, Excel file which can be downloaded and searched and does not appear to contain the name "Bobby Hall")? Isn't that a rather narrow view? Are you actually willing to take the NAACPs word that "Bobby Hall" wasn't lynched rather than engage in semantic sophistry until your fingerprints wear away?

Spoilsport.

[Danube of Thought]

I saw Lord's article and was so appalled at the stupidity of it that I sent him an email telling him so. (The email address given at the bottom of his article didn't work). And it's a far cry from "lying" to use a term the NAACP didn't use in that instance; I'm sure Ms. Sherrod would just as readily have said "Bobby Hall was beaten to death by three white poliemen."

The article was absurd on other grounds. E.g. he chides her for not mentioning that one of the five justices who were in the majority was Hugo Black. Why in God's name would anyone expect her to that?

I cringed while reading the thing.

[Perhaps a world class disinformer. Like someone else I know.]

Heh, Rick, no wonder the NAACP was ready to juttison her so quickly. An apostate.
=================

[Or something.]

She was jutting over the bulwarks.
===========

[Clarice]

I'm with TM. I read this this morning and thought the point being made was absurd. I thought maybe it was my dementia setting in..and it may be..possibly TM and aI are both fading fast.

[Christina Hendricks]

Sure a lot of crack blowing going on. Someone mad?

[Ignatz]

I actually found the last half of the article pretty good regarding the disgusting Justice Black and Senator Russell.
Too bad he prefaced it with the rather stupid introductory story.
A straight history of the cases with Black's and Russell's involvements and allegiances would have been considerably more effective.

[Words, words, words. They have consequences.]

Not fading, c, but perhaps too sold on the narrative. Was his beating a racially motivated lynching or was it police brutality. When a white person is beaten to death by cops its not called a lynching. So was this a lynching or not?
==============

[tommy mc donnell]

yeah shirley's speech was all about love. we had enough of the race warfare lets get on with the class warfare.

[BR]

Oh lordy, the Journolistas have put their rubles together and hired a crisis manager!

Opinion: Earth to Conservatives on 'Journolist' Flap: Get Over It.

"...But in the end, as I tell all my clients, nothing beats -- or can stop -- a great message."

"Bob Maistros
Contributor [AOL News Team]
Bob Maistros is a speechwriter, crisis communications consultant and satirist who contributes regularly to the North Star National."

Or is he a Journolista too?

[BR]

The PR firms are beginning to rear their ugly heads. Right on cue. And there will be a most inadvertent casualty.

[Pagar]

Ignatz, Your 08:42 PM says what I've been thinking.
--------------------
I'm still puzzled what the Supreme Court case actually did for the whole affair?

[Pasadena Phil]

Lynching or beating or whatever, her father died a violent death (if true). I had thought he was saying that no incident occurred, that she had made the whole thing up. Big difference.

[matt]

race based killings have been going on for a very long time. In 1956 or so, someone in my family was beaten to death in the street in Manchester, England by three black men. One of those dark family stories. At the same time, one uncle was African - American.

It has been going along for since homo habilis dissed homo erectus. If people can figure a way to hate each other based upon some difference, they seem to find a way.

While lynching has it's own specific meaning, perhaps the author should have written with greater clarity. That is what pisses me off the most. These people, left and right, are using this to further their narrow political agendas instead of looking at the issue with the cold eye of reason and objectivity.

[You'll hear more about Judy's Crusade and Andrew's books in the future. They are important actors.]

Scott Ott, the wonderful Scrappleface, has made a quite serious monkey out of Michael Mann at The Daily Caller. His point is that in public statements the Piltdown Mann has been very hypocritical about the Hockey Stick.

