Right Wing News Banning Update

So, I am finally returned back home from my trip to Mexico and I go to the office this morning for the first time in a long time. I fire up my computer and get to work -- and there was a lot of it (work) waiting for me. So it wasn't until my afternoon break when I decided to see what Hawkins was up to for today.

But, lo and behold, my workstation computer is forbidden access to Right Wing News! I had to chuckle. Apparently, I guess Hawkins must have first tried to ban the IP address of my workstation computer from accessing RWN just before I went to Mexico. Only I wasn't aware of it because I wasn't using my workstation computer once the IP address was banned until today. I mean, I can't even read RWN from my workstation computer now! How 'bout 'dem apples!?!

I find it humorous because, obviously, I have access to the internet via other IP addresses. And in the days of pretty much universal wireless access in coffee shops and other public spaces, not to mention internet cafes and other public workstations with internet access, this method of banning is almost useless.

So, I guess because banning one IP address didn't work, Hawkins simply terminated my entire account at RWN. Oh, well...

I still really am dumbfounded as to what I might have said or done to elicit such a hostile reaction and all-out internet guerrilla warfare from Hawkins. I mean, really, all he would have had to do was to ask me not to post anymore, and I would have respected his request. But to try to prevent me from even reading his blog? That's going a bit far, don't you think?

Now, maybe there's another reason to explain why I am forbidden to access Hawkins' site from my workstation computer. But I can't fathom what it could be. I thought: hmmmm, maybe some malicious virus had infested my workstation computer and it was sending out "comment spam," so he shut off communication with my workstation computer IP address. I don't know much about these things, but this thought did cross my mind. But I doubt this is the reason, because why then would Hawkins shut down my registered account at RWN, thus making it impossible for me to post comments via any other IP address? Now that I think about it, maybe Hawkins thought my continued posting even after having my workstation IP address cut off was my attempt to circumvent his ban, and thus he shut down my entire account. Who knows? But you would think that he would at least send me an email warning me, or informing me that I've been banned, or something. But I got nothing.

Now as for other possible explanations for why I can't access RWN from my workstation computer, I've gone through them all. But none of them holds up as possible. For instance, I can pretty much access any other site on the internet from my workstation computer, so it can't be that my employer is restricting access to Hawkins' website. And the fact that other computers in my office that have unique IP addresses can access RWN seems to indicate that the problem is uniquely connected to my workstation computer's IP address. I have no choice but to assume that Hawkins just banned my workstation computer's IP address on his end.

Why is Hawkins going to such extremes here? It baffles me. I mean, if Hawkins is really that put out by me, I wish he would just have the cojones to say it. And as I said before, if he had just simply asked me to stop posting on his site, I would have stopped. Sheesh!

From the Archives: What Does God Know?

I wrote the following some three-and-a-half years ago on this blog, but thought it was good enough to post again. It's as relevant now as it was then and still reflects my beliefs on the subject. I've edited the original slightly just to correct some minor spelling and grammatical errors. Enjoy!

What prompts this post is a discussion/friendly debate that I had last night with my brother, who is visiting from Berkeley where he is studying towards his Master's Degree in Theology. (By the way, my brother is a member of the Society of Jesus, a catholic religious order more commonly know as the "Jesuits." My brother is not a priest, but rather a religious brother.) In any event, the discussion we had last night centered around the question: What Does God Know? This is a question that has been discussed around the dinner table at my home many evenings. So much so that my 5-yr-old daughter has memorized my pat answer to the question. Before I give you my answer, I should let you know that both my brother and my wife (not to mention my daughter, who is inclined to side with them) do not agree with me on this issue. So, what is my answer to that interesting question? Well ... I say: "God knows that which is knowable." Seems fairly inoccuous; but its implications are critical, because it implies that there are certain things which God simply cannot know.

I don't believe God knows the future of human behavior. I don't believe God knows from the moment of our birth what our life actions will be and whether we are destined for heaven or hell or purgatory or whatever. I believe that God is omniscient, but only in term of what is knowable in the context of my faith in the notion of free choice. If God knows our destiny, how is it that we have any choice or freedom at all? Now, my wife and brother say that we cannot understand the mystery of God's omniscience coupled with the existence of true free choice because we think as humans do, and not as God does; but I argue that even this position is the product of a human thought process that leads one to the notion of mystery and faith. My belief is that we can only know and understand things through the prism of our humanity and our human faculties, and so we must rely on our best efforts to lead us to understanding. For me, this means that we must rely on our faith, informed by our reason. And my reason informs my faith that God knows the infinite possibilities of our choices, but he does not know (and does not compromise free will by thus knowing) what it is that we will choose in those moments of our life.

Because, if you buy into the notion that God knows our choices, and where we will be, the possibility of redemption through an act of free choice is not possible. We either have the ability to turn from evil and repent from sin at any point in the eternal existence of our soul (even after death), or we have no choice in the matter. If God knows from the moment of our creation that we are destined for heaven or hell, then how is it that we are free to choose either the path to heaven or to hell? In a sense, it is already chosen for us because it is predetermined.

My brother argues that God is always with us in the context of our choices, and I don't disagree; but being with us and being in full knowledge of the infinite possibilities of choice does not mean that God knows which of those possibilities we will choose.

Let's move to some examples. We humans may not know if life exists on other planets in other galaxies; but if such is true, then God certainly knows it, since he is the creator. God knows all things that can be known. He knows what will happen to the arctic penguin when the leaf falls from the tree in the tropical rain forest. God knows how the bird's chirp in Louisiana affects the sleeping patterns of the Prime Minister of Japan. All of this, I believe, is "knowable" because it doesn't affect human free choice and free will. However, if I get drunk at a New Year's Eve Party and make the mistake of driving home afterwards in bad weather, does God know that 10 minutes later I will drive into a tree and break my back? If I have free will and free choice, He can't. Why? Because it presupposes that within those 10 minutes, my ability to exercise free choice is no longer operational. I can't believe this. Why is it not possible for me to get into the car, drive for five minutes, realize that what I am doing is dangerous, and pull off into a parking lot to call for a cab or to sleep off the drunkenness? Of course, it IS possible for me to choose this.

Now, my brother would say that God is with me at every instant and every fraction of an instant and so is knowledgable of my choice as I make it. In other words he knows what I am going to do when I do it. But this still begs the question: who makes the choice? Something must come first. Is the choice and God's knowledge of it at the moment of choosing one and the same? It can't be, because then it is not fully free. I must make the choice distinct from God's knowledge in order for it to be fully my own free choice.

So I always end with the compromise: God is omniscient. He knows all that which is knowable. I don't pretend to define that which is knowable; but I do believe that God cannot know the unknowable. I welcome your thoughts on the subject.

Home!

Well, I made it home safely. Now, no sooner do I have a chance to kiss my wife and kids and crash out of exhaustion, I am back at my DJ duties at WTUL - New Orleans, which is 91.5 FM on the radio dial in the New Orleans area. I do an early Sunday morning (3-6am) progressive music show (only for the Summer!) and the Sunday, 6-8pm Jazz Show.

It's GREAT to be home. More later!

Going Home

In about 12 hours I will be leaving


















after a 5-week stint here and going back to


















where I'll reunite with my family, sleep in my own comfy bed, and drink a cup of Community coffee in the morning while poring over the print version of "Da Paper"!

It's been a good five weeks in the beautiful land of the Mexica; but I'm happy to be going home.

UPDATE: Saturday, July 14, 2007, 3:42PM CST: Now I'm here, safely through customs and immigration. God willing, in a few short hours, I'll be home.

Vitter Scandal Update

Well, apparently the New Orleans Times-Picayune has been contacted by and has interviewed one of David Vitter's "escorts," a woman who went by the name of Wendy Cortez, but whose real name is apparently Wendy Yow.

Here´s a shocking selection from this Times-Picayune piece:

Yow characterized the senator as a good man but said she was perturbed that he portrayed himself as a politician who would bring moral authority to his office when he was using her services on the side.

Her former boyfriend Tait Cortez, contacted by The Times-Picayune, said he has seen several photos of Wendy Cortez and Vitter together.

Tait Cortez, who works in construction and often travels to compete in weekend rodeos, said he dated Wendy Cortez for several years in the late 1990s and lived with her for more than a year. The couple never married. Her relationship with Vitter, which Tait Cortez claimed went beyond the brothel business, contributed to their breakup, he said.

