Just for starters, you’re wrong about the Weather Underground bombers.

[...] Somebody at Lean Left doesn’t think that Bill Ayers was a terrorist, and doesn’t realize the rhetorical [...]

I’ve done some snooping (not much I admit) and haven’t seen anything indicating the suspect was a Christian. Link please?

Also, I can’t find anything showing an official affiliation with any groups (again a limited search). Posting on an anti-abortion site is not an affiliation and that is all I have seen evidence of. Again, link?

Just for starters, you’re wrong about the Weather Underground bombers.

OK.

Name the people killed in Weather bombings who were not actually members of WU themselves.*

List the Weather bombings that were not conducted against uninhabited targets or preceded by explicit warnings.

* There is one bombing that resulted in the death of a police officer. No evidence other than the word of an FBI informant links the bombing to WU. Former members deny they conducted that bombing, though they openly claimed credit for all other known WU actions. This informant operated during the FBI “Counter Intelligence and Propaganda” (“COINTELPRO”) program which resulted in the convictions of several ranking FBI officials for violations of civil rights; his reliability can easily be judged. After WU disbanded in the late 70s, and most members had turned themselves into the police, two former WU members joined the radical Black Liberation Army and participated in an armed robbery that left three people dead; ironically, it was precisely the lack of sufficient militance that caused the BLA to break off from older radical groups. Again, there are no known WU bombings that resulted in any deaths, other than the accidental deaths of three of their own members, and there are numerous instances of explicit steps being taken to avoid and prevent physical harm from their actions. The only known violent actions associated with WU members took place outside the context of the WU. Claims to the contrary are simply the insistence upon facts that have not been proven, are in conflict with facts that are known, and are created and seized upon by people with no regard for truth who continue to cling to the same program of propaganda and misinformation that started these rumors in the first place. One doesn’t expect the right wing to approve of WU or its aims, but their constitutional inability to treat the matter in any factually grounded way is telling.

If the suspect is found guilty, he should also be tried for hate crimes and anti-terrorist statutes. Murders of political or ideological opponents should not be tolerated in this country.

Big U:

I found it with no trouble at all. Then again, the “New York Times” is a pretty obscure source, so I can see how someone may have missed it.

Thanks tgirsch. Like I said, it was a quick look and when I googled the name the Times article was not one I saw.And good to see the link in the opening paragraph now.

Although it still doesn’t show where him being a Christian is indicated. Though I do see alot about mental instability so perhaps KTK is equating the two.

Also, the article makes it pretty clear that he was NOT linked to Operation Rescue other than just possibly posting on the site like any guest who posts on sites so why is that group singled out by KTK?

I agree that this is a tragic thing and a horrible act. Why not leave it at that?

Why not leave it at that?

Because a lot of the anti-abortion movement (particularly in the US) engages in a lot of incendiary rhetoric, then tries to coyly disavow the inevitable actions that result from that rhetoric, and pretend that they didn’t in any way encourage or condone it. When you repeatedly brand something as “murderer” and the people who do it “murderers,” “baby-killers,” etc., do you really have a right to be that surprised when somebody takes that to heart and takes dramatic action to try to stop it?

Big U:

Given the kind of stuff they’ve done in the past, it’s kind of difficult to take Operation Rescue’s disavowal of the shooter very seriously.

tgirsch, you misunderstood my comment of “leave it at that”. What I was referring to was the attempt to link the suspect to Christianity and to certain groups, the one identified by KTK being one he was NOT officially a part of.

Yes, these groups do ramp up the rhetoric and that needs to be dealt with. But it makes more sense to me to attack the groups that the guy is clearly connected to (such as Prayer and Action News) rather than linking him to other groups (Operation Rescue) that he has never been officially linked to.

Also, throwing out the term Christian when there is no indication anywhere that it applies comes across as an attempt to paint a group of individuals in a certain light.

Both of those tactics take away from the tragedy.