By the way, despite being thoroughly debunked, the alarmists have raised one last woebegone defense of it, by a Tamino at RealClimate.org called 'The Montford Delusion' speaking of the book by Andrew Montford, AKA Bishop Hill, called 'The Hockey Stick Illusion'. This thread at Real Climate, somewhat echoed at Bishop Hill's site, features the thoroughgoing trashing of a fine and honest climate researcher named Judith Curry.
=====================

[Ann Squaredance]

My favorite quote of the day:

Cornell West

On Michelle Obama: "I think she's got a lot of Malcolm X in her, a lot of Ella Baker. But she's had to contain it in a very intense manner to conform to the first lady image. Somebody of her brilliance, somebody of her vision, somebody of her courage confined to keeping gardens at the White House, reaching out to military families, highlighting childhood obesity. I think she could be a great force for change if she could only set herself free. She can't, though. Black sister exercising her power, willing to take a stand, would be too much of a threat."

--------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: I didn't read the entire article in Playboy but I doubt it is out of context.
LOL

[daddy]

Rhetorical question:

Since the identified Leaker of the Wikileaks is an active duty Army man, are we allowed to waterboard him if he refuses to come clean?

We already know this Administration has determined they can target American citizens for assassination (just hit google for 399,000 results in (0.17 seconds). And since we still waterboard our troops in training, I'd be interested in knowing if we could continue to give this active duty Private a bit more "Training."

Guess he'll find out in Leavenworth.

[Danube of Thought]

Was his beating a racially motivated lynching or was it police brutality.

The two are certainly not mutually exclusive. If the facts are as they are related in the Supreme Court opinion, it seems to be a pretty clear-cut case of murder, either way.

Murder was not a federal crime at the time, and in fact Lee Harvey Oswald broke no federal law when he shot JFK. (In those days federal jurisdiction was only created when it made sense, from the standpoint of a federal system of governance, to do so.)

[Porchlight]

The two are certainly not mutually exclusive.

It seems they must be, if we go by the definitions above, which define a lynching as a racially motivated execution carried out by a mob. I understand mobs by definition to be civilian in nature - as in, extra-legal, made up of vigilantes rather than law enforcement.

While police could certainly be guilty of manslaughter or even commit a racially motivated murder, I don't see how on-duty police officers qualify as a mob. Unless maybe the charge was completely trumped up, but I'm not sure if that is alleged here.

If I'm missing something, please let me know.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

Hyperbole is still a permissible rhetorical device ISTM, e.g. Clarence Thomas's "hi tech lynching" reference. Surely he wasn't lynched in the literal sense of the word. Figuratively though he thought he was.

What's the big deal?

[Rocco]

Eric Holder at the SNCC 50th anniversary commemorating their founding. First they invite Obama who sends Holder instead. Then they blasted Holder for transferring one of their own, convicted murderer H Rap Brown to a prison far from his home. They weren't happy with Obama before this Sherrod ordeal. They must be pissed now!

[cathyf]

(In those days federal jurisdiction was only created when it made sense, from the standpoint of a federal system of governance, to do so.)

Well, in those cases it was about things being created as federal offenses when some state and local systems of criminal justice completely refused to enforce their laws when the victims were black. Or, another way of putting it, the legal authorities put down their role as enforcers of the laws and joined in with the lynch mobs.

Lynch mobs are about the breakdown of civil authority. If, as part of the phenomenon, law enforcement "goes feral" then it is crazy to take this as some sort of "proof" that civil authority is NOT breaking down!

[Danube of Thought]

I'm not sure that mobs must necessarily be civilian. There was an infamous event perpetrated by the LAPD in about 1947 that I think could properly be described as a police mob ( the event was depicted in the movie L.A. Confidential). I think the Kerner Commission called what happened in Chicago in 1968 as a "police riot."

But I really do think these semantic niceties are a distraction. What happened to Bobby Hall was clearly murder, and given the time, place and circumstances I simply can't entertain the notion that it wasn't racial.

PPhil, I think you are confusing Sherrod's account of the Hall case with her account of her father's death. I am quite comvined that Hall was murdered. Concerning Hosie Williams's death I know nothing except what Sherrod says.

[Rick Ballard]

"What's the big deal?"

Three isn't one. A poorly reasoned piece made it's way into the American Spectator and onto Memeorandum. I don't believe that Comrade Sherrod even made it to hyperbole - racial puffery is how I would classify it. She was offering her "credentials" as a race hustler. I keep wondering if she sent AB the edited tape herself.