"She said she gave exotic massages," Cortez, 40, said. "That's when the trouble (between us) started."

Towards the end of a waning relationship in the summer of 1998, Wendy told him she was an "exotic masseause," Cortez said.

"She told me she had clients lined up; high-dollar people, lawyers, politicians, golfers," he said.

While unpacking boxes following the couple's move to Alabama in 1998, Tait Cortez said he found photos of a smiling Wendy at a formal affair, wearing an evening gown, alongside a man he described as a "city slicker" wearing a suit. In another photo, that same dark-haired man appeared with Wendy at a waterfront party, he said. The man was wearing shorts and a t-shirt next to Wendy in a bikini, Cortez said. "She had his hand on his crotch," Cortez said. "They were smiling."

Cortez said the photo stung him. It was "more sexual" than any others, and he felt that Wendy and the man exhibited more than a business relationship, he said.

"She said it was a client of hers," Cortez said. "She said it was David Vitter, a politician."

Yowza! Still, I´m taking all this with a grain of salt. I want to hear what Vitter has to say.

As usual, Oyster at Your Right Hand Thief is all over the story and has the latest. A big hat-tip to him for pointing me to all these details.

While there still exist some inconsistencies in the details, the situation is looking all the more grim for Vitter.

Where are you, Vitter? We need to hear from you before this thing gets way beyond your control to manage.

Bush´s Justice Problem: "Scooter" Libby vs. Genarlow Wilson

You know, many on the right wing have applauded Bush for commuting "Scooter" Libby's sentence so that he doesn´t have to spend any time in jail while he appeals his perjury conviction. The argument that is most often given is that Libby was subject to a blatant miscarriage of justice, even though the process itself worked as it should have.

Yet, most of these same folks are aware of the miscarriage of justice perpetrated in the case involving Genarlow Wilson, a Georgia honor-roll student who is behind bars for having had consensual oral sex with a 15-yrs-old girl when he was only 17-yrs-old himself. And yet, I don´t recall hearing the same people defending Bush´s commutation of the Libby sentence also demanding a Presidential pardon for this young guy who was clearly wronged. In fact, many conservatives recognized the injustice of this case, and generally criticized as flawed the system that produced this outcome, but nonetheless were content to allow the system to work the problem out for itself. There was no call, as far as I know, for Presidential override of the system like there was for the Libby case. In general, people were very deferential to the principle of the rule of law in this case, all the while criticizing the system as flawed.

The unfortunate perception that we are left with is that Libby, because he is a crony of Bush and because he happens to have a career in government, deserves this kind of Presidential intervention to rectify an injustice but that Genarlow Wilson, because he´s just a kid in Georgia without connections at the White House, somehow doesn´t. And even conservatives have picked up on this imbalance and seeming unfairness when they express disappointment that Bush commuted Libby´s sentence while Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, whom many conservatives consider to be law enforcement heros, remain, in their view, wrongly incarcerated.

The problem with the Bush commutation of Libby´s sentence is not that it is illegal or unconstitutional, but that it damages public confidence in the rule of law and reinforces the notion that the justice system serves the politically connected. And that damage is all the more profound when the originator of this damage is none other than the chief law enforcement officer of the country.

As Andrew Sullivan says:

One rule of law for connected neocons; another for the rest of the country. Get angrier. And get rid of them.

I couldn´t agree more.

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Right Wing News ...
Issue: Banning as a "Badge of Honor"?

John Hawkins reports at his blog, Right Wing News, that he might have been blackballed by the White House from participating in a "blogger teleconference." He runs through a lot of possible reasons, one of which is that maybe he was just too tough on the White House, thus wearing out his welcome there. In fact, he prefers to think of this as the real reason because it makes him seem oh-so-important and oh-so-principled! It also makes the Bush Administration and Tony Snow appear like a bunch of wusses who can't stand the heat from a little ole' blogger like Hawkins.

Hmmmm. I can't help but wonder ... Is Hawkins subconsciously giving me some sort of hint? Regardless, maybe I should take it as such. Until I hear otherwise, I will just assume that I have been "blackballed" from RWN simply for being too tough on Hawkins, who simply just couldn't stand the heat from a little ole' commenter like me. And it's something to wear as a "badge of honor."

I have to admit that it is an interesting approach ... though it wouldn't reflect all too well on Hawkins now, would it?

The Vitter Scandal Plot Thickens

But only a little bit. This breaking news seems to confirm that Vitter was, indeed, in contact with the DC Madam:

A phone number for Sen. David Vitter, R-La., appears at least five times in the billing records of what federal authorities say was a Washington call-girl operation, the first just four months after he was sworn in to the U.S. House in 1999 and the last on Mardi Gras 2001.

Under pressure earlier this week, Vitter acknowledged committing a "very serious sin" and that his number showed up in the records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, who has come to be known as the "D.C. Madam." An attorney for Palfrey has said Vitter's number was found once in the records, but a search of the documents by The Times-Picayune turned up four more calls to a number once registered to Vitter. The attorney said that clients also used phones in hotel rooms, so that not all the numbers can be traced to the callers.

However, the good news for Vitter, if you can call it that, is that, unless allegations of more recent misconduct surface, he is unlikely to face either prosecution for a criminal act of solicitation, given that the statute of limitations has passed for when these incidents seem to have occurred, or even an Ethics Committee investigation because the transgressions occurred during Vitter's stint in the House of Representatives, where he no longer serves.

But the damage done to his reputation may not be insurmountable. That remains to be seen. Eventually, he will have to face the music and his public. Fortunately for Vitter, but unfortunately for the state of Louisiana, Louisianians tend to forgive their corrupt and fallen politicians quite readily and also tend to re-elect them over and over again, too, until they are finally locked up in jail.

David Vitter (R-LA): It Was Gay Marriage Made Me Do It! Honest!

I have to say, this piece by satirical blogger "Jon Swift" is a classic. This paragraph pretty much captures the essence of the satire in a nutshell:

Though it is very magnanimous of Vitter to accept responsibility for his transgressions, is he really to blame? After the Hollywood left redefined marriage, it must have been a very difficult and confusing time for him. The failure of the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment must have taken a severe toll on him as he struggled to figure out what marriage really is if even gays can do it. As he grappled with the issue, is it any surprise that he found solace in the embrace of a disinterested paid companion?

But the entire piece is great satire. Read it all from start to finish.

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Right Wing News ...
Issue: Some RWN regulars are asking Hawkins to come clean on why he banned me from commenting.

Every other week, John Hawkins, owner of the Right Wing News blog, has a thing he calls "Q&A Friday" in which, via a regular blog posting, he asks his readers to pose questions in the comments section on any subject of their choice and out of which he will choose a select handful to respond to. I have to admit that this "Q&A Friday" idea of Hawkins was a stroke of genius. Seriously. His readers give him interesting ideas for content and he gives his readers a chance to compete for a prime mention on his blog. It's a win-win situation and it undoubtedly helps to keep his blog traffic up, especially on Fridays and over the weekend. And, in fact, he even, on occasion, had selected a couple of my questions to answer. But that was some time ago when I was still in his good graces.

His 69th "Q&A Friday" posting is now up. And, as usual, it is generating a nice round of questions.

It's been more than two weeks now since I was banned from commenting at Right Wing News, and some of the folks that I have come to know at RWN over the years are taking the opportunity in this round of "Q&A Friday" questioning to ask Hawkins why he might have banned me.

I don't think Hawkins will answer, nor do I suspect he will rescind the ban, nor will I ever try to get around the ban; but I appreciate the efforts of those who are trying to find out why it happened.

I should say that I also have no illusions. Eventually, after some time, folks will just stop asking him why, and everyone will move on to debating the current issues of the day, or to other things altogether. Heck, I'm sure even I will find myself distracted by other things and moving on with my life. It's all part of the way life goes. But I take some solace in knowing that some people will remember this as a troubling and uncharacteristic bit of behavior by Hawkins, and that this little bit of cowardice (I don't know how else to describe Hawkins' refusal even to respond) will also always be a part of what Hawkins himself will have to live with. Not that it will prick anyone's conscience all that much, because it is pretty insignificant; but it will always be there for those of us who will remember it.

But, Hawkins may surprise and respond yet! So, I keep a bit of hope alive as long as there are those at RWN who keep asking. And today they are asking. I'll keep you informed if anything comes of it.