Focus on the known facts, criticize the groups that condone violence, and go from there. Don’t try to expand it to cover off groups or people that you don’t like or have a bias against which KTK has clearly done.

“Given the kind of stuff they’ve done in the past, it’s kind of difficult to take Operation Rescue’s disavowal of the shooter very seriously.”

Find me proof they were connected. Then it is fair game to cite him as being connected to them. No proof then it becomes an unjustified attempt to link a group with a killer.

Because a lot of the anti-abortion movement (particularly in the US) engages in a lot of incendiary rhetoric, then tries to coyly disavow the inevitable actions that result from that rhetoric, and pretend that they didn’t in any way encourage or condone it. When you repeatedly brand something as “murderer” and the people who do it “murderers,” “baby-killers,” etc., do you really have a right to be that surprised when somebody takes that to heart and takes dramatic action to try to stop it?

The right response to Dr. Tiller’s Death

First, we should grieve for him that he did not have an opportunity to properly prepare his soul to face his Maker. Unless some miracle happened, he left this life with his hands drenched with the innocent blood of tens of thousands of babies that he murdered. Surely there will be a dreadful accounting for what he has done.

It now falls to pro-life activists like you and me to stand strong and unflinching in the face of the unjust criticism we will now endure because of his killing. And so I turn my attention to the attacks that will follow his death.

We must use this as a “teaching moment;” a chance for “dialogue” with our fellow Americans concerning this terrific holocaust of the unborn. In that light, I am going to speak clearly and without compromise. I beg you to read this entire letter, and to then watch the video I filmed.

Let us be clear: George Tiller was a mass murderer. He routinely killed innocent children who were “viable.” For the unlearned, that means that those babies could live outside the womb on their own. He specialized in killing “handicapped” children whose parents decided that they were not fit to live.. He even offered photographs of the dead children and baptisms for the victims that fell under his knife.

According to God’s laws, and the laws that govern how we protect the innocent in times of peace, George Tiller was one of the most evil men on the planet; every bit as vile as the Nazi war criminals who were hunted down, tried, and sentenced after they participated in the “legal” murder of the Jews that fell into their hands.

I write all of these words with surgical precision to shore up the more timid elements of the pro-life movement. Pro-life leaders are already falling over themselves to exclaim, “We are peaceful! We deplore this violence!”

Of course we are peaceful; that is why this horrific shooting in a church has immediately garnered national attention. It is precisely because we are peaceful that Dr. Tiller’s killing sticks out like a huge wart on an otherwise flawless complexion. If abortionists were gunned down every week, it would gather no more attention than crack dealers who are gunned down every week by fellow drug dealers.

For those surprised by my words, let me tell you exactly why I am using such clear and unflinching rhetoric.

Here is what is about to happen: President Obama has already relayed his “shock.” The arch proponents of child killing such as Planned Parenthood, the National Organization of Women, NARAL, and a host of other enemies of children are going to blame the pro-life movement for Dr. Tiller’s death.

These child killers, and their allies in the Obama administration and on Capitol Hill, will attempt to browbeat the pro-life movement into surrendering our most effective weapons in this battle: our rhetoric, our actions, and our images.

Concerning rhetoric, they will blame those of us who call abortion “murder” and say that it is this highly charged rhetoric that inspires people to “take the law into their own hands.”

Concerning actions, they will say that our protests and vigils and sit-ins are responsible for the shooting.

Concerning images, they will whine that the pictures of babies murdered at the hands of Tiller and other abortionists incite people to acts of violence.

All of these accusations are lies.

Beyond that, these foolish accusations fly in the face of equally radical rhetoric, images, and images in the civil rights movement, the suffragette movement, and the abolitionist movement. If Dr. Martin Luther King had followed the advice of the timid in his day, President Obama would still be riding in the back of the bus.

Simply put: pro-lifers must not flinch, waver, or in any way alter our course in our epic struggle to make child killing illegal again.

