T.S. = Team Sullivan?

Or is it a case of Plagiarism? I hate to think the worst of Andrew Sullivan, but I can't help but wonder. The college professor in me, always on the lookout for plagiarism, caused me to raise my eyebrows and the red flag of concern at the following:

Check out this blog posting over at The Daily Dish.

In that blog posting, there is a source link to this posting over at the Israpundit blog.

But when you scroll through the comments at this Israpundit blog posting, you'll find this comment (comment number 12, if the link doesn't work properly), written by one "T.S." With the exception of a few words here and there, it's an exact copy of the blog posting up on The Daily Dish.

At the very least, if this comment is one that Sullivan left on the Israpundit blog, Sullivan might want to reference on his own blog posting that he's reprinting his own comment that he left on the Israpundit blog under the "T.S." moniker. Just a suggestion for Sullivan to not open himself up to questionable practice.

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: National Review Online's "The Corner"
Issue: Roger Clegg's 10 demands for those who want to become Americans

In what he would like to think of as a patriotic posting in celebration of his vision of the United States of America on this coming 4th of July, conservative lawyer Roger Clegg has posted a list of demands (which he fleshes out on another occasion in greater detail here) for those who wish to become Americans. He put up this list in the context of a blog posting on the whole immigration/assimilation subject. In fact, he even says that this list is good for American citizens, too. But I found his list to be revealing in terms of what it is blind to among his fellow conservatives in the current environment we live in and also naive to the truly important things that make America what it is. So, let me challenge and expound upon Mr. Clegg's list so that it reflects the reality of modern conservatism's hypocrisy on the very points he raises. Here's the list with my commentary following each item:

1. Don’t disparage anyone else’s race or ethnicity.

OK. I can respect that. But let's add religion to the mix, too. That way we can make sure the many Islamophobes in the conservative movement can feel as if this one really applies to them, too. And adding religion is well within bounds of inclusion here since religion and race/ethnicity tend to have strong linkages. Additionally, we need to be sure that we hold ourselves, as well as immigrants, accountable to this "demand." It's a good recommendation, but I think consistency would require a willingness to "de-nationalize" American citizens who actually do go around disparaging anyone else's race or ethnicity. If we embrace the freedom to be a private racist or bigot (even if we despise those who do exercise such freedom), then we have to acknowledge that it would be "un-American" of us to demand that our newly-minted citizens not share this freedom, as distasteful as we may find them to be in the using of this freedom.

2. Respect women.

Fine, too. Except let's flesh this out a bit to include liberal female feminists. Because there is a very powerful, nasty meme circulating among the rightwing these days, and pushed predominantly by rightwing women themselves, that promotes a hateful, and certainly disrespectful, view of women -- albeit of the liberal feminist kind. In fact, we've all heard the term "Femi-nazi" applied by the rightwing to leftwing women feminists who are strong, firm, and outspoken in their convictions; and I've also heard the new term "Femisogynist" also bantered about among conservatives to disparage ideologically liberal women. So, I hope that Clegg's "demand" (which is obviously intended to point a finger at immigrants who come from a tradition where gender roles and relations are a much more complex and problematic issue) applies to more than just a very narrow slice of disrespectful behavior and attitudes towards women.

3. Learn to speak English.

This is a demand that is quite frankly un-American. And I believe it is also both illiberal and un-conservative. What language anyone speaks or learns is a choice that person makes. It should never be demanded of anyone. Of course, as any choice, it bears with it consequences; and people should be free to make that choice and live with the consequences of it. But what Clegg's demand amounts to is nothing more than the imposition of his preference on what should be someone else's private choice, and his oppressive effort to limit someone else's freedom.

4. Be polite.

Who can argue with this one? Unless you think that the freedoms of this country guarantee you the right to be a rude crank. Something many conservatives would argue. Thus maybe it shouldn't be a "demand" for citizenship, but a recommendation, since citizenship (at least in the US) doesn't demand politeness of anyone (and, in fact, protects the freedom to be rude). But, again, assuming he meant it more as a recommendation than a demand, Clegg should also be cognizant that many of his ideological brethren are very impolite to immigrants, especially if they happen to be undocumented, regardless of whether they want to become citizens or not. I remain convinced that 99% of all undocumented immigrants would very much like to apply for legal status; and a significant percentage of this number would probably also like very much to become permanent residents or citizens. But they simply aren't given that opportunity, at least not a remotely realistic opportunity. And in spite of how polite these people are in their daily comportment, their immigration status determines the kind of treatment they will be receiving from Clegg's fellow rightwingers. I take Clegg's demand to apply to how we citizens treat our immigrant neighbors (regardless of their immigration status), as much as to apply to how immigrants should treat us citizens.

5. Don’t break the law.

Of course. This goes without saying in just about any society. But, here, (even though Clegg himself doesn't see this particular demand of his in this way), many on his side will interpret this simple statement as an attack on undocumented immigrants as lawbreakers, thus reconfirming the "criminalization" of otherwise very polite and hardworking immigrants strictly on this point. Of course, no one should break the law if they want to be a productive member or citizen of any society; but it helps if immigrants aren't vilified as lawbreakers (and thus unassimilable) even before they have a chance at permanent residency or citizenship.

6. Don’t have children out of wedlock.

I have to laugh at this one because it comes across as so old-fashioned and so out-of-touch with what actually is the America today that Clegg wants immigrants to assimilate to. And, again, though this may be a nice recommendation, it certainly has no place being a "demand" because (1) it is antithetical to freedom, which is much more at the heart of what America stands for and what we want immigrants to assimilate to, and (2) because immigrants will correctly view this demand as hypocritical in the sense that it conveys a "do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do" idea about what it means to be an American. If I were an immigrant, looking at the rate of out-of-wedlock childbearing in the America to which I am assimilating, I'd wonder why Clegg wants to demand of me as a citizen a behavior that does not seem to apply as a demand to regular citizens. Clegg claims to believe in treating immigrants as a citizen equally privileged as any other citizen without respect to race, ethnicity, or national origin, but this demand seems to hold citizenship for immigrants hostage to a behavior that doesn't apply to any other native-born or naturalized American citizens.

7. Don’t demand anything because of your race, ethnicity, or sex.

Except an equality that is both perceived and experienced as being denied because of one's race, ethnicity, or sex. Clegg acknowledges this, but he operates from a premise that when minorities complain about discrimination and the perceived or experienced lack of equality, they are doing so to seek special privileges or protections that others don't get (i.e. affirmative action, protected status designation, etc.) I think this is a misplaced premise. Most immigrants come to the U.S. because it promises equality irrespective of their race, ethnicity, sex, etc. And when they complain, with a loud group voice, that the U.S. isn't living up to this promise, that's very much within the great American tradition, not outside of it. I think Clegg ought to acknowledge this at least as a possibility in terms of how he understands minority group "demands." Furthermore, Clegg is again requiring of immigrant groups as a condition of their citizenship that they abandon the rights that citizens in the US already exercise to demand things because of their race, ethnicity, or sex. Clegg may not like this part of American liberty and he may actually think it's racist, or whatever; but I don't think he would say that folks in the U.S. don't have the right to behave in such way as long as it is done peacefully and within the bounds of what the law will allow.

8. Don’t view working and studying hard as “acting white.”

This makes me wonder, for all his expertise and experience with immigrants, whether he actually understands what immigrants actually think here. The vast majority of immigrants who want to become citizens (and even those who don't) are hard workers and dedicated students because of who they are within their non-white racial or ethnic group. Clegg presumes that immigrants will have a racial understanding of "working and studying hard" that actually diminishes their racial or ethnic identity. I think this is foolish, condescending, and patronizing. It comes across as a white dude telling the presumed self-hating ethnic minority that it's o.k. to be non-white and still be a hard working or diligently studious person. And I don't think Clegg wants to give that impression to these American citizen hopefuls.

9. Don’t hold historical grudges.

Hell, again Clegg demands that immigrants do what native-born or naturalized American citizens do not. We hold historical grudges all the time. Many in the south disparage the yankee north. And we have fierce cultural battles, and we hold deep-seated generational historical grudges, over the Confederate Flag or Slavery/Jim Crow or Japanese Internments or the Alamo, etc. And the fact is that many American citizens themselves hold historical grudges against those immigrants (and the cultures/countries they come from) who may be seeking citizenship. So, is it really American to tell immigrants to let go of what they feel in terms of historical grudges in deference to the historical grudges against them, their countries of origin, or their cultures that Clegg may think constitutes the true narrative of American history? I don't think so.