Also, if any of my liberal blog-mates decide to check out Hawkins' site, and to leave a comment or two, feel free to be critical of the ideas and the content, but please also be respectful. There are some good folks who patronize that blog who deserve such respect and kindness.

UPDATE: There is an interesting debate going on at RWN about my banning. Since I can't respond there, my only recourse is to do it here. But let me preface my comments by saying that I have not been able to post anything at RWN for the past two weeks or so. Anything that happens at RWN is NOT my doing, except insofar as those who can still post there want to make me part of the discussion. Now, that said, let me try to address some of the comments there.

First, to soberannie: Two weeks ago you complained about my referencing commentary at RWN, wondered if it constituted plagiarism, and then said how uncomfortable you were with my doing this. Yet now you seem to be the mouthpiece of The Huck Upchuck at RWN. Please answer me this: How is what you are doing now with the content of MY blog any different than what you were so uncomfortable with my doing some weeks ago? Not that I mind your mentioning my blog content. I appreciate the traffic it will generate. But it does make me wonder about an apparent double-standard you seem to be practicing.

Second, to kingfisher: I thought my "Warrantless Blogtapping Program" category was clever, even if a bit corny! I'm disappointed you don't like it. But, I'm not going over the top with it, no more than Hawkins does with his somewhat regular "DU Thread of the Week" or his "DailyKos" postings. Why, just over the past day or so, Hawkins saw fit to comment on a Cindy Sheehan posting at DailyKos. It's just that, in my case, the subject of my own gauge of the pulse of right wing blogging is Right Wing News. I guess if the DU or DailyKos can be such a regular source of blog content for Hawkins and RWN on the state of the "lefty" blogosphere, why shouldn't RWN be a regular source of blog content for me on the state of the "rightwing" blogosphere? And I don't exclusively post things about RWN. In fact, most of my postings since I've re-invigorated my blog have had to do with other subjects, most prominently and recently the David Vitter scandal. And for you and others, if you want to know why I reference Right Wing News fairly often, it's really primarily not out of anger at being banned. I've made my peace with that. I've even made peace with the likelihood that I will probably never know why I was banned. Truly, the reason I reference RWN is because it is the only way I know how to try to engage all of you in debate since I can no longer do it at RWN. Hawkins didn't just cut me off from his blog, he cut me off from all of you. But, don't worry. I'm sure that, over time, I will either lose interest in tracking RWN, or will simply not have the time to dedicate my blog to tracking RWN and the engaging discussions that you all are having in the comments.

Third, to trenchraider: It's not so much anger that I was banned (though I was stunned and disappointed at first) as being completely at a loss as to why. In your case, you were able to reach some kind of closure by learning why it was you were banned, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to tell us the story of it. In my case, I simply don't know and remain baffled. And it seems that many of you are baffled, too. Even if Hawkins says: I banned him because I think he's a jerk, or simply because I wanted to, that would be something. It would put it to rest. As of now, there's just nothing. And saying nothing is Hawkins' prerogative, too. But nothing just keeps the mind wondering and seeking some kind of explanation.

More Vitter Vitty-O

Join the cause to save Vitter's Manhood!

Vitter Vitty-O

This TPMtv: Vitter Va-Va-Voom! piece is priceless. Enjoy!

One Reason for Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Comprehensive Immigration Reform opponents will have to live with the current broken status-quo system which allows for things like this to happen:

Assistant District Attorney Mike Vough said Friday he was forced to drop the case because a key witness, Cesar Ariel Jacquez, had been inadvertently deported, and two other important witnesses had credibility issues.

Police found the murder weapon in Jacquez's apartment, and Jacquez would have testified that Cabrera and Romero gave it to him after the homicide, Vough said.

Prosecutors traveled to the Dominican Republic last month, but could not persuade Jacquez to return to the United States to testify.

The case in question involved charges of homocide levied against two illegal immigrants from the Dominican Republic and resulted in the mayor of the Pennsylvania town where the murder took place pushing through an ordinance that would penalize landlords who rent to illegals and businesses that hire them. The ACLU did not defend the two accused, but did challenge the legality of the resulting ordinance as a violation of current law which places the creation and enforcement of immigration law in the hands of federal authorities and not municipal authorities. Read the story for more details.

But what I want to point out about this whole situation is that the deportation of the prosecution's star witness in accordance with the enforcement of current immigration laws made it impossible to prosecute the two men charged with the murder. When you have an immigration law enforcement and criminal justice system working at odds with one another, that must surely be undeniable evidence that some kind of comprehensive immigration reform program, and not just a border security program, must be tackled together. One might argue that a tougher border security system might have kept the accused out of the country and thus possibly prevented the crime from occurring in the first place, but the fact is that we have to contend with the reality in which we live. We cannot ignore it. And to do so means that these two accused not only will get to walk, but will also likely find their way back to the Dominican Republic and likely will never be brought to justice.

The David Vitter (R-LA) Scandal Updated

This David Vitter (R-LA) scandal is getting into some weird territory. Diaper fetishism?!?!? Not sure what to make of all this; but one thing is for sure, it definitely ain't good for David Vitter (R-LA).

As I said in a comment elsewhere, this story sure is getting legs ... nice, curvaceous, and silky legs.

Result: David Vitter (R-LA) is toast and he has no one but himself to blame.

Watch the Republican establishment try to spin this away by laying blame on the Madams for outing David Vitter (R-LA), and by trying to downplay David Vitter's (R-LA) own responsibility for his behavior, all the while they avoid David Vitter (R-LA) like the plague.

Methinks David Vitter (R-LA) may be headed for the stud farm! That is if he hasn't suffered the Lorena Bobbitt/Wendy Vitter "circumcisectomy"!

Oh, and did I forget to point out that David Vitter claims to be a conservative, family-values, Republican Senator from Louisiana? Wouldn't want to forget that bit of info now, would I?

Breaking the Vitter Scandal

Gotta give the props where and when it´s due. New Orleans blogger Oyster, of the Your Right Hand Thief blog, has been on this subject for a long time now. Oyster has a great and thorough and witty round-up of his own breaking investigative work on this subject as well as of other related breaking news and commentary on the scandal that is currently making the web rounds. Check it out and give Oyster the love he deserves for being a truth-exposing pioneer of Vitter´s "sins" and the hypocrisy attendent to it thereof!

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Right Wing News ...
Issue: When Conservative Republicans get caught with their pants down with a prostitute, somehow it's always partly the Ho-Mama's fault, too.

Ya gotta love it. John Hawkins of the Right Wing News blog has a post up about the DC Madam and U.S. Sen. David Vitter's (R-LA) having been caught in the crotch-hairs -- umm, I mean cross-hairs -- of her professional "escort" service. Now David Vitter is somewhat of an aside in his posting, but this is precisely part of the problem I have with this posting by Hawkins. Hawkins doesn't defend Vitter; but his whole posting is designed to focus the attention on the DC Madam and criticize her efforts to try to save her own skin by releasing the phone numbers of her clients. Here's how Hawkins ended his posting in this PS:

PS: If Palfrey's mother is alive, I bet she's really proud of what her daughter turned into: a professional pimp/whore who's dragging thousands of people's lives through the sewer before she goes to jail for what will hopefully be an extremely long sentence in a very unpleasant prison.

So it boils down to one bad person: the DC Madam.

Forget the fact that those "thousands of people" whose lives are being dragged through the sewer actually CHOSE to make use of her services. Don't you think that, at some point, it is all fair play that those who engage the services of an illicit prostitution/escort service have to pay the consequences for the choices that they made? Whatever happened with that good conservative value of pointing the finger of blame at the very people who made the DC Madam's business thrive? Without them, there is no DC Madam. Yet, to listen to Hawkins, it's as if the DC Madam's publishing of her clients' phone numbers is committing a transgression much worse than those who made use of her service, some of whom, like David Vitter (R-LA), made a mockery of his marriage and his family in the process.

Politically, David Vitter will surely pay some kind of price for his behavior. Personally, if this juicy little tidbit from his wife is true, I wonder if he's already paid another very heavy price for his "sin":

Asked by an interviewer in 2000 whether she could forgive her husband if she learned he'd had an extramarital affair, as Hillary Clinton and Bob Livingston's wife had done, Wendy Vitter told the Times-Picayune: "I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me."

Ouch!

But I digress ... Back to point: the Hawkins strategy of pointing the harsh finger at the DC Madam, and saving his empathetic comments for the adulterous john, is just not very conservative, is it?