Our rhetoric must bear witness to the truth: abortion is murder. Abortion is the brutal slaughter of innocent human beings; a vile, demonic murder of a human being made in the image of God. Those “doctors” like George Tiller who slay the innocent are hired assassins whose hands are covered with blood. As the sacred Scriptures say: “Cursed is he who receives a bribe to strike down an innocent person.”

Our actions must be equal to this crime: we must protest with vigorous (yet peaceful) actions such as have been used by every social revolution since America’s birth. The easiest picture to have is that of the civil rights activists of the 1960s. They held “illegal” marches, freedom rides, and “sit-ins” at lunch counters; they were met with water canons, dogs, police brutality, arrests, and jail. If we are going to end child killing, we must unflinchingly adopt the strategies of heroes past.

Our images must simply reflect the truth. We must continue to show the victims’ bodies that we have pulled out of dumpsters; we must not retreat a single inch from showing the decapitated heads of little boys and girls, the arms and legs that were suctioned or carved out of their mothers wombs; we must paint the picture of sewers and landfills being used as unholy graves for these holy victims.

In the days following Dr. Tillers killing, every pro-abortion advocate in the country will howl that Tiller’s death is the fault of the pro-life movement’s rhetoric, actions, and images. We must not fear, nor flinch, nor waver on any front.

Our mission is to end the legalized killing of the unborn from conception until natural birth. In this epic struggle – this “war” between the “culture of death” and the “culture of life” – there are going to be unforeseen crises and difficulties. Dr. Tiller’s death is one such unforeseen moment.

However, we must not allow the forces of death to use this moment to glorify their heinous acts. Rather, we must use Dr. Tiller’s death as a “teaching moment” to pull the veil away from the insidious murder that is happening every day, every hour, in abortion mills like Tiller’s across the country.

Wherever Mr. Tiller’s soul is right now – I know he agrees.

Be strong, be brave, and be unflinching in the coming days. We must defend the babies in the face of the death of their killer.

-Randall Terry

I realize that block quotes don’t always work in comments here, bob, but it would have been very useful to have somehow noted that you were quoting an entire article verbatim. By the way, you do know what a hyperlink is, yes?

Sorry, Dan! I received this in an email and didn’t have a hyperlink to the actual article.

Google is your friend. Copy any longish sentence from the article into google’s search box, add quotes around it, and link to whichever result you like.

[...] someone would care to rewrite this passage from Link Left for the occasion: A suspect was arrested only a few hours after the Tiller killing, and to [...]

Left wing extremism.

TERROR NETWORK U.S.A.
On October 20, 1981, in Nyack, N.Y., a dozen members of the Weather Underground and the Black Liberation Army robbed an armored Brink’s truck of $1.6 million. They killed a Brink’s guard and wounded two others. At a police roadblock five miles from the robbery, they killed two police officers and wounded a third. Four of the robbers were captured, but eight escaped (Methvin, 1995). The combined forces of the two major terrorist groups named their alliance the May 19th Communist Organization (M19CO), an alliance that also included members of the Black Panthers and the Republic of New Africa (RNA) (Smith, 1994).

That’s you left-wingers. Own it.

But Pravda agrees you’ve managed to adopt a Marxist-Leninist economic system here, with your support and election of a BLT far-left President. Without firing a shot.

Good on you!

“A suspect was arrested only a few hours after the Tiller killing, and to absolutely no one’s surprise he’s a white male Christian…”

…um, wasn’t Dr. Tiller also a white male and christian? I get what you’re saying, as far as associations go, but that bit is incongruous.

[...] Weblog {June 2, 2009}   No sense of irony I recently caught my favorite moonbat saying something incongruous. This, of course, shocks no one : [...]

Barbie -

The simple fact is, those who have been convicted of various forms of violence against doctors or clinics involved with abortion almost if not exclusively have been white male Christians. There is noting incongruous about noting that description of the latest suspect.