10. Be proud of being an American.

Fine. And most naturalized immigrants are probably more proud of being American than your native born citizen, so I don't think this would really be an issue. But being proud of being an American naturally will come from being treated as an equal American. So the burden of inducing this pride for our newest compatriots also falls on us to make sure that the chance at the American dream they are promised in exchange for their loyalty and patriotism is not conditioned by a discrimination against them because of who they are and where they come from. And I should add that being proud to be an American does not equate to being ashamed of coming from a non-American ancestry or hiding/denying this ancestry out of fear or shame.

In the end, I think Clegg's "demands" (I'd rather think of them as recommendations in deference to freedom, but that's not how Clegg defines them) are very naive and shortsighted. I think that, all his good intentions aside, Clegg wants new citizens to assimilate to a particular cultural vision of the United States that just no longer exists (that is, if it ever actually existed). In fact, he states as much in his expanded thoughts on this subject. He puts forward a notion that America can and should be multiracial and multiethnic, but he rejects the notion that America should also be multicultural -- because he sees in culture the non-negotiable glue of what it means to be American. But what he doesn't do is breakdown what he means by multicultural. I happen to think that the core identity of the United States of America is defined by its political culture, and not by culture in any other way. The "E Pluribus Unum" motto -- "One out of Many" -- refers not to how polite we are, not to whether we hold historical grudges, not to whether we have children out of wedlock, etc., but to whether we all accept the same rules under which our civic society is organized and operates. If you want to be impolite, that's fine and well within the definition of being American (because we certainly have our fair share of rude, impolite natural born citizen cranks in this country). If you want to be an unmarried, single mother, that's fine, too. We've got plenty of those kinds of natural born citizens around, too, and many of whom actually chose this path. Quite acceptable in the tradition of freedom that defines this country of ours. And so on. And it goes without saying that we can all eat different foods, go to different churches, speak different languages, celebrate certain festival holidays from the "old land," etc. So, yes, we can and should be a multicultural country, as well, in these cultural arenas. But what really defines America, the truly immutable core of the American identity, are not these kinds of cultural attributes, rather whether or not we all share and abide by the same political culture: freedom, respect for the rule of law, acceptance of our procedural democracy, adherence to the basic bill of rights of our Constitution, etc. And of Clegg's list of 10 "demands," only one of them I would consider to fit within this political cultural tradition. That would be Number 5: "Don't break the law." All the rest are negotiable and fluid within the broader context of the essential freedom that defines our non-negotiable political culture. In fact, I would argue that what makes America so great, and what defines the essence of America that we should really be encouraging our new immigrants to assimilate to, is this notion of our political culture, which is grounded in a freedom that allows people to be cranks, misogynists, unwed single mothers, etc., as long as they don't contravene the rule of law and the system of governance that organizes and shapes us.

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Andrew Sullivan's The Daily Dish
Issue: Andrew Sullivan's Over-the-Top Criticism of Obama for Obama's Response to the Undie-Bomber Incident

Andrew Sullivan comes down hard on Obama for not immediately firing anyone for the Undie-Bomber incident. I admire and respect Andrew Sullivan, and think he's the best national blogger out there; but I think he's way over-reacting here. So, I wrote him a letter. This is what I said:

Dear Andrew - I can understand your anger at Obama's unwillingness to fire anyone because of the Undie-Bomber incident. Fire anyone at this moment, that is. I think you need to cut Obama some slack here. Think about it. Not only is it true that Obama has recognized the failure and has personally accepted responsibility for it, but it is also equally true that he has not left his subordinates completely off the hook. What you failed to print from Obama's remarks were the two sentences in the paragraph directly preceding that particular quip you noted. These sentences read: "All of these agencies -- and their leaders -- are responsible for implementing these reforms. And all will be held accountable if they don't." Seems to me that Obama is forcefully and unambiguously telling his subordinates that they screwed up, that he's taking it on the chin for them, and yet he's willing to give them the benefit of the doubt to get it right the next time or they're gone -- no ifs, ands, or buts. Think about it, Andrew. I know there is no margin for error with these kinds of things; but a leader that affords a second chance is the kind of person I would want to work for. The kind of person that can make government more effective. Furthermore, not only would I want to work for such a person, but I'd try to go above and beyond not to fail again and wouldn't hold any grudge if I did fail again and got axed. A cut-throat blood-letting that you seem to expect would simply ossify inefficiencies and prevent innovations out of fear of reprisal. Even though we are dealing with a situation where mistakes just can't be made, it is important to remember that we are, and always will be, still dealing with fallible people. I believe it would be the same regardless of who is in power or how competent are the people responsible for such things. Even the best of us slip now and again. Obama is not protecting "big brother." He is simply being someting bigger, and better, than "the decider."

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan posts a letter from another reader that basically captures the sentiments of my letter, but Sullivan still refuses to back down in his criticism.

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Right Wing News
Issue: Hawkins AGAIN Plays the Race Card

Conservative Blogger John Hawkins once again argues that blacks are racists and whites are not because 89% of black folk approve of Obama's job performance, whereas only 41% of white folk approve of Obama's job performance. Hawkins notes the seemingly large discrepancy between the two percentage statistics as some kind of evidence of his delusions about black racism and white "colorblindness" in America. It prompted Hawkins to ask:

We're incessantly told that white Americans are racist, but given how high Obama's approval numbers are amongst black Americans, doesn't it seem likely that percentage wise, there are a whole lot more racist black Americans than white Americans?

This is a common theme of Hawkins and demonstrates yet again his disingenuousness and his schizophrenia about race. And I just can't let this confused and misguided soul spew his nonsense without some kind of sensible rejoinder.

Hawkins wants to claim that the significance of the difference in Obama's job approval ratings according to racial classification is because black folks are racist in favor of a black President. He never once tries to investigate whether there is any data to confirm what he implies. But I have to ask: What's to say that this disparity is due primarily because white folks are racist against a black President? Is there any evidence to get to the bottom of this claim?

Well, I don't think there can be any clear evidence one way or the other short of asking people why they approve of a particular candidate's job performance and whether race is a factor in their determination. But I do think there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to suggest that race is less a factor for black people than for white people in evaluating Obama's (and any other President's) job performance. Moreover, I would propose that it is primarily political party affiliation and ideology that explains the patterns of job approval (as well as voting percentages), even when correlated to race. For instance, it is no secret that black voters heavily favor Democratic politicians and have always, whether such politicians were white or black, voted for and approved the job performance of such politicians. It is also no secret that white Democrats favor and approve Democratic politicians and their job performances in equally high numbers, regardless of that politician's race. The same might be said for conservative black folk and conservative white folk in their support for and approval of the job performance of conservative politicians, regardless of the race of such politicians. However, where there may be a slight correlation between race and job performance approval ratings or electoral preferences, the circumstantial evidence, such as it is, would indicate that its the white population that seems to be more influenced by race than the black population.

What is this circumstantial evidence? Well, let's just start with a comparison of job approval ratings for Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama along the racial matrix. Black support for Clinton and Obama in terms of job approval ratings are surprisingly fairly consistent. For instance, a 2001 poll conducted by ABC News and the Washington Post revealed the following:

Views of Clinton are deeply divided along political and ideological lines. Ninety-three percent of Democrats approve of his job performance; this dives to 32 percent of Republicans. Eighty-six percent of liberals approve, compared to 44 percent of conservatives; and 90 percent of blacks approve, compared to 59 percent of whites.

The current polling information that Hawkins references in terms of job approval ratings for Obama according to racial classification indicates that 89% of black people approve of Obama's job performance while only 41% of white people approve of Obama's job performance. Assuming that the data Hawkins references is accurate (and it's hard to know this because Hawkins doesn't provide any link to the source for these numbers), the evidence suggests that positive job approval ratings for a white President among blacks is nearly identical to the positive job approval ratings for a black President among blacks. Conversely, positive job approval ratings for a white President among whites (59%) is some 18 percentage points higher than positive job approval ratings for a black President among whites. So, it seems obvious to me that if you want to make the race argument as it applies to Presidential job approval ratings, the variance correlated to race in terms of Presidential job approval statistics would point to movement primarily among whites. This data would tend to debunk the notion that it is blacks who are basing approval ratings on race. The real story, then, is not in the high black job approval rating statistics for Obama (because black job approval ratings for Democratic Presidents are consistently high regardless of race), but in the lower white job approval rating statistics for Obama compared to Clinton.