Now, some of the RWN commentariat are trying to rationalize this and spin this away. I guess I can understand the need to do this to try and save face. But let's just take it as the spin that it is. One commenter, my respected rival StanW, writes:

This is guilt by association. It is also guilty until proven innocent. We do not know if this person actually participated in the service, did an inquiry, or was just "in the list".

What this is, is a classic liberal tactic. Smear a person by accusation and supposition. *IF* he is guilty of a crime, rub him with pork chops and throw him to the wolves. But until that is proven, neither he nor anyone deserves to have their name dragged through the mud by a whore!

Posted by StanW
July 10, 2007 11:02 AM

Another commenter, RWNReader2, a fellow New Orleanean with whom I have sparred often, writes the following:

Whatever you think about Vitter's personal failings, the morality of his actions, etc., there are a few facts to consider:

(1) The list is an "old" list, and represents info from the past. There is a real difference someone faces when caught "in the act" so to speak, vs facing something from their past that they have already made peace with.

(2) Vitter is out in front of this, saying the right thing - he's not making excuses.

(3) There will be a senate race in Louisiana next year, and it will not be Vitter who's up for re-election. Thanks to Katrina, Landrieu is extremely vulnerable - in fact she's politically dead - and La. republicans (and N. La. dems for that matter) that might be tempted to run against Vitter will first be tempted to run against Landrieu.

(4) Louisiana's most popular Republican, Bobby Jindal, will be Govenor of the state at the time, and will not likely run against him.

In other words, don't count Vitter out.

Posted by RWNReader2
July 10, 2007 11:18 AM

So, the spin goes like this: Vitter himself admittedly "sinned," trashed his marital vows in the process, and embarrassed his family. But it's old news (as if it were a youthful transgression of his college years!), so that makes it not-so-bad. And at least he admits this and accepts responsibility for it. That's got to count for something, right? He hooks up with a prostitute and trashes his marriage, but it's somehow better because he admits this? If he really wanted to come clean and admit this as an act of contrition, why did he wait until the incontrovertible evidence became public to do so? Really, all this now tells me is that he only "admitted" his "sins" when the unassailable evidence of his complicity and "sinfulness" became public. In other words, he is reacting to bad news. He is certainly not "out in front of it." Yeah, he is owning up to being an adulterous whore-mongerer. And there's supposed to be something admirable in that? What's the good conservative explanation for that one, I ask?

And, I would say to those like StanW who want to believe Vitter is innocent until proven guilty: What do we make of the fact that Vitter is not only not denying the accuracy of these charges, but is actually admitting that there's some substance to them that is not at all favorable to his position? That's a head-in-the-sand argument. It just doesn't fly.

In the end, Vitter has lost whetever claims he may have had to any kind of moral authority on the sanctity of the institution of marriage, the dignity of proper sexual relationships, and a respect for family. And for Hawkins to cast more aspersions at the DC Madam than he does towards Vitter and his like is not only misplaced, it is very out of character for someone who claims to be part of the party of moral superiority and individual responsibility.

Sen. David Vitter, R-LA, Hooker Hustler

Wow! Another Republican moral crusader, Sen. David Vitter, is caught with his pants down. And you're damn right I'm going to mention at every opportunity that he's a conservative Republican. And isn't it also interesting that when the "sin" occurred, David Vitter represented the same Louisiana Congressional District as his immediate predecessor, Bob Livingston, another moral crusader Republican who also got caught with his pants down. What is it with these folks? They get on their high horses about family values, the sanctity of marriage, and the moral decay of a secular, liberal America -- and yet they hypocritically plumb the depths of depravity themselves. And then they have the gall to chalk it up to their very "human" sinfulness and expect some empathy and forgiveness. I'm sorry, but I find it hard to be so empathetic and forgiving of their human frailties on such matters when I know that people like Vitter would be the first to pound anyone else with the moral hammer for having an adulterous affair with an upscale prostitute.

I know that I'm not perfect and that I have my own "sins" to contend with; but I can assure you that adultery and romping with prostitutes are not part of them.

I am a liberal Democrat male happily married for 14 years now to a liberal Democrat female. We have two lovely children. All in all, I'd say we are a very happy and well-adjusted family. My wife and I are both Christians who took our vow of marriage seriously 14 years ago and plan to keep it that way. Suffice it to say that our marriage has not suffered the indignity of adultery. And, personally, my own set of values would never lead me to play footsies with prostitutes. If I can avoid adultery and live my marriage vows faithfully, certainly I can expect David Vitter to do it.

And yet it is I, the liberal Democrat, who supposedly belongs to the party and the ideology of moral relativism and depravity. It is I, the liberal Democrat, who belongs to the party and ideology that supposedly doesn't embrace traditional values concerning marriage and family. Sheesh! Gimme a friggin' break already!

All I can say to the "Honorable" Senator is: Cry me a river, David Vitter, R-LA. But don't ever, ever speak to me about the sanctity of such things as marriage and family. And don't ever pretend to hold the moral highground over anybody. From my perspective, you've lost the right to do so.

If you really want to get a sick feeling in your stomach, watch Vitter describe the sanctity of marriage and defend the FMA. For considering marriage the single most important social institution in human history (and that's how Vitter describes marriage in his speech), he sure has a strange way of (1) showing respect for this all-important institution and (2) being a positive role model regarding it.

UPDATE: Apparently, there was some prior reporting and evidence of Vitter's adulterous indiscretion with a prostitute, which managed somehow to fly under the radar screen at the time. Well, not any longer. [Hat tip to Schroeder at People Get Ready for pointing to this October 2004 Salon.com story.]

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Right Wing News ...
Issue: A Conservative Summation of the 2008 Presidential Primary Races

John Hawkins, owner of the Right Wing News blog, is back from his brief vacation and has his own round-up of the 2008 Presidential Primary races for both parties.

In general, it is a fairly good summary, I think, of the conservative take on the races. But, I also think it has the expected conservative "oversights" and "blindness."

For instance, Hawkins tends to present a more hopeful and wistful analysis of a potential Fred Thompson candidacy, and the man hasn't even entered the race yet. Also, he discusses Newt Gingrich who is almost definitely not likely to run. And yet, there is no mention at all of Ron Paul, who has some surprising resiliency both in fund raising and in maintaining a stable polling position among the 2nd tier GOP hopefuls. Now, granted, Hawkins didn't mention any of the second tier candidates, including Duncan Hunter, for whom he consults; but Ron Paul is not your typical 2nd tier candidate. He's a spoiler of sorts, and would merit consideration, I think, for the same reasons that Newt Gingrich would merit consideration.

I don't think Ron Paul has a shot at winning the GOP nomination; but I do think that his libertarian leaning supporters are likely not to vote for any of the GOP frontrunners in the general election for two reasons: (1) Because all of the front-runners are establishment GOP politicians, which Paul supporters tend to disdain; and (2) more importantly, because the GOP establishment and the front-runners themselves have treated Paul so shabbily and dismissively already in the primary such that Paul's supporters, who tend to be almost fanatic in their devotion to the man, may take his mistreatment more personally and give the other candidates the middle finger in a general election.

That's one glaring oversight in the Hawkins analysis. Another problem is that Hawkins doesn't afford the GOP race the same kinds of pessimistic considerations as he does the Democratic race. To me, at least, the most obvious example of this is his explanation of how primary race campaigning may translate into general race campaigning. For instance, Hawkins says about the Democrats:

If Edwards drops out, you have to figure that most of his support would move over to Obama, since in many ways, they're such similar candidates. It's also worth noting that although Hillary has a strong lead at the moment, it's not an insurmountable lead, and while she is very well known to the general public, Obama is not. What that means is that Obama has more room to grow. Combine that with his fund raising numbers and I suspect that this will turn out to be much more of a horse race on the democratic side than people are anticipating. That's bad news for Democrats because it likely means a race to the left in the primary that will be difficult -- in the YouTube & blog era -- to simply reverse once the general election comes around.

That's a fair assessment as far as it goes. But what I would take issue with is how he thinks a "race to the left" in the primaries might be difficult to reverse in the general election. My reaction to this notion is simply that a "race to the left" in the primaries doesn't require much of a reversal in the general election. And even if it did, it won't be that hard to do because that's kinda what always happens. Of course, in spite of Hillary Clinton's sometimes positioning as a moderate, all three Democratic front-runners are already considered to be more left-leaning to begin with. So, I don't see how the primary race could go much more to the left than it already has. If there is any primary race that has been more stuck in the center and likely to shift in the direction of the extreme, it is the GOP race.