So unless you’re suggesting Dr. Tiller also had “a long history of affiliation with the extreme fringe, anti-government and militia groups, and anti-abortion activism, including links to Operation Rescue,” the objection is overruled.

Still haven’t seen any evidence this guy is a Christian. But I guess assumptions work. At least there is no preconceived bias.

Big U:

Depends how you mean “connected.” Whether or not he was an official member is irrelevant. He clearly read their web sites and posted to them. He was clearly influenced by the group and its rhetoric. Why does it matter if the group officially recognized him? He was effectively following their rhetoric to its logical conclusion.

Barbie:

What LarryE said.

T and Larry:
Don’t get all huffy at me, I’m just drawing the logical conclusion from KTK’s reasoning, not my own. The Doc was white and christian and male. And, according to KTK and you, white christian males are predisposed towards being in fringe anti-government militia groups that want to kill abortion doctors. That’s what the KTK’s reasoning leads to, I was simply pointing it out.

No, I don’t think Dr. Tiller had an affiliation with such fringe groups. I think it’s ironic to say that the suspect supposedly being a white christian male explains the crime in this case, because the victim of the crime was also a white christian male. Apparently, no one else on this site thinks sees the inconsistancy here. It’s pretty insulting to white christian males on the whole to make the claim that KTK is in the above post. It leaves the author to justify why there are white christian males who support abortion, or who aren’t going around participating in anti-government fringe groups. I think any reasonable person would say that there’s nothing about being white, christian, and male that leads one to kill abortion doctors. Christianity itself doesn’t teach that kind of stuff, as far as I know. The groups that claim it is somehow dictated by christianity to carry out these crimes aren’t really christian groups. They’re cults preying on young people of a specific ethnic and religious persuasion in exactly the same way that gangs recruit their members.

By the way, there are plenty of anti-government militia fringe groups that are far from white or christian:
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/gangunit/about/usgangs.html

Oops, I forgot. Only white christian males can be criminals. Silly me, I get it now.

Big U:

:”Still haven’t seen any evidence this guy is a Christian.”

Why are you so intent on fighting what you must surely know is a losing battle? Anyway, here you go:

Mr Roeder had been involved with the Freemen movement, an extreme Christian conservative and anti-government group

SB:

Let me introduce you to some basic logic here: All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

Saying that people who commit violence and intimidation against abortion providers, their clients, and their employees are almost always white male Christians is not the same thing as saying that all white male Christians are (or are “predisposed to being”) anti-choice terrorists. Move along people, nothing to see here.

Also, nobody’s saying that the perp being a white male Christian explains anything at all, only that this fact surprises absolutely no one. Just like the fact that when a man blows himself up in a market in some Middle Eastern country turns out to be a radical Muslim, nobody’s surprised by that either. Thing is, in the latter case, we don’t hesistate to call it terrorism, but when the white male Christian does it (whether it’s Eric Rudolph or this latest shithead), we treat it completely differently. That’s the beef. He’s clearly a Christian terrorist, but we (collectively) aren’t willing to call him that, because there’s a taboo with associating Christians with terrorism, Northern Ireland aside.

Again, you’re arguing against an implication that nobody has made, and you’re doing a lousy job of following the logic of KTK’s argument. Pointing out that there are non-Christian extremists proves nothing, because nobody argued otherwise. All KTK argued was that the shooter here fits the profile of a violent anti-choice extremist to a T, and you’ve done nothing to disprove this.

“Let me introduce you to some basic logic here: All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
Saying that people who commit violence and intimidation against abortion providers, their clients, and their employees are almost always white male Christians is not the same thing as saying that all white male Christians are (or are “predisposed to being”) anti-choice terrorists. ”

No shit, really?

I’m perfectly aware that not all white male christians kill abortion doctors, but that most of such perps are white male christians. I think KTK made the classic mistake of inferring causation from correlation, and he seems to do this quite often. That’s the only thing I was pointing out in my first comment.