[ASIDE: I'll even go further and suggest that liberal white Democrats, who generally constitute about 40-42% of the national white electorate, are the white voters less likely to abandon or qualify their support of a candidate's job performance. So, that 18% difference between Clinton's positive job approval rating among whites and Obama's is more than likely due to the movement of conservative white Republicans who could appreciate "Bubba" Clinton, but who just can't muster any support for "Hussein" Obama. Of course, that's a generalization that can't be supported by the evidence, but it makes intuitive sense to me.]

Now that's just looking at job approval ratings according to racial classification. What if we turn to the evidence of voting patterns according to racial classification? Does this tell us anything different than the data about job performance ratings about racially motivated preferences? In short, no.

Take a look at voting data broken down by race for the past nine Presidential elections dating back to 1976. This is what we get:

1976: 83% of blacks voted for Carter against Ford
1980: 83% of blacks voted for Carter against Reagan
1984: 91% of blacks voted for Mondale against Reagan
1988: 89% of blacks voted for Dukakis against Bush
1992: 83% of blacks voted for Clinton against Bush
1996: 84% of blacks voted for Clinton against Dole
2000: 90% of blacks voted for Gore against Bush
2004: 88% of blacks voted for Kerry against Bush
2008: 95% of blacks voted for Obama against McCain

That's an average of 87.2% blacks voting for Democratic Presidential candidates. And even if you take out the Obama year, the average is still a high 86.4%. That aligns closely with the 89% approval rating that Obama currently enjoys among blacks, and which John Hawkins references as some kind of evidence of racism among blacks.

So, what can we conclude from this? Well, in short, we might be able to say that, yes, Obama did appear to get a slight bump in the election that could be attributed to race. But we'd also have to recognize that his high levels of support among the black community are not all that much higher than other Democratic Presidential candidates over the past 30 years, all of whom were white. And certainly the 89% job approval rating Obama is currently receiving among blacks fits very much within the range of black support and approval of Democratic candidates regardless of race.

Regarding John Hawkins, all there is left to say is that he's once again wrong on the merits. He suggests and implies black racism because he can't seem to get beyond Obama's skin color. And what he points to as proof of this is nothing out of the ordinary in terms of black or white support for any Democratic candidate. In short, it is his obsession with race and with Obama's skin color that is distorting his impressions of things and making him, ironically, guilty of perpetuating the very identity politics that he claims to lament.

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Right Wing News
Issue: John Hawkins's Disingenuousness About Race

I have a running chronicle of John Hawkins's schizophrenia on the subject of race. You'd think that by now, knowing that I am watching him whenever he discusses the subject of race in America, Hawkins would be a bit more circumspect in what he writes. But, you'd be wrong to think this. Once again, I've caught Hawkins being disingenuous on the topic, and particularly regarding his own stated views of the topic. But given that this dude is confused, and his views on the subject a convoluted mess, I guess it's no wonder that he contradicts himself regularly. Let me elaborate ...

In his most recent TownHall.com column, which he links to on his blog site, Hawkins starts off with the following introductory comment:

Although racism certainly exists in this country, it has become blessedly rare and marginalized. Some of the best evidence you can find for that is Barack Obama's election as President. Only in a country as colorblind as America could a black man easily win the Presidency when 75% of the votes were cast by white Americans.

I am amazed that Hawkins would write this. On his own blog in a March 12, 2008 posting, Hawkins put up a piece titled "Of Course Barack Couldn't Win The Democratic Nomination If He Weren't Black." Hawkins has repeatedly thrown out the charge that the only reason Barack Obama won the Democratic Nomination and the General Election was because of his race. And as for the claim that we see the end of racism because Obama won an election when over 75% of the voters were white, Hawkins has been clear that he thinks that the portion of this white voting population who voted for Obama did so out of a sense of "white guilt." In short, Hawkins is being quite disingenuous here when he claims that Obama's election is a sign of the end of racism in our country. Hawkins has never believed that "colorblindness" in America explains Obama's victory. It's quite clear from many of his other blog postings that he thinks exactly the opposite is true.

And the very next paragraph in his piece says the following:

Despite that fact, the cries of racism have become ever louder and more omnipresent since Barack Obama has been elected. Perhaps none of us should be surprised by that fact. After all, the racial grievance industry in this country still has bills to pay, the people who use racism as an excuse to explain their failures still need a scapegoat, and Democrats now have a ready-made excuse for every problem: "The President is black and so the people who don't agree with him must be racists!"

I ask: Does Hawkins not see the irony here? Hawkins himself has been one of the loudest among the "cries of racism" crowd and the "racial grievance industry" in this country. The cries of "racism" and the expressions of "racial grievance" that I have heard have come as much from the rightwing (Glenn Beck, anyone?) as from the left. As far as Hawkins and many others among the "colorblind" rightwing are concerned, they have their own ready-made excuse for every problem. It goes something like this: "The President is black and so the people who agree with him must be racists."

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Right Wing News
Issue: John Hawkins' Schizophrenia on Race

I appreciate conservative blogger John Hawkins' gracious congratulatory posting regarding Barack Obama's victory. It must have been a bit painful for him to write, so I give him credit for doing so. However ...

I can't simply let slide what I still see as a conservative myopia and schizophrenia, if not hypocrisy, regarding the subject of race in America. Here's the relevant part of what Hawkins wrote in his posting linked above:

Although I would have certainly preferred to have John McCain in the White House, it will at least be nice to finally see a black American become President. Conservatives have been saying America isn't a racist nation for a long time. This proves we're right. Conservatives have been saying that we don't need Affirmative Action in this country. This proves we're right.

And yet, in his very next posting, Hawkins had this to say about race:

In other words, despite the staggering advantages the Democrats had in this election, including a candidate who undoubtedly drew in millions of black voters who wanted to pull the lever for the first black President and millions of other voters gripped by white guilt, it only led to a shift of about 4% of the American public from the Republicans to the Democrats.

I've written about this before. And it just keeps surfacing. Doesn't Hawkins see the contradictions in his positions? On the one hand, he keeps propagating this notion that America is not a racist nation, while on the other hand explaining Barack Obama's success and victory to racist behavior. Does Hawkins not see that he takes pride in finally being able to "see a black American become President" without noting the irony that it wasn't his vote that helped make this happen? What should one make of that? Doesn't Hawkins recognize that, if it's Barack Obama's election to the White House which is the evidence that we are not a racist country, it stands to reason that the folks who actually voted for him and put him there are the ones that represent the actual proof of this claim? Doesn't he see the irony that when he claims Barack Obama's election as "proof" that conservatives were right that America is not racist, he is essentially saying that this proof is not being provided by conservative who voted against Obama, but rather by those who actually voted in a way that made this happen?

I can't tell you how many times I've left comments at Hawkins' blog defending and supporting Obama without once mentioning (or even thinking about, for that matter) the color of Obama's skin, only to have been accused of being racist simply for supporting Obama. For some conservatives, it is inconceivable that a white person would vote for Obama for any reason other than his skin color. They are fond of calling this "white guilt," and then they have the gall to say that I'm the one stuck on the slavery and Jim Crow past of America because I support the "black" guy! Whatever. Suffice it to say that my experiences on Right Wing News comment boards illustrates this conservative schizophrenia regarding race in America perfectly. ...