Furthermore, the Hawkins assessment doesn't take into consideration that moderates and independents are leaning towards the Democrats because of a strong disaffection with the GOP these days. So a "race to the left" in the Democratic primaries will be much less of a determining factor in the general election than Hawkins wants so desperately to believe.

Now, outside of the aforementioned, another important omission in the Hawkins take on things is that Hawkins doesn't seem to think the same analysis applies to the GOP. He doesn't talk about the GOP's inevitable need to "race to the right" during primary season and the "reversibility" of this for the general election. In fact, he probably thinks a "race to the right" isn't such a bad thing at all. But it has the same, if not more, risks as a "race to the left" would for the Democrats. In fact, when you think about it, it seems even more relevant for the GOP than it does for the Democrats. For instance, if Thompson enters the race as the "conservative" candidate, watch how much the top three GOP front-runners (the Rudy McRomney cabal) shed their RINO credentials even more than they already have tried to do and tilt even harder to the right. Also, the fact that the GOP base feels so unloved by the GOP establishment following the Immigration bill fiasco, the need for a "race to the right" to recapture and reanimate this base is all the more relevant. Finally, I don't see how such an inevitable "race to the right" will be any less difficult to reverse in the general election than a "race to the left" would be for Democrats. In fact, I think it will be objectively harder for a GOP candidate who tilts right in the primaries to reverse course in the general election to recapture the imaginations and votes of a moderate center that is already fed up with what is perceived as an intransigent, secretive, and abusive rightwing establishment in the White House.

So, that's my evaluation of the Hawkins assessment. Again, I can't say Hawkins isn't generally giving what might be considered a fair take on the race from a conservative perspective; but I do think it suffers from the natural inclination of a conservative to put some kind of sugarcoating or positive spin on things for conservatives that just might be more wishful thinking at this point than a real, objective analysis.

PS: Still no word from Hawkins on why he banned me from commenting on his site.

Back from Mexico City

And exhausted. But it was a great trip. More tomorrow, now for some desperately needed Z's." (Photo of the Mexican Flag from atop Chapultepec Castle with downtown Mexico City in the background.)

On to Mexico City

In a few short hours, and for the next three days (until Sunday evening), I'm taking a group on a long week-end excursion to Mexico City (photo below of the Palacio Nacional in the Zocalo),















where we'll be visiting places like the Palacio de Bellas Artes (photo below),















the Piramides de Teotihuacan (photo below),















and the Basilica de la Virgin de Guadalupe (photo below),















among many other sites, including Chapultepece Park, which is where Los Pinos, the Mexican "White House," can be found. So, if you want me to bring a message to Mexican President Felipe Calderon, just leave it in the comments section and I'll see what I can do about a personal delivery! ;-)

In any event, it's always a fun trip. Busy, but fun. My group will be staying in the Hotel Maria Cristina, which is right off the main avenue, Reforma, in the heart of downtown Mexico City. I highly recommend the Maria Cristina for its location, its comforts, and its prices. It's not your typical high-rise tourist hotel, but it's very cozy and has a very local feel. Moreover, it has a great courtyard and bar, which serves, I think, the best Margarita in Mexico City. However, the Maria Cristina doesn't have wireless internet access (or at least it didn't used to the last time I was there) and, even if it did, our schedule is so busy that I probably wouldn't have much time in front of the computer anyway. So, the short of it is that, though I may have a few spare minutes to check on the comments, you probably won't be seeing any new posts from me until I return from Mexico City this coming Sunday.

Hasta pronto!

Happy Birthday, USA!

I HEAR America singing, the varied carols I hear;
Those of mechanics—each one singing his, as it should be, blithe and strong;
The carpenter singing his, as he measures his plank or beam,
The mason singing his, as he makes ready for work, or leaves off work;
The boatman singing what belongs to him in his boat—the deckhand singing on the steamboat deck;
The shoemaker singing as he sits on his bench—the hatter singing as he stands;
The wood-cutter’s song—the ploughboy’s, on his way in the morning, or at the noon intermission, or at sundown;
The delicious singing of the mother—or of the young wife at work—or of the girl sewing or washing—Each singing what belongs to her, and to none else;
The day what belongs to the day—At night, the party of young fellows, robust, friendly,
Singing, with open mouths, their strong melodious songs.

Walt Whitman (1819–1892)

**3D Animated Flags--By 3DFlags.com**

Right Wing News Banning Update

I am just returned from an evening out with some friends and colleagues and only just became aware that a bit of a debate has been taking place in the comments to this guest posting at Right Wing News. It's a pretty long comment thread, and the relevant discussion takes place later in the thread, so you'll have to scroll down pretty far along to see this exchange.

I appreciate all the folks who are coming to my defense; but, since I am not able to speak for myself there, I just wanted to address a couple of the points that a few of the commenters there have made suggesting possible reasons for my banning.

First, the question has been raised about my possibly being banned for "stealing" content. I have done no such thing, either before the banning or afterwards. On the one hand, my blog had been pretty much defunct until the banning. So, I know that plagiarizing content can't be the reason for my being banned. Also, I take issue with those who think my recent referencing of the commentary and postings at RWN is plagiarizing content. For people to suggest this means that they have no idea what either plagiarism means or what the critical intellectual process entails. But, aside from that, it is the only way that I can think of to still be engaged in the discussions taking place at RWN. And there's no harm in referencing this discussion by reposting bits of Hawkins' postings and bits of the commentary on the comment threads. In fact, it would be improper for me to discuss RWN and discussions taking place on comment threads there without referencing this material. And Hawkins himself generally doesn't seem to mind when Rush Limbaugh or some other media outlet or pundit references the content of his blog. If I were to post things verbatim from Hawkins' website and then pass it off as my own, that would constitute plagiarism. What I am doing doesn't even come close. Everyone's ideas or comments that I reference are properly attributed to the person who said it. The ownership of this intellectual property still belongs with the originator of it.

Second, people re-post both blog entries, news articles, and commentary quite regularly on their blogs. There is nothing "creepy" about it, which is what one of the RWN regulars had to say about it.

For one, there is this common practice in the blogosphere called "fisking" in which entire postings or commentary made by one blogger or columnist reappears in other blogs, almost always without the permission of the original author to reprint it, in which the blogger takes apart and criticizes, sometimes sentence by sentence, the "intellectual property" of others. As long as proper reference and citation is made to the author of the original materials, and the source through which this material is published, this is perfectly proper. And this applies not only to blog commentary, but also even to academic research and publication. How would students be able to write their research papers if they had to contact the author of every source text for permission to reference their work in their papers? In fact, there are entire blogs that are dedicated specifically to tracking the goings on of other blogs. The one that leaps to mind at the moment is the old (and now seemingly defunct) Sully Watch, which tracked Andrew Sullivan. And there's the eloborate Moore Watch which tracks Michael Moore. Again, there is nothing improper or "creepy" about this.

For two, the practice of rehashing the comments made by others in comment threads on other blogs for the purpose of illustrating a point is quite common, too. Hawkins himself does this with regularity when he cribs selected comments from posters at the DU or DailyKos in order to mock them or to make a particular point about them. And many other bloggers make such use of the public commentary of others for similar reasons. Again, as long as proper attribution is given to the source of these comments, there is nothing improper about it. In fact, one of RWN's regulars, Christopher_Taylor, has a fantastic blog, Word Around the Net (which everyone should check out, by the way), whose main premise is to see what commenters are saying around the net in various different discussion threads about the topic being discussed.

I encourage any and all to read everything I write on the subject of my banning from RWN, to weigh it, and to make up their own minds about it. I don't have the right to be a commenter at RWN. Let me make that clear again. Who gets to comment on RWN is purely Hawkins' prerogative to decide and I unequivocally respect his right to do as he sees fit for whatever reason he chooses, or even for no reason at all. It's his baby. But, by the same token, no one will take away my right to react on my own blog to anything and everything that is publicly available for my review. If you have a problem with the things I write about or how I write about them, you are welcome to come to my blog and leave as many comments as you want as long as you follow the two simple rules that I have outlined here: (1) No vulgar or obscene language; and (2) No threats of any kind to anybody for any reason.