Given how heated this issue is at the moment, I should’ve expectected you to be very quick to jump on my back here without actually reading what I said. I just want to point out that I acknowledged that there is a correlation – white christian males and associations with said groups – off the bat, in my first comment.

I’m gonna have to argue with what you said about my doing a lousy job following the logic of KTK’s statement. I rather think that KTK’s statement contains some piss-poor logic.

“Mr Roeder had been involved with the Freemen movement, an extreme Christian conservative and anti-government group”

Then by the same logic “Big U has been involved in many discussions on Lean Left” so therefore he is a left-wing socialist.

I guess this just goes to prove that the word Christian really has no meaning anymore if any group that blatantly goes directly against the Biblical principles that Christianity is based on can be classified as Christian.

Big U:

That’s ludicrous and you know it. You’ve never claimed to support our causes or claimed to be a member of our movement the way Roeder did with the Freemen movement.

And your attempt to hide behind the “No True Scotsman” defense is too clever by half.

Barbie:
I think KTK made the classic mistake of inferring causation from correlation

Where, exactly?

I should’ve expectected you to be very quick to jump on my back

The urge to engage in tasteless innuendo is pretty strong here. Would that lighten the tone any?

Anyway, where, exactly, is KTK’s piss poor logic? As far as I can tell, it’s in what you and Big U are reading into what he said, as opposed to what he actually said. Where I come from, saying that X surprises no one is not the same thing as saying that X was a primary cause. Not even close. The absolute closest you could get to a logical problem would be to argue that he’s implying that X (in this case, white male extremist Christian) is a necessary but not sufficient condition, but I don’t think even that is clearly implied in what he wrote.

Indeed, the only thing that truly follows from what KTK actually wrote is that it would have been surprising if the perp had turned out not to be a white male Christian with a history of radicalism. I don’t see how anyone could deny that.

Big U:

Stepping back a bit, here’s what seems to be the problem, and it’s one of semantics: to you, it seems, anyone who did what Roeder did cannot by definition be a Christian. But that operates from an extremely restrictive definition, defining Christians based not on what they believe but on their actions. (It’s actually rather Catholic of you, in a certain sense.) It is an undeniable truism that even the most devout Christians do decidedly un-Christian things.

So at what point is someone not a “Christian?” If someone professes to be a Christian, and professes to believe in the core tenets of Christianity (i.e., God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son, yadda yadda), that would seem good enough, yes?

A suspect was arrested only a few hours after the drive-by killing, and to absolutely no one’s surprise he’s a black male with a long history of affiliation with the drug trade and numerous gangs

Hmm… Suddenly these broad, sweeping statements tying crime to race don’t seem quite as palatable.

“If someone professes to be a Christian, and professes to believe in the core tenets of Christianity (i.e., God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son, yadda yadda), that would seem good enough, yes?”

If they have done that, then labelling them as a Christian would be reasonable.

However, that is not what is done for the most part. In this case, there is no indication of any belief system whatsoever, just an assumption that since he was a white male and other murderers have been white males and Christian, then he is a Christian.

Even one of the guys cited in the link to those involved in the murders did not claim to be a Christian. He said “I was born a Catholic and I hope to die a Catholic” which simply indicates a group he is affiliated with. In any and all senses of the Biblical text, NO ONE can be born a Christian (yet there are MANY people born into a family that claims a religious affiliation ie Catholic, Methodist, etc. who identify themselves as such even though they may never darken the door of a church). And yet his statement leads people to the conclusion that he is a Christian.

Some Christians are Catholics but not all Catholics are Christians. And that is true of ALL denominations and groups.

Did Roeder profess to be a Christian? If so, then the comment that a white male Christian was the killer is accurate. If neither he, nor anyone around him, made such a statement, then to use the word Christian as a main point shows either a lack of understanding or an intentional bias against Christians.