[narciso the harpoon]

Ah Taylor Branch, before he got into the Civil Rights chronicler gig, he was covering
anti Castro operations out of Miami for Harpers, mostly about JM/WAVE with George
Crile, he doesn't get that tea Partiers are not motivated by hate, and Gitmo detainees are more like the White Citizens Council then
he cares to admit

[Porchlight]

There was an infamous event perpetrated by the LAPD in about 1947 that I think could properly be described as a police mob ( the event was depicted in the movie L.A. Confidential).

Yes, I know about that one. But most of them were off duty and drunk, not serving a warrant as in the case of Hall, so it seems substantially different.

It seems clear that Hall was murdered. I just don't know if it's fair to say that any murder of a black person by a white police officer is automatically a lynching.

[Christ ina Hen dricks]

Fascist

[bunkerbuster]

Breitbart and wingnutosphere do a fantastic job of bringing closet white-power Republicans to the surface. Reasonable conservatives should be appalled and, indeed, some are...

[Rick Ballard]

Porchlight,

Why not use the NAACP's definition:

DEFINITION OF LYNCHING

"Lynching" historically includes not only Southern lynching but frontier lynching and vigilantism nationwide and many labor-related incidents. Persons of any race or ethnicity and either gender may have been either perpetrators or victims of lynching.

We (Tuskegee HAL Project) follow an NAACP definition for including an incident in the inventory of lynchings:

1) There must be evidence that someone was killed;

2) The killing must have occurred illegally;

3) Three or more persons must have taken part in the killing; and

4) The killers must have claimed to be serving justice or tradition.

Bobby Hall's murder didn't make the NAACP cut as a lynching.

[matt]

so what does that make Muslim honor killings, then?

[Porchlight]

That seems fair enough, Rick.

[cathyf]

Well, lynching seems mostly to be about a group protecting its turf against outsiders, whereas an "honor" killing is all about people in a group destroying their own member -- and the killers are most intimately tied to the killed.

Suppose a gang killed a member for trying to leave the gang -- would that be a "lynching"?

[Ignatz]

--I am quite comvined that Hall was murdered.--

I'm not aware of anyone, including Jeffrey Lord, who denies that he was murdered.

[Danube of Thought]

"being created as federal offenses when some state and local systems of criminal justice completely refused to enforce their laws when the victims were black. "

And to that extent I have no problem with the federal statutes that criminalize the deprivation of civil rights, particularly when the deprivation is done under color of law. But over time it has become the receivedwisdom that any crime that is really "important" must for that very reason be made a federal crime.

The insanity of this approach has been thoroughly chronicled by people of the left, right and center. Recently the activist lawyer Harvey Silverglate published a book whose central thesis was, as I recall, that each of us commits a few federal crimes every day.

[boris]

"about a group protecting its turf against outsiders"

That sounds more gang-like. My sense of the word is it's about protecting a social order, a worldview, or way of life. Honor killing seems much closer to that than gang violence or wilding. Of course I am no Lion of Semantics and have never even been to Assclownistan so what do I know anyway?

[Dave (in MA) --->>> BO Stinks <<<---]

"Curt in the Car" is moving his business (and ~450 jobs) to RI to be closer to his senior Senator's yacht.

[Ignatz]

Say what you want about Jeffrey Lord but he sure has increased AmSpec traffic.
Couldn't even access the site a minute ago.

[jimmyk]

Rick, as I understand the facts of the case, (1)-(4) are all satisfied: Three people were involved in the killing. The only thing in doubt is (4), since I don't know what their state of mind was, but since they were police officers, (4) doesn't seem to be much of a stretch.

So the question is why did the NAACP leave it off the list? Presumably they would err on the side of "inclusiveness." My guess is that they don't consider police brutality to be lynching.