One final comment: Apparently, someone recalls that it is Hawkins' policy not to respond to queries about why one gets banned. Well, I have to say that I missed the thread where this was determined; but if it is true, then Hawkins needs to update his FAQ page, which states the following about comments:

Are There Any Rules About Posting Comments?: Yes, please don't flame excessively, use an exceptional amount of vulgar language, call anyone a "towelhead," "raghead," or "wetback," continually post off topic material, spam, use racial or gay slurs, libel anyone, troll, make threats, or challenge anyone to fight.

In short, don't be a jerk.

If that won't work for you, I'll delete your posts and ban your IP. If you are banned and genuinely don't know why, email me. If you know you were doing something mentioned above and you are banned, please don't try to get around the ban. Do everybody involved a favor and find somewhere else to post where they appreciate what you have to say.

When I discovered I was banned, this is where I went to see what to do. And unless I am misreading something, and because I truly have no idea why I was banned, I emailed Hawkins asking why, just like he instructs one to do. If he really doesn't answer such questions, that's fine. That's his right. But I would suggest that he shouldn't mislead people by inviting them to email him with such queries.

Andrew Sullivan on Bush and the Rule of Law

Andrew Sullivan sees the Libby sentence commutation as just the latest in a long string of Bush Administration disdain for and abuse of the Rule of Law. Sullivan writes:

We now have a clear and simple illustration of the arrogance of this president. Tell the American people the core narrative of this monarchical presidency: this president believes he is above the law in wiretapping citizens with no court oversight; he has innovated an explosive use of signing statements to declare himself above the law on a bewildering array of other matters, large and small; he has unilaterally declared himself above American law, international law, and U.N. Treaty obligations in secretly authorizing torture; he has claimed the right to seize anyone in the United States, detain them indefinitely without trial and torture them; his vice-president refuses to abide by the law that mandates securing classified documents; and when a court of law finds a friend of the president's guilty, he commutes the sentence.

People with any shred of conscience know the game. And it ain't likely to play too well in Peoria. In fact, as Sullivan also points out, it already isn't.

The Bush Amnesty Plan ...

For I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, that is. And it only took three short paragraphs on one single, solitary page! But, hey, it does make the light bulb go on, doesn't it? The Power of the Pardon. Hmmmmmm. If the regular legal process doesn't prevent the President from ramming amnesty down the throats of the American people for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, why not just apply it to all those 12-20 million "illegal" immigrants? Bush can get his "amnesty" for illegal immigrants after all!

UPDATE: Monday, July 2, 2007, 11:26PM -- Seriously, here's the situation in a nutshell. We have this thing called the Rule of Law. There is no better judicial system in the world than in the United States that preserves this Rule of Law. Or there was no better system. Libby was indicted, prosecuted, and convicted in strict accordance with this Rule of Law. Furthermore, if he, or anyone else, believes that there was a miscarraige of justice, then we have this thing called an appeals process that allows him, just like any citizen, to make absolutely sure that the Rule of Law applies. There are plenty of average joes who think they have gotten a raw deal from the judicial system (and some of them probably have). But their expectations for a Presidential Pardon are effectively zero. So, when Bush issues a Pardon in a case like this, for one of his cronies, which is his right, he diminishes the Rule of Law. But it's of a piece with the whole Bush Administration's politicization of the Judicial system in the U.S., so it shouldn't come as any surprise. Think of it like this: if the person facing jail time were Harry Reid's Chief of Staff under exactly the same charges, do you think Bush would be issuing a pardon? Any honest person would have to say, "No." For commuting Libby's sentence, Bush perhaps might get a bit of an uptick in his approval ratings from the relatively small percentage of the American public that constitutes the conservative base (but even that is questionable, because many of these folk are complaining that Bush didn't go the full nine yards and pardon Libby outright.) But I think that Bush, and by extension the GOP, will actually lose even more support among Rule of Law minded moderates and independents, and has just fired up the Democratic base even more. A smart Democratic presidential candidate will know how to massage this issue to keep the Democratic base fired up over the next year-and-a-half as well as to lure into the fold the moderates and independents wearying of Bush's ever more clear cavalier dismissiveness of the Rule of Law for purely political reasons. Mark my words. Watch how this plays in the polls over the next few weeks and into the 2008 election campaign. Watch particularly how it plays among the average, apolitical or moderately politically-engaged voter. These folks may not pay much attention to politics, but they certainly are attuned to the Rule of Law. And Bush did not do the GOP any favors with this commutation with regard to respect for the Rule of Law. You just watch. No matter how the conservative pundits spin this as a matter of rectifying an injustice, it's going to smack like preferential cronyism because it involves conservatives unravelling and undoing for conservatives what conservatives always generally tell folks shouldn't be unravelled and undone for anyone.

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Right Wing News ...
Issue: Has John Hawkins Made RWN a Conservative Echo Chamber?

Well, who am I to say? But some of the RWN stormtroopers are wondering if there's a Stalinist purge of sorts underway at RWN. Check out the commentary in this posting by a guest blogger. Here are some of the comments:

******************************
Is it just me, or is there a conspicuous lack of moonbats (or even regular liberals for that matter) on this thread? Does this indicate that there's universal dislike for Hillary?
You know, as amazing as it sounds, she could actually turn out to be a unifying force in America... just not the way she'd hoped for.

Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
July 2, 2007 12:01 PM
******************************

*******************************

Is it just me, or is there a conspicuous lack of moonbats

and

...lack of liberal antagonists.

I've noticed that too...did John ban all the moonbats and we're actually out of them?

Posted by simulacre
July 2, 2007 12:34 PM
******************************

******************************
OK I will say it IF we have no opposing view point to prove wrong it is not much fun. There is no fun in having a bunch of yeah I agree. Where is the challenge in that..... We need to moonbats to show there are wrong.

Posted by ninerdog
July 2, 2007 12:39 PM
******************************

******************************
"...did John ban all the moonbats and we're actually out of them?"

I seriously doubt that he banned them all. And even if he did, S_S_T has proven time and again how easy it is to get back in.
I don't know what's up. Maybe they've all gotten sick of taking the daily smack-down that RWN posters deliver so well.
You know, not to sound paranoid or anything, but it's kind of creepy not knowing where all of those nutters are lurking. Especially with our nation's most patriotic holiday right around the corner.

Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
July 2, 2007 12:45 PM
******************************

Well, Good_Ol_Boy, I don't know about all of them, but I can tell you that he banned at least one of them for sure.

Congratulations to StanW

From the comments thread for this posting at RWN, I read this:

Gentle Posters of RWN.

At Noon on Saturday, my first grandson came into this world. Although he had to spend some time in NICU, he is now doing very well and is scheduled to come home tomorrow.

Mom and Boy are doing well.

Thanks to all those wishing us well.

Posted by StanW
July 1, 2007 10:51 PM

Through the course of our exchanges at RWN over the years, StanW and I have developed a respectful and friendly online relationship. Since I cannot reply to this news at RWN, and since I have no other way to contact StanW, I'd like to take this opportunity on my own blog to congratulate him on the birth of his first grandson. Cheers, StanW! May you and your new grandson have many years of life together, with lots of wonderful shared memories! (Don't spoil him too much!!) And I extend my well wishes to the little fellow's mom and to your entire family. There is nothing better than welcoming a new life into this world. God bless!

Jesus in the Slidell Courthouse

Looks like the ACLU and the City of Slidell are gearing up for an Establishment Clause battle in the courts.

It appears that a portrait of Jesus hanging in the Slidell City Court's lobby is the subject of contention. Of course, the ACLU is requesting that it be removed and is threatening a lawsuit if it is not. And Slidell City officials are refusing to remove it. We may, once again, be heading for the Supreme Court on the subject of Church/State separation.

You want a taste of some of what the principles are saying in this battle? Here's something from the City of Slidell officialdom:

Slidell Mayor Ben Morris condemned the ACLU in harsher tones, while invoking the memory of Hurricane Katrina. As he spoke, damage from the storm -- long watermarks and cracked plaster -- was clearly visible on the courthouse behind him.

"I fight daily with FEMA for the recovery of our city, and now we must fight these tyrants, this American Taliban, who seek to destroy our culture and our heritage," Morris said.

Now here's something from the ACLU:

Booth expressed frustration with Slidell officials' criticism of the ACLU for releasing its letter objecting to the Jesus picture to the news media at the same time it was sent to the court.

"I've never seen anything like this," he said. "This is established Supreme Court law. The ACLU isn't making this up. I would very much like to see more of a reasoned legal analysis than complaints about how we sent them the letter." ...