Anyways, what it comes down to is that it does appear to me that he was implying that being a white male christian was, at the very least, a necessary condition for being affiliated with said groups when he said:

“A suspect was arrested only a few hours after the Tiller killing, and to absolutely no one’s surprise he’s a white male Christian with a long history of affiliation with the extreme fringe, anti-government and militia groups, and anti-abortion activism, including links to Operation Rescue”

You don’t think that’s what he was saying, I do. So we disagree.

Tasteless inuendo…haha. In-YOUR-endo!

Big U:

I’m guessing that you’re not at all overweight. Because all those logical leaps must give you quite a bit of exercise.

Barbie:

Let’s try this:

“To absolutely no one’s surprise, the New York Yankees are in first place.” [Before Digg chimes in, I have no idea whether that's actually true at the moment.]

Did I just say that being the New York Yankees is a necessary condition to being in first place?

I repeat: Saying that something is not at all surprising is not at all the same thing as saying that it must be true.

LOL.

You mean, “in payroll” right? Because being the Yankees is a precondition to that!

Let me also chime in on one other thing here. To say that X is not surprising implies nothing about the objective likelihood of X possessing said quality, at least not explicitly (though maybe implicitly)

Let’s start from heh’s exercise above.

To me, that’s a similar statement to the one that was made by KTK. And, I don’t think it’s particularly racist either. It’s a statement about perceptions of groups of people and their affiliations with other groups. Sure, there’s a little more baggage to it when it is stated about a group that has traditionally marginalized and oppressed as opposed to one who has been privileged and empowered, and that makes it a bit more insensitive, but it’s no less accurate a statement. Now, if you had said, “these damn black guys, they’re all drug dealing gang members and they can’t drive to the local Hardees without pulling over to shoot somebody,” that’s racist!

If you think I’m just jerking off here, let’s try this version. Make up your own version of the first part, but then the second part goes like this:

to absolutely no one’s surprise she’s a black woman with a long history of receiving welfare and manipulating the system to gain greater benefits.

This still fits, even though it is not true that the majority of the welfare roll is black, and welfare fraud is relatively rare.

My point is that this statement is as much about the perception of who does X as who actually is most likely to do X. While such a statement can sound nasty, I’m not sure its actually irresponsible to say unless there’s a wide gulf between the perception of likelihood and the actual likelihood.

F*** you, T.

Sorry, that was a sox fan reflex.

Uh, Barbie, I only glanced at it, but your link here seems to be talking about criminal gangs. While gangs don’t want to be subject to law, it’s not like they think they’re legally in the right to be scofflaws. It’s just not the same thing as being an “anti-government” group.

Barbie:
F*** you, T.

Easily the most intelligent comment you’ve posted here. And, I might add, I deserved that. That the Yankees are evil is on the growing list of things we can agree upon.

DOUBLE STANDARD

Where is the outrage from the left, the MSM and the President when an military recruiter was gunned down Monday? The gunman, Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, was black, a Muslim convert, anti-military, and anti-American. hmmm…

Michelle Malkin:
President Obama was silent about the military recruiter attacks that left 24-year-old Private William Long dead and 18-year-old Private Quinton Ezeagwula gravely wounded. On Tuesday afternoon – more than 24 hours after the attack on the military recruiting center in Little Rock – President Obama held a press conference to announce his pick for Army Secretary. It would have been exactly the right moment to express condolences for the families of the targeted Army recruiters and to condemn heinous acts of violence against our troops.

But President Obama said nothing. The Justice Department was mum. And so were the legions of finger-pointing pundits happily convicting the pro-life movement and every right-leaning writer on the planet of contributing to the murder of George Tiller. Obama’s omission, it should be noted, comes just a few weeks after he failed to mention the Bronx jihadi plot to bomb synagogues and a National Guard airbase during his speech on homeland security.

Why the silence? Politically and religiously-motivated violence, it seems, is only worth lamenting when it demonizes opponents.