You know, I had a kind of epiphany last night when looking at the crowds and the environments surrounding both McCain and Obama's speeches at the end of the evening. Unlike what Sarah Palin claimed on the campaign trail, the "real" America, in all of our wonderful diversity, was on display in Chicago. And just a small, narrow, and fundamentally non-diverse slice of America was on display in Arizona. It was the same at the Conventions. For good or bad, that's just the way it is. But for Republicans, if they don't find a way to harness the growing diversity of America and make some kind of intellectual argument framing this diversity in the context of a principled conservatism, more and more states are likely to be turning blue in future years. Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada -- they're not flukes, but rather a sign of a growing diversity in the context of our national unity. And John Hawkins, for all his sincere effort really to embrace and be part of this diversity in his recognition of the importance of an Obama victory in this regard, is still caught up in the contradictions of a context where race is a recognized, important, and significant aspect of identity, but where this difference is celebrated and not seen as a matter of divisiveness. Hawkins just can't seem to get beyond his "black and white" understanding of race in America. By this I mean that Hawkins can't envision an America that sees and embraces race (and other identity markers, for that matter) as meaningful, but which also doesn't necessarily see discrimination in this. For Hawkins, being "color-blind" means denying race at all levels of social meaning. And yet he himself simply cannot take his own advice and get beyond seeing the meaning in race. So, he's left holding to that schizophrenic practice of being a rhetorically "color-blind" conservative who is never actually "blind" to color and who, instead, always sees something insidious in ascribing meaning to race all the while he does precisely that.

Right Wing News = Wrong Wing Nut

Way, way back in June of 2006 I posed a question to conservative blogger John Hawkins of Right Wing News, which he answered on his blog. Here's the post which contains my question and Hawkins' answer:

Q&A Friday #43: Will Obama Be The First African American President?

Question: "And do you think Obama will be this country's first African American president?" -- huckupchuck

Answer: I'm of the opinion that the first black President is likely to be a conservative Republican who pulls in a big chunk of the black vote without turning off the rest of the country by being in favor of Affirmative Action, reparations, racial set-asides, and all the other noxious black policies Democratic pols seem to feel obligated to support.

I wonder how Hawkins is feeling today about being so wrong back then.

Anatomy of Rightwing Schizophrenia

John McCain's campaign has been accused of being erratic, disorganized, and dysfunctional. And it has been. It is probably one of the worst campaigns the GOP has run for the Presidency in about 35 years. Indicative of the campaign is the attitude of the Rightwing base. They have also been all over the place, disorganized, and dysfunctional. They have swung like John Kerry's 2004 flip-flops from moments of disgust with McCain, to moments of embracing McCain, to moments of resigned fatalism. Let me show you an example of what I think has been typical of the schizophrenic Rightwing base.

John Hawkins is a conservative blogger who has a pretty popular site called Right Wing News. I have been following this blog for many years now and I can say with a fair degree of confidence that I understand John Hawkins fairly well. Hawkins is also a regular columnist for Townhall.com. Over this past election cycle, Hawkins has been as erratic about McCain as McCain has been as a candidate.

On February 1, 2008, when it looked like McCain might just sneak out the GOP nomination, Hawkins wrote a Townhall column entitled: "Why You're Going To Vote For John McCain In November And Like It!" Granted, Hawkins was being a bit facetious with this title and really showed very little love for McCain in this piece, but his point was that Republicans should hold their nose and vote for McCain as the least bad of the options. He reiterated this position in a follow-up posting on his blog later that same day. And so Hawkins called Republicans to be good party militants, even in spite of all of McCain's recognized minuses as a potential candidate.

Then, not some four months later, on May 23, Hawkins wrote a post on his blog called: Why I Will No Longer Support John McCain For President. In this posting, Hawkins wrote:

Put very simply: John McCain is a liar. He's a man without honor, without integrity, who could not have captured the Republican nomination had he run on making comprehensive immigration a top priority of his administration. Quite frankly, this is little different from George Bush, Sr. breaking his "Read my lips, no new taxes pledge," except that Bush's father was at least smart enough to wait until he got elected before letting all of his supporters know that he was lying to them.

Under these circumstances, I simply cannot continue to support a man like John McCain for the presidency. Since that is the case, I have already written the campaign and asked them to take me off of their mailing list and to no longer send me invitations to their teleconferences. I see no point in asking questions to a man who has no compunction about lying through his teeth on one of the most crucial election issues and then changing his position the first time he believes he can get away with it.

Moreover, I genuinely regret having to do this because I do still believe the country would be better off with John McCain as President as opposed to Obama or Clinton. However, I just cannot in good conscience cast a vote for a man who has told this big of a lie, for this long, about this important of an issue.

That being said, although I cannot back John McCain, encourage others to vote for him, or contribute any more money to his campaign, I'm not going to tell you that you should do that same thing. What McCain has done here is a bridge too far for me, but others may not have as big a problem with being told this sort of lie. That's their decision.

Furthermore, I will defend John McCain when I think he deserves to be defended, excoriate Barack Obama and/or Hillary Clinton at every opportunity, and I will continue to stand behind the sort of Republican candidates who actually deserve conservative support. But, what I will not do is vote for John McCain in November.

In a follow-up posting later that same day Hawkins explained himself further:

But personally, I think that there has got to be some kind of line in the sand that these politicians cannot be allowed to cross. In McCain's case, he lied about the single most important issue in determining many people's votes, is the Republican Party's nominee only because he told that lie, and now he has publicly shifted positions in a way that reveals he was lying the whole time -- and he did so before the election. Here's a man who has so little respect for conservatives that he doesn't even feel compelled to wait until he's elected to reveal that he wasn't telling them the truth about an issue they care desperately about.

If we're willing to put up with that, is there any line that he can't cross and get away with it? If McCain shifts on a dime tomorrow and says that he's only going to appoint pro-Roe Supreme Court justices, are conservatives just going to say, "Well, I'm not happy but he's still better than Obama." If he decides that the war is too much of a liability for him in the polls and he's just going to pull out like Obama and watch the country collapse into genocide, would that be Ok, too? If those things were to happen, I'd hope the answer would be, "No, that isn't OK with us."

It would be one thing if McCain ran on these issues and won the nomination anyway. At least then, you could say, "I'm not happy, but we have nobody to blame but ourselves because we knew exactly what we were getting." But, when the man doesn't even have enough respect for conservatives to follow through for a few months on one of the key promises he made to get the nomination, what message does it send to other Republicans? How far are they going to go if McCain doesn't pay a price for egregiously lying on an issue that is this important?

That's why, despite the fact that I think having McCain in the White House would be preferable to having Obama or Clinton in there, I cannot support his candidacy. Sometimes, the price you have to pay to keep your side in power is just a little too high.

Yet almost four months later, Hawkins reverted back to his original position. In a September 8, 2008, post entitled: "Why I Am Now Supporting John McCain," Hawkins wrote:

As RWN's regular readers already know, I have been a harsh critic of John McCain for a long time and back in May, I wrote a post called, "Why I Will No Longer Support John McCain For President." That post was widely linked and was probably why I was blackballed from the Republican National Convention.

However, I've been wavering on my "non-vote" in the 2008 election for a while. That's not because I've warmed up to McCain; it's because of my concerns about Barack Obama.

...

Despite the fact that I have a lot of differences with John McCain, I am going vote for him and I would encourage you to do the same. Whatever else you may say about the man, he is capable of handling the presidency and his election will teach the Left more about common decency than any mere words ever could.

And now, when he's not trashing George Will for writing a much milder critism of McCain than Hawkins had done months before, Hawkins is going around telling others why they should vote for McCain, too.

[ASIDE: How's this for some rich irony? Hawkins writes in this nasty little rant against George Will:

I'm sick and tired of these prissy jackasses and Beltway bubbleheads who put a higher priority on getting on the Colbert Report or MSNBC than winning the election.

How did we end up with all these primadonnas and divas in the Republican Party who are looking to get a few extra minutes in the spotlight at the expense of the country and everyone else in the conservative movement?

You're not happy with McCain, Bush, and the Republican Party? Well, join the party, pal. Do you think the last few years have been fun for the rest of us? If you can't act like a professional and suck it up until the election, then you're either in the wrong profession or the wrong party.

Either way, I'm not going to tell you to shut up, but I will tell you publicly that you can kiss my *ss.

Ahem! I wonder if, upon reflection, Hawkins thinks ruefully of himself as a "prissy jackass" for issuing a declaration of his intention not to vote for McCain back in May?]

Anyway, with regard to directing others to vote for McCain, Hawkins suggested in a Townhall column published on October 31, 2008, some Thirty Reasons To Vote For John McCain and even shared his own voting experience with his readers on the same day in a posting entitled: "I Voted Today..." At the end of this post, Hawkins wrote:

PS: Yes, I voted for Palin and McCain and I hope you do, too.

It's no wonder the McCain campaign is schizophrenic, bitter, and dysfunctional. Just look at the state of base conservatives these days as reflected in the anger, dysfunction, and contradictions of John Hawkins and you'll understand why.