Booth said it was ironic that Morris would condemn a theocracy such as the Taliban rule of Afghanistan while defending a religious picture in a public building.

Now, my own evaluation of the situation? Well, at the personal level, I don't find the mere presence of the picture in the Court lobby to be so troublesome. It's not like the picture is being actively used to indoctrinate visitors to the court in a particular faith. So, in my mind, it's no big deal. But, that's just me. Now, that said, if it were a big deal to one of my fellow citizens, for whatever reason, I also would have no qualms about removing it. It's not like removing it is going to negatively affect my faith, so what's the big deal in taking it down? This is the question I ask: what does taking the picture down mean? All it means is a full secularization of the Court space. I can live with that because that has absolutely no bearing on my constitutional right to practice my faith. To me, that is the crux of the debate. As long as we live in a free society where I can go to Church on Sunday, and where I can both practice and live my faith freely, taking down a picture of Jesus in a courtroom is of no consequence. How others see this as an attack on one's right to practice a particular religious faith is beyond me; but that seems to be where the anger and frustration comes from. It strikes me as odd that Christians feel assaulted in our society, especially when Churches are full on Sunday and when nobody really bothers people in the actual practice of their faith. The usual over-the-top, angry, and defensive reaction by Christians to such things seems Pharisaical when one considers what this reaction really constitutes: making faith a political issue and forcing public conformity to even the most insignificant public references to it or expressions of it.

I ask: What is really the harm to faith in taking the picture down? My answer: none. In taking down the picture, what damage is done to the freedom of one's ability to practice any religion he or she chooses? My answer: none. I am neither more nor less likely to be a stronger and better Christian because there is a picture of Jesus in the lobby of the Slidell Courthouse. And I assume that the administration of justice in the Slidell courthouse is not affected one way or the other because there is a picture of Jesus in the lobby. So, given that, if taking the picture down removes a source of public contention among citizens, why not do it? In fact, I kinda see being willing to take down the picture as a gesture of Christian charity.

But, as usual, we'll have to let the angry ideologues on both sides yell at each other about it. And I guess we'll have to endure once again the spectacle of it.

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Right Wing News ...
Issue: The GOP Rapid Re-Education of John Hawkins.

When it comes to Comprehensive Immigration Reform, tough-talking John Hawkins, owner of the conservative blog Right Wing News is essentially no different than the Republican squishes in the Senate whom he pretends to despise. In the end, I conclude that he's a regular GOP party hack. What makes it worse, though, is that he pretends not to be. But don't believe me, read the following roller-coaster chain of commentary and decide for yourself.

At 7:30AM, on Monday, June 25th, 2007, Hawkins was in a state of apparent frenzy over the first cloture vote in the Senate on the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill (S. 1639). This vote was scheduled for the following day, Tuesday, June 26th, 2007. Now let's remember that this particular cloture vote was simply to end debate on the motion to proceed to consideration of the measure. It was NOT a cloture vote on the measure itself. But, Hawkins apparently considered this cloture vote to be of paramount importance. This is what he wrote about it:

In my book, there is no such thing as a "good" senator who supports this bill. Every decent thing these guys have done in their whole career is garbage compared to a vote for cloture on this immigration bill -- and I mean a vote for cloture. If they vote for cloture and then turn around and vote against the bill, that means nothing. In fact, it's an insult, because it means that they think their constituents are too stupid to understand that the cloture vote is where this bill will be stopped -- if it's going to be stopped at all.

So, pick up that phone, write that email, send that fax and do it TODAY! Let these guys know that a vote for cloture is a vote against conservatism, against the Republican Party, and a vote against America -- and let them know how angry you'll be if they betray this country by voting for cloture.

Now, he couldn't have been any more forceful and clear. In fact, he made a point to distinguish between voting against the bill and voting for this particular cloture motion, and drew a line in the sand. And for emphasis, lest anyone be confused, he added: "and I mean a vote for cloture." He threw down the gauntlet and took off the gloves. This was serious business: if they vote for cloture, "their whole career is garbage."

So, what happened? On the next day, Tuesday, June 26, 2007, the cloture motion passed with a vote of 64 in favor and 35 againts. At 2:57PM on Tuesday, June 26, 2007, Hawkins posted an entry which he titled "Mexico 64 Vs. America 35." That's very telling in itself for a couple of reasons. First, it revealed that for Hawkins this really wasn't about legal vs. illegal immigration, but rather about Mexico vs. America. In other words, it wasn't simply a question of law enforcement and security (since not all illegal immigrants are Mexicans), but was also about preserving some kind of ethnic, linguistic, and cultural "purity." But that's a subject for another discussion. Second, and more relevant to what I'm trying to focus on now, is that the title of this blog entry also implied that those who voted for cloture, those among the 64, were essentially traitors to America and servants of Mexico. I mean, really, Hawkins created a clear dichotomy: if you weren't one of the 35 who voted against cloture, you weren't worthy of being considered a part of America. So, there's that. But Hawkins wasn't just content to end with the total tally. He went on in this posting to list the 64 traitors and the 35 patriots by name -- paying particular attention to the Republican Senators among the villainous 64. Now remember, Hawkins said just 31 hours previously that, by their vote for this particular cloture motion, "every decent thing these guys [the villainous 64] have done in their whole career is garbage compared to a vote for cloture on this immigration bill -- and I mean a vote for cloture." And remember he went even further and declared: "If they vote for cloture and then turn around and vote against the bill, that means nothing." There were 24 Republican Senators among the villainous, treasonous 64, one of whom was John Ensign (R-NV).

Of course, the next step the Senate took was to proceed to consider the measure, which allowed for debate and a slew of Amendments to the measure to be considered before moving along to the second cloture motion to end debate on the measure itself. This second cloture motion was schedule for Thursday morning, June 28, 2007. Hawkins had a series of posts leading up to this vote as well as some post-vote commentary. At 7:45AM on this Thursday morning, Hawkins put up a posting in which he discussed the upcoming cloture vote. In his third update on this post, he mentioned an email he received from Sen. John Ensign indicating that Ensign would vote against the second cloture motion. Now, because it was an update to an earlier posting, I do not have any idea at what specific moment before the cloture vote began when Hawkins received this communication; but it had to be within a few hours of the vote itself. In my book, that's cutting it pretty close. But listen to how Hawkins responded in this update:

Update #3: Yesterday, I wrote John Ensign's press secretary and complained that during his interview with me, he seemed to be indicating that he could not support the bill unless it had an exit visa in it, but yet, he voted for cloture on Tuesday, despite the fact it doesn't have that in the bill.

His press secretary wrote back that the first vote was to allow more debate, but he was also non-committal about what John Ensign would do today.

Well, just now, John Randall, the ePress Secretary for the RNSC just wrote me the following message,

"Sen. Ensign Will Vote No on today’s cloture vote."

Given how tight this thing is, having another definite "no" vote is very big -- especially since there are so many undecided senators. The more certain they become that this bill is going to fail, the less inclined they will be to climb out on a limb and vote for it.

All I can say is thank you, Senator Ensign! We're lucky to have this guy running the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

If you want to say thanks to him for standing up against amnesty when it counts, chipping in a few bucks to the NRSC would be a good way to do it.

The emphasis in the above citation is mine. Now tell me if I'm missing something here, but in a period of less than 72 hours, Hawkins went from considering Ensign's entire career to have been "garbage" for taking the side of Mexico against the U.S. in the first cloture vote, and considering a switch from a "YES" vote to a "NO" vote to be an "insult," to gushing over how lucky the GOP is to have such a stand-up guy running the NRSC!!! And then Hawkins asks people to throw a few bucks at the NRSC as a gesture of thanks to Ensign!!! What gives? It's rather schizophrenic behavior if you ask me.

But that's not all. In his post-second-cloture-vote victory gloat, which was posted a short few hours later at 10:44AM, the 72 hour "re-education" of Hawkins was nearly complete. And it didn't even have to come through a forced "re-education" camp either! Here are some of the things Hawkins had to say in this post:

Keep in mind that John Ensign, the head of the RNSC, voted for cloture when it counted -- and he let people know his decision before the vote started. So, he didn't just go with the flow once he saw the bill was going to lose, like Sam Brownback and some of the others. Tossing a few bucks the NRSC's way as a thank-you wouldn't be the worst idea in the world.

and

PS #3: Some people are complaining that I am, as promised, tabling the Payback Project. Well, ya know, that's just what I said I'd do. Think carrot and stick.