Having said all that, I find arguments over semantics rather dull. The facts of the case aren't in dispute, as far as I know. What we call it seems of secondary importance. Maybe she was guilty of a bit of puffery in using the term, but most of us are guilty of that from time to time, I suspect.

[Danube of Thought]

Maybe she was guilty of a bit of puffery in using the term

I wouldn't even go that far. How can any kind of "puffery" affect the reality of what was done to Bobby Hall? Is there any dispute at all that it was a cowardly act of brutal murder? How can calling it a lynching "puff" it? I greatly admire Clarence Thomas, but it what Sherrod said was puffery--or in any other way inappropriate--then what Thomas said was moreso.

I think I don't want to talk about this anymore.

[andycanuck]

Just as a little background information that I read when it first came out, from "Racial Myths and Realities" By James Lubinskas; FrontPage Magazine; October 3, 2002 (that is not in FrontPage's archives now that I could find)...

From its founding in 1914 until the early 1930s The New Republic ran an annual editorial listing the number of lynchings in the United States for each year. The NAACP's first big crusade was against lynching and they frequently publicized statistics. The Chicago Tribune also covered lynching extensively.

Robert Zangrando cites statistics for the period of 1882-1968 in his book, The NAACP Crusade Against Lynching. Using figures from the Tuskegee Institute he finds a total of 4,742 for the 87-year period, of which 1,297 victims were white and 3,445 were black. Even though over a quarter of those lynched were white, this does not stop lynching from being described almost entirely in racist terms. [...]

In Lynching--History and Analysis (1995) Wichita State University professor Dwight Murphey refutes the case that lynchings were largely a result of white racism. People often resorted to lynching because the authorities were a long ride away, and President Andrew Jackson himself sanctioned the practice when he recommended to Iowa settlers that they lynch murderers. Likewise in Kansas, a New York Tribune correspondent reported in 1858 that "there is a very general disposition to pass over the hopelessly useless forms of Territorial law and corrupt Federal courts, and try these parties (i.e. horse-thieves) by Lynch law."

Prof. Murphey notes that contrary to current assumptions, blacks also formed lynch gangs, mostly to lynch blacks, but sometimes to lynch whites. In Clarksdale, Tennessee, blacks lynched a white in 1914 for raping a black woman. The authorities later ruled that this was justifiable homicide. In 1872 in Chicot County, Arkansas, armed blacks broke three whites out of jail and shot them to death.

Nor was lynching by any means a sport in which any black was fair game. In Tennessee in 1911, four white men hanged a black man and his two daughters for no good reason. This outrage roused the ire of the community; the whites were tried and two were hanged. [...]

[DrJ]

Completely OT:

We just lost out electrical power for two hours. It happens ounce in a while out here in the boonies. The wife and I counted the number of computers that we had to restore from their uncertain statis: 10. For two of us, well, with a teen.

Ten. Is this really the era in which we are in?

[DrJ]

*once*

[wangyung(lightbulbs)]

O lynched many designers.

Jason Wu, Peter Som, etc. American designers. Maybe there's a pattern..............they're so young.....

[narciso the harpoon]

This conversation has really reached a point of revulsion, only shared by the birther obsession. Yes they abducted and beat someone
to death, lets not mince words. it happenedin the 40s, with FDR's segregationist coalition, the kind that ended up with James Byrnes as
Secretary of State

[Pops]

I am shocked that after all we learned in the Shirley Sherrod story, people are still taking things out of context.

Look, Shirley Sherrod admitted to using her position to discriminate against a white man due to his race, then went on to change her mind and kind of tried to actually do her job.

Now we see all these smears of people involved in lynchings with absolutely no context?

Did any of these lynchers actually try to help their victims after the lynching like Shirley Sherrod tried to help her victim??

If so, shouldn't they be excused the same as her??

Should you be judging someone on one lynching and not their entire career?

Shouldn't we embrace lynchers like Robert Byrd if they turned from their hating ways in their 70s and decided to open their small minds and see 'there are white
n-ggers too'??

Even Obama embraced such a man, who says these other lynchers don't deserve the same...I mean they were mostly Democrats anyway.