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Right Wing News
Issue: Democrats, Obama, and John Hawkins' Screwed-Up Mind on Race

Conservative blogger John Hawkins of the Right Wing News blog, just can't make up his damn mind about Democrats, Obama and the subject of race. Today, Hawkins posted this "thought" (more like a brain fart, if you ask me):

Barack Obama is the single least qualified candidate running for the presidency, on either side, and he wouldn't have the slightest chance to win the Democratic nomination or the presidency if he weren't black. So, if he were to get elected, wouldn't that make him the first Affirmative Action President? [Emphasis added.]

Umm ... wait a minute, Hawkins. Didn't you say this not too long ago?:

You have black Democrats, who are hypersensitive about race related issues seeing a black candidate being denied the presidency by Democrats because of his race -- and let's face it, Obama may win the nomination because he's clearly the better candidate and because the mainstream media seems to be lining up behind him, but if he doesn't get the nomination, it'll be because he's black. [Emphasis added.]

Well, what is it, man? He'll get the nomination because he's black? Or he won't get the nomination because he's black? Is he the "single least qualified candidate ... on either side"? Or is he "clearly the better candidate," at least on the Democrats' side? Democrats will choose him because he's black? Or Democrats won't choose him because he's black? Or whatever it is that Democrats do regarding Obama, it'll be because Obama's black. What the hell?!?!?

Let's forget, for the moment, about the flip-flop on Hawkins' take on Obama's relative qualifications for the Presidency (which implies that he really has no idea who - at least among the Democrats - is the more qualified candidate, even by his own criteria). I want to focus on Hawkins' obsession with race. When it comes to race, Hawkins, you are one conflicted and confused dude. You have got to find a way to exorcise your "race" demons, dude. It's clouding your mental abilities. What does it say about you that you can hardly ever mention Obama without referring in some way to his skin color as the defining characteristic of his candidacy? What does it say about you that you can't seem to get beyond race when thinking about Obama? You are so damn obsessed with Obama's skin-color that you simply can't imagine any consideration of his candidacy without referencing his skin color. Well, let me tell you something, Hawkins. It's you who are the one obsessed with how Obama's skin color will play out in this election. It's you who are making race a central and defining issue in the Obama candidacy. It's you who are so obviously NOT color-blind when it comes to Obama that it makes unbelievable any claim you might make to the contrary.

Really and truly, how is it that I can go days and weeks without even thinking about Obama's skin color, that I can have conversations and debates and disagreements about Obama with decent conservatives like President_Friedman without race ever factoring into the mix, that I can even go back and forth with leftist Obamaphiliaphobes over the merits of Obama's candidacy without once mentioning race, but that I get slapped in the face with inflammatory racialized commentary regarding Obama ONLY when I read such supposedly "color-blind" conservative bloggers like John Hawkins at Right Wing News? And Hawkins thinks it's the fault of liberals that we can't get beyond playing the race card in political discourse in this country?!?!? Sheesh! For God's sake, man, PLEASE look in the mirror and think again.

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Right Wing News
Issue: The Hypocritical Race-Baiting of John Hawkins

Conservative blogger John Hawkins of Right Wing News has yet another revealing post on racialized politics. Yet what it reveals is something completely different than what Hawkins thinks it does. It reveals that Hawkins is a race-baiter with the best of them, one that would make even Al Sharpton blush. In fact, I think it's even worse for Hawkins because he hops on his high horse and pretends that race doesn't matter to him given that he's such a good conservative when it clearly does. I call BS. I'm going to expose this race-baiting fraud and I'll prove it with a good fisking of his latest piece of mental sewage, a fisking which this nitwit so richly deserves. [Aside: Before I jump into the meat of the fisking, let me just point out to you that everytime Hawkins posts something about racial difference, it's almost always in the context of playing the race card himself. Hawkins almost never talks about race dispassionately and without calling liberals racists. That simple fact alone makes him as much a race-hustler as any other race hustler I know.] Now ... on to the fisking ...

In this piece, Hawkins ponders why the "netroots" doesn't like Obama. He claims there's a "Simple Explanation" - they're racist. His evidence? Liberals sometimes vote for white people. Heck, by that measure, what does that make him?

Let me slice and dice his posting piece by piece. First, he starts off by citing a piece by Stephen Spruiell over at the National Review Online. In this citation, Spruiell ponders the question as to why "liberal bloggers (a.k.a. the netroots) have such a problem with this guy [Obama]?" Hawkins responds:

He [Spruiell] goes on to essentially say that they don't like him because he's picking up "conservative frames in very unhelpful ways." This is far too charitable and obviously not true, because if it applies to Barack Obama, it certainly would have applied tenfold to guys like James Webb and Jon Tester, both of whom were ardently supported by the netroots in 2006 even though they were, ideologically and rhetorically, significantly to Obama's right.

First off, Hawkins is comparing apples to oranges. The "netroots" supported Webb and Tester because they were running against even more conservative Republican opponents. And control of the Senate hung in the balance. Just like Hawkins will support whomever the GOP nominates this November because he will consider that person better than the alternative, "netroots" liberals supported Webb and Tester.

I guarantee you that if Obama wins the Democratic Nomination, you'll see the "netroots" liberals who are currently supporting other candidates "ardently supporting" Obama against any of the current crop of potential GOP candidates. If Hawkins thinks that the netroots liberals will not rally behind Obama and will stay home this November if Obama is the Democratic candidate, he'd be a certifiable fool. Furthermore, what is clearly true, from all indications, is that Obama is appealing to GOP moderates in ways that distinguish him from the rest of the Democratic field. Obama most certainly can frame issues important to conservatives in ways that resonate across all ideological perspectives. All you need to do is to listen to Obama speak on the subject of faith and politics to know this is true. So, it is Hawkins who is engaging in some uncharitable wishful thinking. So why does Hawkins make such a clearly boneheaded claim? Well, to get to the real point of his posting, as the rest of his posting will show, it is nothing more than to race-hustle and to play the race card. Hawkins continues ...

I would offer up a simpler explanation: the netroots is very liberal, very white, and there are lot of them who just don't trust a black man to be President.

Change the word "netroots" to "rightroots" and the word "liberal" to "conservative" in the above sentence, without any kind of evidence beyond the expression of this opinion and you Al Sharpton. But it gets worse. Watch how race then becomes central to Hawkins' line of thought:

It makes perfect sense if you think about it. Roughly 90% of blacks vote Democratic, but there are only a handful of blacks representing majority white districts. Why? Because liberal whites won't vote for them.

Well, I'm thinking about it. And what Hawkins' statement tells me is that he makes race the exclusive explanatory variable for voting behavior. He says that 90% of Blacks vote Democratic. Why do they vote Democratic? Could it be because the Democratic Party represents positions on Health Care, Labor, Wages that are important to these voters? No siree! They vote Democratic because they are black. You'd think Hawkins, being the color-blind person he claims, wouldn't patronize black folk in this way and explain their vote for Democrats exclusive on the color of their skin. But it gets better, doesn't it? He immediately goes on to say that the reason there are only a handful of blacks representing majority white districts is because liberal whites won't vote for them! Gosh, darn! You'd think that all the white folk in "majority white districts" are all "liberal whites." Go figure! I wonder whom the "conservative white" voters in "majority white" districts are voting for? The "black" candidate? Maybe it's the white conservative voters who won't vote for black candidates and make them their elected representative. I'm sure Hawkins would bluster and defend himself by saying: "well, if there were a 'black' conservative running for office, his race wouldn't matter." And it wouldn't ever dawn on him that the fact that he needs to speak of the likelihood of a black conservative candidate running for office in the hypothetical says something about race and conservative voting patterns. Furthermore, Hawkins doesn't even consider the possiblity that a white liberal voter who votes for a white candidate over a black candidate is doing so because the white candidate better reflects that voters interests on matters of policy. Hawkins, in his own twisted logic, apparently believes that white liberals simply must vote for a black candidate for no other reason than that candidate is black! And I ask you, who is being the race hustler here? Well, if you're not sure of the answer to that question, Hawkins' next comments will clear it up and leave no doubts ...

How can it be George Bush has a much more impressive record of appointing black Americans in his cabinet than "the first black President," Bill Clinton? Simple -- white Democrats are a lot more racist than Republicans.