These anti-government supposedly christian groups are about as christian as the militia group “the muslim brotherhood” is muslim. These groups are essentially cults or gangs, which purport to carry out heinous acts in the name of their religions, hence the link to gangs (try putting two and two together sometime, Dan. I said all of this already, but if you want I’ll break it down for ya again). It’s one of the main ways they recruit youths to their cause: “you look like me, you call yourself a (insert religious label) and so do we, you belong with us.” Prominent religious leaders (kooks not withstanding) denounce such groups.

Never mind the fact that most people who live in that region of the country happen to be white and christian, so you are statistically more likely to draw a white christian out of pretty much any subset of the population you choose. The crazies? Most of them will be white christians. If you grouped together all of the nice democrats in that area of the country, most of them would probably also be white christians. That’s my beef: KTK consistantly takes twists around statistics and tries to connect dots in ways that stretch logic to the point of being extreme or unreasonable. When someone crazy does a crazy thing, and they also happen to be a conservative/republican/libertarian, it’s like “bam – they did this crazy thing because of their political influence,” ….never mind the fact that a crazy person will do crazy things.

KTK, the reason I come over here and bitch about your posts on the frequent is because you come off like the Bill O’Reilly of the Left Blogisphere. I used to be a liberal, I still have some liberal tendencies, but seeing people say the things you say makes me think that those on the extreme side of liberalism, like you, will cause the eventual downfall of your party, much in the same way that Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly dragged down the GOP. It’s sad. You’re smart, so I hear, and you should know that smart people can rationalize just about anything. But when you overdo it, it no longer becomes reasonable, despite the fact that you can rationalize it. You get a little Sarah-Palin-Bulldog-esque in some of your statements; while it may be rational to say that white male christians are more succeptible to extremism, you intentionally (and you know it’s intentional) phrase it in such a pompous manner that it appears to single out a specific group and alienate them for reasons that you so-overly simplify that it looks unreasonable.

F***. Man, I’m almost mad at myself for getting into this, it’s just that I hate seeing people alienate other groups, when I think it would be much better to incite a constructive dialogue. I could say “a mexican woman I know has a crack habit and is on welfare – and to no one’s surprise, she got her job through affirmative action.” I could rationalize saying this, based on evident truths and statistics. It would be a lot more conducive to dialogue, however, to draw connections between the cultural issues that exist in “ghetto culture” or “gang culture” and the perpetuation of a call for programs like affirmative action, than it would be make what essentially sounds like a bigoted statement which one can justify by use of statistics and demographics. Of course, why be reasonable when it’s so much more fun to make incindiary statements to stir the waters.

Not that you want feedback from some dipshit like me, just thought I’d offer. I do stuff like that. Here, lemme do you the favor, since you don’t really care to respond personally anyways:

“Barbie, it’s my blog, f*** off.”

Peace,

SB

When someone crazy does a crazy thing, and they also happen to be a conservative/republican/libertarian, it’s like “bam – they did this crazy thing because of their political influence,” ….never mind the fact that a crazy person will do crazy things.

Not quite. More like, when someone crazy does a crazy thing to take action on stuff that relatively mainstream white Christian conservatives have been vilifying and demagoguing about for three decades now, nobody should be surprised, or pretend that those mainstream wingers had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

There, fixed it for ya.

That said, KTK and I have had disagreements about his phrasing and framing before (with Digg generally taking KTK’s side against me), so I understand what you’re trying to get at here. It’s just that I don’t think this particular one is the best example. Maybe that’s because anti-choice fuckwads are one of my admitted hot-button issues.

[...] Others have gone one step further, declaring that it’s no surprise that a “white, male Christian” was the murderer. In a different situation, that sort of statement might be called “profiling” and would result in a lawsuit (substitute “black male”, “gang violence” and “the drug trade” in the appropriate places to see what I mean). The double-standards that often accompany identity politics have been covered elsewhere on this site, though, — and recently — so I won’t go into that. [...]