Remeber the original KKK targeted not just blacks but white Republicans who passed laws supporting black freedoms after the civil war.

[Extraneus]

Isn't it great that we're learning all of this important, highly relevant stuff?

Of the 2805 listed lynchings in the spreadsheet at the Historical American Lynching Data Collection Project that Rick linked to, the most recent one was in 1930.

[Pops]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2309727/posts

[Pops]

Love this Rueters headline...not biased at all:

Migrants sell up, flee Arizona ahead of crackdown
* Tough state immigration crackdown starts on Thursday
----------------------

Did someone annouce some big CRACKDOWN starting on Thursday?

Are the Arizona police going code red and are to invade villages and round up people
tens of thousands and death march them to the border?

[bunkerbuster]

Good point Poppy. Maybe there won't be any change in Arizona. lol...

[daddy]

Just in from The Malibu Club in Taipei.

Had an interesting discussion with the crew about politics, weather, Afghan etc. The part that struck me, after an hour of semi-heated back and forth, was that all our references to the MSM, were in reference to MSNBC, CNBC, CNN and FOX. Never once did ABC, NBC or CBS even enter the picture.

I mentioned that and all agreed that those 3 old warhouses of the Media had no influence in their lives at all, as they completely ignored them and had no contact watching them personally---no watching those networks at all. I found that interesting.

They did differ on the biases of FOX and CNN with me, but it was interesting that the guy who thought CNN was the Network closest to the unbiased middle (therefore his network of choice) knew nothing about The Journolist scandal or the cold weather in the Southern Hemisphere, nor about the John Kerry Yacht Tax fiasco---but he knew all about Breitbart "doctoring the tapes of Sharrod".

Just thought I'd pass on that anecdotal input about the loss of influence of the big 3 alphabet Medias.

[Clarice]

Our political opponents and their media running dogs (see Journolist) are dumbbells. There's no good reason to emulate them and this author does.

[narciso the harpoon]

True, Clarice, he could have written something insightful about how try as they
try to portray it, this is not '65 not even
'45 redux.

[Rob Crawford]

It has been going along for since homo habilis dissed homo erectus.

GD erectiles. We're still dealing with their dysfunction.

Well. Some of us. Not me. No sirreee... Uh-uh...

[narciso the harpoon]

Meanwhile there are some interesting scraps in the wiki LUN

[daddy]

I envision:

The cat on the couch.

The living room furniture has been pushed aside.

"Hit me with your best shot", says Grandma.

The cat looks left and in a blinding burst of speed the Wolverine dashes headlong toward Granny, who drops on her back at the last instant, grabs the youngster by her arms and flips her over her head, but the cagey youngster rolls in mid-air and lands against the wall like a cat.

"Is that all you got? asks the wolverine.

"Bring it," replies granny.

Again the scene is repeated in the other direction, the cat on the couch watching the hurling bodies in athletic Tai Kwando combat.

And then they bake cookies.

Have I got that about right?

[Pagar]

The Link posted by Pops at 06:44 AM clearly shows what many Americans have known for years and years. If one endorses the Democrat views one endorses not only:

The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.

An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.

The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbu More..ilders and published in his book "Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White," which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem.

"Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective," Barton said in his book. "Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings."
But also the deaths of over 50 million American babies because they were inconvenient, and
The world's greatest Ponzi scheme in the so called New Deal where many Americans were forced in to Social Security plans that will leave future generations with nothin g but debt.
Yesterday, it was announced that the Democrat in charge of the Death Panels has decided to delist a cancer drug that prolonged the lives of breast cancer sufferers. Those Sufferers will have no choice a Democrat has decided they deserve to die when he says so.
The History of the Democrats is clear.

[Danube of Thought]

Minus 20 at Raz.

[Danube of Thought]

A lollipop to anyone who tells me in what respect the new AZ law is "tougher" than existing federal law.

[Pagar]

In my 09:40 AM post The Quotation Mark was left off beginning with
"The original target........