And so we arrive at the nub of it. Hawkins exposed. Unadulterated and raw and ugly. Out with it, Hawkins! The measure of racism is determined by the number of blacks appointed to a cabinet. Forget qualifications. Forget ability. Just line people up and take note of skin color. And the "racist" is the one with the fewest blacks in the lineup. Yep. For Hawkins, it all boils down to skin color apparently. How "unconservative" is that? And notice Hawkins has expanded his racist claims from "white liberal netroots" to "white Democrats" generally. Apparently, I (a white Democrat) am a lot more racist than David Duke (a Republican). And why am I a lot more racist? By Hawkins' measure, Not because I engage in racist behavior. No, Hawkins doesn't even qualify his charge of racism on the basis of behavior. He just links it to skin color and party affiliation. I am a lot more racist only because I am a "white Democrat." Oy, vey! Moving on ...

Why do you think that the Republican Party -- which has had essentially the same position on racial discrimination for more than a hundred years, "The law should be colorblind" -- doesn't support programs like Affirmative Action and racial set asides while Democrats do? Part of it is because those programs discriminate unconstitutionally against white people. But, another big part of it is simply that white Republicans believe black Americans are just as capable as whites and don't need special help, while Democrats believe that blacks are too incompetent to compete with white people without getting a helping hand from the government.

Yeah, Hawkins. If you think blacks are as "capable" as whites, why don't you trust them to vote in accordance with their best interests? Or do they have to be "conservative" blacks who vote for the GOP in order to be as capable as whites? And if the Republican Party's position is a "colorblind" one, why are you, Hawkins, so caught up with color yourself?

The truth slips out every so often -- and not just when Joe Biden or Robert Byrd make the mistake of saying what they really think. White liberal Democrats are much more likely to make race based attacks on blacks who make them angry than their counterparts on the right. That black conservative is an Oreo, he's an uncle Tom. She's an Aunt Jemima. That black guy running for President might be a coke-dealing Muslim (Silent subtext: You know how THOSE PEOPLE are. Do you really trust ONE OF THEM to do a white person's job like the Presidency?)

That's not to say that there aren't any racists on the right, because there certainly are, but as a general rule, Republicans are -- and have been -- considerably less racist than Democrats since the founding of our parties all the way to the present day.

The truth does, indeed, slip out. And the truth that has slipped out here is that Hawkins is a race-hustler. If this whole piece isn't a race-based attack on white Democrats who makes Hawkins angry, I don't know what it is. The whole point of this piece is to make people like me out to be a racist simply because I am a white liberal Democrat. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I fail to see a distinction between a white liberal Democrat saying "that black conservative is an Oreo" and a white conservative Republican saying "that white liberal Democrat wants to keep black folk illiterate and on the plantation." And this whole piece is also very patronizing towards blacks, too. It presumes that the 90% of black people who vote Democrat aren't "capable" enough to see how the white liberal Democrats are keeping them down. In Hawkins' mind, these poor, unfortunate black folk are nothing but brainwashed dupes who can't discern the truth -- at least without the helping hand of white conservatives.

The Democrats have just managed to turn their weakness into a strength. Instead of discriminating against blacks because they think they're inferior, they support giving them special race based privileges because they think they're inferior. It's a position that a liberal and a Klansman, who are and always have been mostly Democrats, could both agree on.

Go home, Hawkins. We've learned a lot about you and race. Take your racialized politics somewhere else.

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Cassy Fiano
Issue: Misrepresenting Critics of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Cassy Fiano is a conservative blogger who constantly parrots the most reactionary conservative talking points regarding global warming and climate change. Cassy Fiano, who constantly refers to Al Gore in a belittling way as the "Goracle" (but who couldn't handle my referring to her as an acolyte of conservative blogger John Hawkins - even though that's exactly what she is), as far as I can tell, has absolutely ZERO background in the science that shapes the global warming and climate change debates. Because of that, she is reduced to dealing with the issue exclusively from an unscientific and irrational ideological point of view. Consequently, her commentary on global warming and climate change is almost always ideologically hyperbolic; and her interpretation and understanding of the positions of environmental scientists, even those scientists she considers to represent her own views on the subject, are often mistaken. Cassy Fiano seems to be a nice-enough person, but she is an uncritical and uninspiring thinker. Unlike her sharp and smart mentor, John Hawkins, owner of the conservative Right Wing News blog, Cassy Fiano is, in my view, not all that smart. I have strong opinions about John Hawkins, his ideology and politics, and what I think is his cowardly behavior toward his critics, but there's no denying that he is a smart, intellectually sharp, well-informed, and critical thinker. The same can't be said, I'm afraid, of Cassy Fiano. In the end, Cassy Fiano's deficits in the critical thinking department, when coupled with her ideological fundamentalism and rightwing rigidity, make for some sloppy blogging. This posting, for instance, references an open letter written by the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Cassy Fiano, however, doesn't actually link to the letter written by the SPPI, though she does post a pretty long section of this letter on her website. Instead, in a "Hat Tip" afterward, she links to a posting on the SPPI's open letter from a website/blog called "Moonbattery." Nothing wrong with that, I guess, except that she uncritically parrots the Moonbattery assessment of this letter as a demand by the SPPI to the United Nations IPCC to "stop pushing the global warming hoax." She doesn't stop to think whether "Moonbattery" got it right. And, in fact, a closer reading of the SPPI's open letter reveals something quite different than what either "Moonbattery" or Cassy Fiano argue. The way Cassy Fiano writes this posting indicates to me that she either doesn't have the mental faculties to read the SPPI's open letter correctly, or that she actually has no interest in doing so without superimposing an ideological position that isn't there on the content of the SPPI's letter.

Before I show you specifically what I mean, let me step back and declare my own "bias," if you will, on the subject. First off, I am not an environmental scientist, so I make no claims to speak as an authority on the subject. Moreover, I recognize that there are dissenting viewpoints within the scientific community on the subject of global warming and climate change, especially when it comes to the impact of human behavior on such processes. However, I also personally believe that behaving in ways that help to preserve our physical environment is commendable and advisable. What's wrong with recycling? What's wrong with reducing one's carbon footprint? To listen to folks like Cassy Fiano, one would come to the conclusion that there is nothing humans do that can negatively affect the earth's natural environment. That just flies in the face of common sense, if you ask me. But, that's neither here nor there. My point with this posting is to show how Cassy Fiano is a sloppy blogger, driven more by ideology, in how she misinterprets the "science" of global warming and climate change and how she, in point of fact, misrepresents the content of the SPPI's open letter to the UN.

Let's start with how Cassy Fiano starts her blog posting. She writes:

One hundred scientists from around the globe aren't drinking the Goracle's Kool-Aid, and have petitioned the UN to stop pushing the global warming hoax, and the hysteria associated with it.

First, the SPPI's open letter never refers to global warming as a "hoax." In fact, the letter notes that global warming does indeed appear to be happening. It does not contest the data indicating as much. What it does challenge are two things: (1) that this global warming is an "abnormal" phenomenon and (2) that human behavior plays (or can play) a decisive impact in reversing this current global warming trend. Its beef with the UN is that it is advocating for policy changes that it believes will have no impact on global warming and climate change and that it believes will waste valuable human energy and resources that would be better spent preparing individuals to deal better with these inevitable changes. Its basic argument is that people would be better-served by policies that give them the means to deal with the consequences of global warming and climate change, and not by policies that seek to prevent global warming and climate change from occurring. In fact, the very text of the letter that Cassy Fiano cites in her own blog posting says as much. Here's one part of the letter that Cassy Fiano cites in full on her blog which should have given Cassy Fiano pause:

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

The places of emphasis in the above citation are mine. Note that the scientists aren't saying climate change is a hoax. Just the opposite. They accept it as "inevitable" and even consider it to be a "threat." They recognize that people are "vulnerable" to climate change. They basically are arguing that climate change is real, it poses danger, and we can do nothing to stop it. To these scientists, the only thing we can do is be as prepared for it as we possibly can. When you think about it, it is clear that their recommendations are predicated on the fact that climate change is NOT a hoax! But Cassy Fiano either cannot see this point or refuses to do so. Instead, she ends her posting without any analysis or interpretation of the content of the letter. She refers to the signatories of the letter as an impressive cadre of scientists as if their names on the list somehow proves her point that global warming and climate change are hoaxes perpetrated by kindergartners imagining things out of thin air. Forget the fact that there are as many respected scientists who arrive at different scientific conclusions about human behavioral factors involved in global warming and climate change. It seems clear to me that Cassy Fiano is not really interested in science. And it's safe to say that she's apparently not really even interested in carefully reading what scientists who critique the conventional wisdom on the subject are saying. No, she just throws out the usual diatribe against the entire establishment that reads the science behind global warming and climate change differently than she, in all her own scientific wisdom and knowledge on the subject, does. Here's, specifically, how she concludes her blog posting:

The list of signatories is impressive. But what would they know compared to the Goracle, a politician who was a C student in science? Besides, abandoning the global warming hoax means abandoning the perfect excuse to inflict socialism and economic ruin on Western Civilization -- and of course, blame the United States for yet another catastrophe. Why would the Goracle and the bureaucrats at the UN possibly give that up, no matter how much the science disagrees with their agenda?

How does one even begin to approach the anti-intellectualism and the chain of non-sequiturs that both constitute this rant and expose the mediocre and unserious mind behind it. What does Cassy Fiano have to say about the scientists with "impressive" credentials who arrive at different conclusions? What do Al Gore's grades in science have to do with his current knowledge of the subject or with the validity of his conclusions? And how in God's good creation does she leap from efforts to address the negative impacts of global warming and climate change -- impacts which even the signatories of this open letter seem to accept as realistic -- to the "economic ruin of Western Civilization" and some sinister global socialist conspiracy? Cassy Fiano throws out science as if the degree of its validity depends on the degree to which it conforms with her ideology. All one needs to do is to observe the "scientific" method Cassy Fiano uses to criticize Al Gore's arguments to know that one is dealing with an unserious charlatan. I will, though, agree with Cassy Fiano on one point -- there certainly is an agenda being pushed here that is at odds with science. And one need look no further than Cassy Fiano's blog posting on the subject to find it.

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Right Wing News
Issue: The banning of huckupchuck

I'm not going to harp on the issue, I just wanted to take this opportunity to note that I still haven't been forgotten and that the issue of my banning is still, after some 6 months have passed, on some people's minds. In RWN's regular, bi-weekly Q&A Friday, a commenter, rmiller, thought to pose the following question:

Mr. Hawkins...

I still think it is important to clarify, at least somewhat, why Huckupchuk is no longer posting here.
Care to do that?

Posted by rmiller
December 13, 2007 1:33 AM

All I can do is express my appreciation to rmiller for thinking to ask the question again so as to let Hawkins know that this is not forgotten. I don't think Hawkins will "care" to answer the question; but I am thankful that some people care enough to still ask the question. So, if you ever read this blog, rmiller, please accept my thanks.

Who is Huck_Martha?

Hmmm. I was reading the comments to this posting over at the Right Wing News blog and I noticed this comment:

I'm curious. Who do you consider the "founder" of Christianity? Emperor Constantine ?

Posted by Huck_Martha
December 8, 2007 9:00 PM |

I don't know who the heck this "Huck_Martha" person is, but I can assure anyone from RWN who might wonder, it is certainly not I. (As proof, please know that I would never write "Who do you consider ..." Such bad grammar. The correct thing to write, which I would always do, is "Whom do you consider ...") Still ... I think the person who posts under the numerous "Martha" reincarnations is a certifiable nutcase. And it angers me that this person would create such a username knowing full well about my history at RWN. I would expect anyone who knows of my history at RWN to keep any part of my identity out of what s/he does. And this "Martha" character has been around RWN long enough to certainly know about me. I only hope the "Huck" part of the "Huck_Martha" signature comes more from the rise of Mike Huckabee and not because "Martha" is somehow harking back to me when I posted there as "huckupchuck." (Aside: The rise of Mike Huckabee, especially his collaboration with Chuck Norris on a well-known campaign ad has really been a kind of curse for The Huck Upchuck.) Back to "Huck_Martha" ... I don't know how long "Huck_Martha" has been posting at RWN, but I hope that account is banned forthwith.

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Right Wing News
Issue: Redstate.com's Banning of Ron Paul Supporters from Posting Comments

John Hawkins, in a piece that discusses banning Ron Paul supporters from commenting on blogs, wrote this:

So, was Redstate right to ban Ron Paul's supporters? Well, it's not the way I would have gone -- ehr, I think -- but, then again, if I had lots of RP supporters posting on RWN regularly, I might be tempted to go that route myself.

I don't want to even get into whether or not Redstate is right or wrong to ban Ron Paul supporters. What I want to point out is the brazen hypocrisy of John Hawkins. He "pretends" to be probably more noble and committed to dissent on his own blog. The fact is that he is happy to ban critics for much, much less. Hawkins bans people like me just because, I think, he takes a personal dislike to criticism that cuts too close to home, makes him uncomfortable, is intelligently expressed, and makes sense. Unlike Ron Paul supporters, I've never called anyone, much less Hawkins, a fascist just because we disagree politically. I don't think I've ever used profanity on RWN's comment boards. I've always tried to stay away from gratuitous ad hominem attacks. I try to stay away from juvenile rants, drive-bys, flame wars, and trollishness on blogs. I've always owned up to my mistakes of fact, and I always apologized when my passions caused me to step over lines of propriety at times and others called me on it. And I always try to express myself in complete sentences, logically, and with proper grammar and punctuation. As for Hawkins, he can't even be bothered by the intellectual exercise of conversation and dialogue. He almost never descends from his lofty blog-throne to explain himself, to respond to criticism, or to engage the comment dialogue on his own blog.

I think his behavior in banning me and then his pretense to be so tolerant of dissent for those who behave much, much worse makes him out to be a fraud and a hypocrite. And he's also an intellectual coward. In fact, although I disagree with Redstate's position on banning the Ron Paul supporters, I give Redstate some credit because at least the editor of the site stepped up and had the decency and the balls to give some explanation or reason for why the ban is in place there. Hawkins didn't even have the courage and the integrity to do that with me, even in a private email exchange, or with others who asked him for some explanation of my banning there.

I know there are some good people that I got to know from RWN who continue to visit my site and maintain a blog relationship with me, even while they continue to be active and supportive of Hawkins at RWN. I treasure and value that these folks still engage with me from time to time, and I wouldn't want to lose that. And I don't mean for my comments about Hawkins to offend these folks in any way, but I will not sit around and let this fraud Hawkins get away with such insincere claims about respecting dissent. It's just not true. And it's embarrassingly shameful. And it's sad that he gets away with it among his readership when he says it or implies it. And I'll continue to point this out whenever I see it surface at RWN, for my sake if for no one else's.

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Word Around the Net ...
Issue: Profiles in Commenting

Although I have Word Around the Net on my Con-Blogger blogroll, I don't think I've ever mentioned Christopher Taylor's blog here in a posting at The Huck Upchuck. And that's an omission I need to correct. I have known Christopher Taylor through blogs for some time now. He is a committed and principled conservative, so we disagree a lot, and we've even had some bouts of very harsh exchanges, but I have to say that he's definitely not a partisan ideologue. He listens to opposing viewpoints with an open mind and he always responds thoughtfully and civilly in any controversial debate.

In any event, Christopher Taylor has his own blog that I think is excellent as a window to thoughtful conservative positions. It is also a blog based on a very creative concept of perusing the exchange of ideas that take place in comment boxes at particular blogs on issues that Christopher Taylor finds interesting. I'm sure that my liberal friends will find a lot on this blog to disagree with, but I'm also sure that anyone who visits this blog will appreciate the thoughtfulness that goes into his writing. I am amazed that Christopher Taylor can find the time to write very lengthy and well-researched essays with as much regularity as he does. You should check it out.

But the real reason for my writing this post is to highlight one of the aspects of Christopher Taylor's blog that I find to be an unparalleled resource for anyone who visits blogs and likes to leave comments. This is his Profiles in Commenting series. It is a fantastic description of the numerous types of comments and commenters that exist in the blogosphere, as well a very good guide on commenting etiquette. And Christopher Taylor regularly updates and adds to this list as he uncovers something new in the blog commenting world.

I just wanted to highlight this for readers of The Huck Upchuck, and encourage you to visit Christopher Taylor's blog.