IMO, the MSM press has always served as the purveyor of the myth that there is something good about what Democrats believe and the actions they take.

[narciso the harpoon]

Hence I make the parallel to the Iraqi Baathists that became 'the Resistance' and shot or blew up everything that moved, their
'piece de resistance' was in 1876, when they
scared enough folks from the polls, that there was that controversy that put Hayes in office, in return for the end of Reconstruction, all do the efforts of the Bourbon Redeemers soon to be returned to office

[Clarice]

daddy, Approximately so. Last night she told me,"I can do just about anything." She also gave me her knitting spool, asked me to help her make a scarf for her favorite stuffed animal, ran off and returned as the project was nearing completion to pat me on the cheeks and say patronizingly,"My little knitting genius".
I love her. The cat alternates hanging around to spend a lot of time playing with her and hiding from the human tornado.

[Sue]

Stanley Kurtz is about to find out what it is like to be targeted by Obama and his minions.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWQyNjQ5NDJjZjIwOGFmMzJkNjA4N2UyNTk3OWU0Mjg=>Yippee

[Walter]

"tougher"

Well, before the law was enacted, the max penalty for illegal presence in AZ was a short visit with the feds. After, it would be a short period in state (county?) jail and a short period in federal custody.

I really dislike the separate sovereign doctrine, but under the current law, the same acts can be punished twice.

[narciso the harpoon]

He did that two year ago, Sue, when he was investigating the CAC. So the 'clean toga'
brigade at the Daily Caller, is congratulating
the Journolist, for pulling a Colonel Renault,
and realizing that "gambling is going on here"
after collecting 'your winnings Mssier'

[Captain Hate]

When is Preznit Rupert Pupkin going on "The View"?

[larry]

the deaths of over 50 million American babies because they were inconvenient Posted by: Pagar | July 27, 2010 at 09:40 AM If you're referring to Roe v Wade, I'm pretty sure there were 50 million abortions on its 30th anniversary in 2003. Projecting to today would be over 60 million.

[larry]

50 million abortions on its 30th AS OF its 30th, not on.

[Clarice]

Anyone know the demographics of The View's audience or how I can find that information? Thanks.

[narciso the harpoon]

Targeted marketing for the SCAM, Clarice.

[cathyf]

A lollipop to anyone who tells me in what respect the new AZ law is "tougher" than existing federal law.

It's being enforced by a "tougher" executive branch of government?

(You can send the lollipops to Obama & Holder -- about their speed...)

[centralcal]

Captain - I think he appears on Wednesday.

I got a chuckle out of Gov. Ed Rendell (quoted over at TVNewser) saying Obama shouldn't be going on the view. "I think there's got to be a little bit of dignity to the presidency."

He compared it to going on Jerry Springer. snort.

[Ignatz]

One of the most vile arguments the left puts forward to avoid taking responsibility for their racist past is to allege all those eugenecists of the progressive era and all those hood wearing left wing populists of the south somehow magically became conservative Repubicans.
Fortunately what really happened was most of them died and took a good portion of their disgusting beliefs with them.
But if it does help lefties sleep at night to project the remaining DNA strands of their racism on to the rest of us I guess it's a small price to pay while we wait for this generation of Grand Kleagles and Exhalted Cyclops dressed in PC welfare statism to die out too.

[Ignatz]

--Anyone know the demographics of The View's audience...

95% white, relatively affluent, 95% female, 4.9% gay men, .1% unemployed heterosexual men who dropped the remote and are too lazy to pick it up, IQ trending substantially below normal.

[Sue]

Listening to Laura Ingraham's radio show. She thinks that Michelle's mother just called her show. If you aren't listening, I'm sure she will replay the call soon. The caller id number was a white house number.

[rse]

My answer is that someone in a position of authority wants to see it enforced.

But I like Cathy's too.

OT- The BP subs have left and there are tractor trailer rigs hauling away all those ATVs.

I found the news reports that BP has agreed to now hire local employees if needed to be interesting.

Someone really needs to write a story of where the employees came from originally and why.

[Appalled]

Sue:

I saw your link, which sets out a thesis that Obama has been hiding that he's a socialist. Since becoming President, Obama has effectively taken over two car companies, the student loan industry, and the health insurance industry. Why would Obama worry if somebody calls him a socialist? It's a vague term that encompasses a lot of what he is doing.

I don't think Kurz calls him a Marxist, which means something quite different.

[Sue]

Appalled,

Not sure why Obama would worry, but he doesn't like the term.

[Thomas Collins]

I'm amazed at the discussion of Sherrod's speech in all the blogs (right, left, center, parallel, skew line and other types of blogs). I think when one looks at the clips and the Breitbart text to the clips, and then listens to the entire Sherrod speech, one comes to the conclusion that Breitbart does a good job of summarizing what went on at the NAACP meeting. To hear attacks on Sherrod such as the Jeffrey Lord attacks, and to hear defenses of Sherrod that ignore that later in the speech, she attributes racism as a significant element to opposition to ObamCare, really makes me wonder how many folks have listened carefully to the entire speech and compared the entire speech to the clips and the Breitbart text. In any event, Sherrod is in the lead for my Human Rorschach Tester of the Year Award. Sherrod's speech is like an inkblot which folks seem hell bent on interpreting in accordance with something other than what we usually attribute to reason.

[Clarice]

Yes, narciso and ignatz, that's my supposition, as well, I just wanted some citable info.

[Danube of Thought]

the max penalty for illegal presence in AZ was a short visit with the feds

Under federal law (18 US Code Section 1325) the max penalty is six months in jail for the first offense, two years for the second.

[Porchlight]

Why would Obama worry if somebody calls him a socialist?

Because he knows that most of the country view socialism negatively? Because he took great pains to appear centrist during the campaign so as to fool moderates about his leftist intentions? There are all kinds of reasons. Certainly his supporters get twisted into knots when they think he is being unfairly accused of the S word.

[Porchlight]

Re: the topic of this thread. I do not intend to diminish in any way the murder of Bobby Hall. My view is that as a society, we should take care that such truly awful things as lynchings are not "defined down." Doing so can cause the term to lose meaning and may, over time, cause people to forget (or never learn about) the horror of the real thing. It is not just a desire to quibble over semantics.

A similar case could be made for the term "Holocaust." Words mean things for good reason, and we should strive to keep it that way. IMHO of course.

[Walter]

DoT,

I agree, there's not a great deal of difference. The most significant is that identified by Sue and rse.

Would you rather do six months in Fed minimum security or one month in Sheriff Arpaio's tent city in August? Or both?

Tough call. On another note, I checked Google for the proper spelling--Sheriff Joe came up as a Google suggestion when I typed the letters "sheri". The man has made a name for himself.

[boris]

"sets out a thesis that Obama has been hiding that he's a socialist"

Define "hiding".

In one sense it is obvious. Obots might say they are not advocating the policies that gave the word it's negative connotations therefore it's not fair to call what they're doing socialism.

There certainly seems to be a mindset where absent those negative attirbutes something like socialism would be dandy fair and sweet. Another one is "white people just haven't been doing it right".

[MayBee]

Why would Obama worry if somebody calls him a socialist? It's a vague term that encompasses a lot of what he is doing.

He doesn't like it. He's used the fact that people call him "socialist" as a ding against the other side several times.

I remember him making fun of the Republicans, saying they wanted him to clean up their mess with a mop, a "socialist mop".

[Danube of Thought]

Rse truly does have it: the AZ law isn't tougher, it's just that unlike the federal law it is likely to be enforced.

GOP at plus ten on the Raz generic congressional ballot.

Happy birthday, MayBee!

[Rocco]

Happy Birthday Maybee!

[Ignatz]

--Yes, narciso and ignatz, that's my supposition, as well, I just wanted some citable info.--

You are more than welcome to cite my figures, clarice.
They are the result of a careful extrapolation of anecdotal evidence from the three people I know who admit to having seen that gawdhelpus of a show.

[MayBee]

Yay!