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Right Wing News ...
Issue: The Obama Candidacy and Race

Rightwing Blogger John Hawkins, in response to a question about why Hillary leads Obama in most head-to-head state polls, had this to say:

As to why Hillary is beating Obama, well, aside from the fact that he has slightly less experience than Hillary, black Americans make up roughly a quarter of Democratic voters, but there are only a handful of black Democrats in Congress who've been elected in Democratic districts that aren't majority black. In other words, liberals support programs like Affirmative Action because they think blacks are inferior to whites and they don't want people they regard as their inferiors representing them in Congress -- or as their nominee in 2008. Obama has been a rock star during the primary season, but the racists in the Democratic Party will probably prevent him from getting elected.

Notice two things here. First, Hawkins presumes that the only likely way a black Democrat can get elected is if he or she runs in a majority black district. In other words, black people vote for black people because they are black. He doesn't talk about black candidates being elected on the substance of their positions or on the issues relevant to the local community. He's not interested in this. Heck, he doesn't even consider this as a possibility. Second, Hawkins also thinks liberal preference for Hillary over Obama is because liberals think blacks are inferior. What? Are blacks such the "objects" in Hawkins' mind that they can't be thought of as holding an independent ideology, that they can't be included among the category of "liberals"? Think about it, by Hawkins' logic, black voters who prefer Hillary over Obama must think that they themselves are inferior to whites. In fact, Hawkins doesn't even consider that there are black folk who support Hillary. He just assumes that black Democrats, if they don't consider themselves inferior to whites, must have to vote for the black guy.

In short, I look at the way Hawkins phrases his arguments and I wonder: who is it that is making surface-level racist assumptions about voting behavior and candidate preference here? Hint: it ain't white liberal Democrats.

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Right Wing News and Cassy Fiano ...
Issue: Their Trashtalking New Orleans

Conservative blogger John Hawkins of Right Wing News has a column over at Townhall.com, which he cross-references on his own blog, and his blogger sidekick, Cassy Fiano, has her own piling-on posting relative to the topic.

Well, I tried to leave an extended comment on the Townhall comment boards, but they limit comments to 2000 characters, and mine went way over. So here's what I wrote in full. It applies to Hawkins primarily, but it also certainly can be said to his acolyte, Cassy Fiano, too. Here's what I had to say:

That fraud Hawkins is so easy with the condemnations. He loves to throw them around left and right when he knows nothing about it. I'd bet Hawkins hasn't even been to New Orleans ever in his life. If he had, he might at least respect the historical value of the city to shaping this great country.

As a native New Orleanian, let me tell Hawkins a few truths about my hometown and the people who live here.

First, the people here love their homes. Generations of families are rooted here. Matriarchs and patriarchs, aunts and uncles, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, and even children are buried here. Everything my family has ever had and earned and been has come from living in this great City. To tell me that I'm stupid for living here, and to get over the tremendous loss we have faced here, is callous in the extreme. And I'd even say typically conservative. How would he react if I said that his home in North Carolina is a pissant little nothing, devoid of anything meaningful in life, so why would anybody live there? I bet he'd be a little ticked. Rightly so. One does not just throw away tradition so cavalierly and easily. One would also think that a conservative would understand this.

Second thing: Hawkins smears every person in New Orleans, heroes every one, who has come back here and rebuilt a life on the ruins of destruction without getting so much as a passing glance from the Government. There are thousands upon thousands of people who are the epitome of the "picking yourself up by the bootstrap" mantra conservatives are so fond of. In fact, knowing how much of a coward Hawkins is and how quickly he folds under the mildest of intellectual and psychological challenges, I don't think Hawkins has a half-an-ounce of what it takes to weather such a calamitous experience. He'd probably wither like a prune if he and every single member of his extended family left their hometown and everything they owned one day and found out the next day that it was all gone, everything, and faced the prospect of having to start over completely with nothing except the clothes on his back and whatever he managed to save in his bank account.

Sure there are some people who are all too willing to play the eternal victim and who are living on the dole in New Orleans. But I dare say that there are plenty of such people in Hawkins' town, too. The fact is that there are exceedingly more people in New Orleans who aren't playing the eternal victim and who are managing to thrive on their individual courage, their ingenuity, and their strong sense of neighborliness and community.

Finally, I find it incredibly rich that Hawkins drools over Iraqis with purple fingers, and never has a beef about throwing US taxpayer money at them over there, and that he laments the incessant negative media coverage of the Iraq war, but that he can't even find a single thing of worth ever to write about New Orleans and its people. As I said before, there is heroism abounding in New Orleans these days. I wish Hawkins would find a little bit of that here to highlight. But it would take him a herculean effort to be human, instead of a conservative ideologue, and I'm not sure that Hawkins can do it.

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Right Wing News ...
Issue: Rightwing Hypocrisy - Hawkins scoffs at a Liberal blog for "STIFLING DISSENT" by closing off comments.

John Hawkins, owner of the conservative blog Right Wing News, writes about a liberal blog doing some "banning" of critical commentary:

When a few righties stopped by to challenge the almighty, allknowing Mahablogger on her rhetoric, she shut the comments down. Effectively STIFLING DISSENT, as it were.

Seems to me that shutting down the comments "stifles" both dissent and support. It's an equal opportunity restriction. Given that, I can't see how Hawkins can make this a question of ideological censorship as he seems to be doing. But, that's not really the point I want to make. My beef with this is the bald-faced hypocrisy of Hawkins, who has the nerve to throw stones and brazenly criticize a liberal blog in this way when he did precisely the same to me. In fact, I can argue that what Hawkins did to me is even worse, since he didn't muffle the rumblings of his own stormtroopers when he shut me down. Sadly, what I find even more discouraging, though, is that the regular commenters at RWN seem to have collective amnesia about this, too, never calling Hawkins on this hypocrisy. When Hawkins complains about the Mahablog effectively "STIFLING DISSENT," hardly any of his regular commenters think to say to him: "Uh, but Hawkins, what about Huckupchuck? Did you not 'stifle' him for no apparent reason other than that he expressed dissenting and critical viewpoints? Be careful throwing stones when you live in a glass house yourself." Or something along those lines.

I know that there are some good people on the RWN comment boards who have asked Hawkins for some clarification on why he banned me. And I appreciate that. But such efforts have only been limited to asking for clarification. And, with the exception of a regular commenter there who goes by the name President_Friedman, I haven't seen anyone criticize Hawkins publicly for banning me and yet failing to offer any reason why he did so. And I certainly haven't seen anyone at RWN publicly call Hawkins on the hypocrisy of his criticizing the Mahablog and other liberal blogs for "stifling dissent" when he's guilty of the same behavior.

NOTE (Friday, August 17, 2007, 7:44PM CST): I updated this posting from its original, which I posted hastily a few hours ago before heading out the door for dinner with the family, in order to add some more thoughts on the subject.

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Right Wing News ...
Issue: Focusing on the "Bad" about America

I can't tell you how many times John Hawkins, owner of the Right Wing News blog, has harped on about how "negative" liberals are about America and how we only see the "bad" in and about our country, and never the good.

Well, imagine my surprise to see John Hawkins asking his own readers, in all seriousness, to "Suggest The Worst People, Places, And Things In America". I guess it's o.k. for Rightwingers to complain when liberals point out those unsavory things that are present in our country; but when conservatives do it, it's fun! As John Hawkins exhorts his readers:

Well now, I'm thinking about doing some writing on the subject and I was wondering if you had any suggestions for what you think are the worst people, places, and things in America.

After all, I'd hate to miss any good ones.

Good ones, indeed!

Come to think of it, John Hawkins traffics in and profits by what he thinks is "negative" about America. That's pretty much all he writes about: if it's not the evils of liberals and Democrats, it's the corrupt squishes on his own side of the aisle. When will Hawkins say something nice about this great country of ours?

But, that's neither here nor there. The hypocritical irony is that Hawkins and his ilk, while complaining about liberals doing it, likewise profit by attacking (and even hating) parts of America and Americans, so his call for more "good ones" about what's "worst" in America shouldn't be all that surprising. In fact, it's quite par for the course.

Confidential to President_Friedman

President_Friedman, if you're still visiting my site on occasion, I want you to know that I noticed your gesture in Q&A Friday at Right Wing News, solitary though it was. Thanks.