[ASIDE: The "Payback Project" was a threat made by Hawkins to carry out an organized and extensive retaliation against GOP Senators who supported the bill. But Hawkins always softened his threat by saying that he'd do it "if the bill passed." Just more evidence of his squishiness, if you ask me.]

I'll stop right there and let you decide about John Hawkins and whether he is a squish and a party hack. But, I'll end by pointing that I'm not the only one who thinks this. Here is what one of Hawkins' regular conservative commenters, memomachine, in one of the last comments in the comment thread on Hawkins post-cloture-victory-gloat posting had to say about the "re-education" of Hawkins:

Hmmmm.

Frankly this is ridiculous. Now that Republican senators have shown to your face how much they consider you to be irrelevant, now you're going to table the payback project?

What? Nobody deserves payback? Nobody deserves punishment for disregarding the will of the American people for weeks? Nobody deserves payback for calling conservatives "bigots"?

That's nonsense.

Personally my opinion of John Hawkins has just dropped to zero. All he is capable of is waking up at times to act but then he goes right back to sleep with the admonishment to support Republicans.

Good luck with that. But I'm sure not going to continue wasting my time here. ...

Posted by memomachine
June 29, 2007 10:16 AM

Hawkins is painting his "re-education" as a gesture of "magnanimity." I don't think there's any doubt that he's being magnanimous to folks like Ensign. But for those who complained about Hawkins "mothballing" the Payback Project, I wonder how "magnanimous" this Hawkins statement to the stormtroopers sounds:

PS #3: Some people are complaining that I am, as promised, tabling the Payback Project. Well, ya know, that's just what I said I'd do. Think carrot and stick.

Well, ya know, so you did. So you did. Be careful, though, lest your stormtroopers begin to think that you're giving Ensign the carrot, but giving them the stick.

Update on The Huck Upchuck

Well, since I haven't heard back yet from John Hawkins of Right Wing News about why he banned me from commenting on his site, and since Hawkins is about to go on vacation, presumably meaning I shouldn't expect a reply any time soon, I have no choice but to bring what would have been my comments there to my own blogsite here. Hawkins can ban me from commenting on his blog, but thanks to the freedoms of our great country, he can't ban me from commenting on my blog. In fact, I will be making use of the liberties afforded me under the Constitution and augmented by the Patriot Act to conduct warrantless surveillance of Right Wing News. As of now, I will resurrect my blog and, in doing so, will establish a new category of commentary for my blog that will exclusively follow with a sharp-edged, fine-tooth, critical comb the goings-on of conservative blogs, and particularly of Right Wing News. As a nod to the Patriotic intent of this new category, I am dubbing it the "The Warrantless Blogtapping Program." I know it's cheesy, but, hey, what the hell? It's my blog, right?

I actually throw this down as a challenge to Hawkins. I want to encourage him to visit and to respond and to comment. He is welcome to do so. And I promise I won't ban him, no matter what he says!

Now, I have to say that I like Hawkins. I think he is intelligent and I think he writes extremely well. I think his arguments are tightly constructed and have a clear logic. I even think he is right-on about about some things. But this latest episode of banning me from commenting on his site has shown me that there is also a bit of a petty, vindictive, and vulnerable side to Hawkins. I must have pushed some button that cracked his tough-guy veneer and gotten under his skin. Unfortunately, it has exposed a part of Hawkins that is not all that flattering and admirable. And though I would have never thought it about him until recently, the fact that his reaction is simply to ignore me and not even respond to my honest inquiry as to the reasons for my banning leads me to think that he is also a bit cowardly. I mean, how hard would it have been for him to write me back and simply say: "I banned you because you are a jerk and a liar" or "I banned you because you hurt my feelings" or "I banned you just because I wanted to," etc. He could even have a really legitimate reason for banning me, which I might acknowledge and even agree with. But how can I know that unless he tells me? But ... all this is lagniappe. What I am ultimately left with is my own blog where I can engage his thoughts and ideas on my own terms. And that's what I intend to do.

I won't exclusively be reacting to Right Wing News on this blog. I will also engage other topics that suit my fancy. And I welcome any and all to a vigorous duel of ideas in the blog comments section. But I will manage this dueling according to the following rules:

(1) I will not tolerate any vulgar or obscene language on my blog. I will delete any comments that use such language.

(2) I will not tolerate threats of any kind to anyone who posts here. I will delete any comments that make such threats.

If I find the need arises to address some other aspect of the exchanges that take place in the blog comments section, I reserve the right to establish other rules accordingly.

Well, that's it for now. Check back for what I hope will be a more active and engaging blog; but know that, although my sincere intention is to resuscitate and reinvigorate my blog, sometimes intentions don't always translate into reality. So, take this blog at face value. If I post one hundred entries over the next three months, or one entry, so be it.

Banned from Commenting on a Conservative Blog

Conservative blogger John Hawkins of Right Wing News has banned me from posting comments to any of his blog entries. I can log on under my userid "huckupchuck"; but I do not have access to the comments fields once I do so. And when I click on the preferences of my user account, I get a one-line, four-word message that says: "You have been banned." I have written to John Hawkins asking for an explanation, and I am waiting to hear back from him. If and when he does respond, I will update this entry.

Now, John Hawkins has the right to ban whomever he wants to ban; but there is absolutely nothing that I have posted as a comment on his blog that would constitute a bannable offense according to his own terms for posting comments. I truly have no idea why I have been banned. I can only possibly imagine three reasons. First, there is just some technical mistake or moderating oversight that can be easily rectified. I hope this is the case, but Hawkins generally runs a tight ship and I doubt a banning would happen randomly and without his knowledge. Second, being in Mexico, I have been using some public access computers. It is possible that I failed to log off one of these computers and that someone has posted some nasty comments under my name that would merit being banned. If that is the case, then I support the banning. But I have looked through all of the current threads and I can find no such misuse of my account. So I am inclined to rule that possibility out.

The third possible reason,and most worrisome to me, is that Hawkins has gotten fed up with my questions and my comments critical of some of the positions he has taken, particularly with regard to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill currently being debated in the Senate. I can´t imagine Hawkins getting so exorcised by this such that he would ban my entire account. That seems unlike Hawkins, who has been generally very respectful and tolerant of differing opinions; but if that is the case and he wants to ban me for that reason, that´s fine, too. If true, however, it places his whole pretense to be open to criticism from other ideological perspectives in question, at least in my mind. I never would have thought that, but I can´t help but think so now. Maybe this is all a mistake and it can be resolved soon. But, perhaps, in his mind, Hawkins considers that my recent critical commentary makes me "a jerk" -- and so he might justify my banning accordingly. But I have been posting comments there for a long time, and the regular visitors to RWN know that I can be prickly and snarky sometimes, but no more so than many of my rivals there. They would know, too, that I am generally respectful and try to be as civil as possible in our debates, discussions, and arguments. In fact, nothing that I have ever said or written in a comment there even approaches the kinds of bashing that I sometimes receive from some regular people who post there, and who still have active permission to continue posting there.

Let me give an example. Here is the first of three comments I wrote, before being banned, in a recent discussion thread on the current Immigration Reform bill, which was up for a cloture vote in the Senate. I presume that this comment is one of the ones that was the "straw that broke the camel´s back," so to say:

Why are you so opposed to ending debate and having a straight up/down vote on this matter? Why doesn't it matter if a Senator votes to end debate and then votes against the bill? Why is it an insult to conservatives. Why are you so afraid of this?

Posted by huckupchuck
June 25, 2007 10:31 AM

I asked these questions in a comment in response to the original posting made by John Hawkins. The next comment I wrote in this thread said the following:

Posted by Don_cos June 25, 2007 11:02 AM
All well and good, but how is voting for cloture yet then voting against the measure not doing what you want. It ends debate and puts an end to the bill once and for all. It would seem to me that voting to keep debate open merely allows for the continued lingering of this measure and its periodic reemergence and consumption of the Senate's business. End debate, vote against it, and put it to rest once and for all.

Posted by huckupchuck
June 25, 2007 11:14 AM

The final comment I posted in this thread, which was a response to another one of my respected rival´s comments, said:

Why do your comments to me almost always have to end with some demeaning remark about my mental capacity or my intelligence? Please, be a decent human being and keep the ad hominem slights to a minimum, CavalierX.

Now, to the subject ... Let's remember that Hawkins is saying that even those who vote for cloture and then vote against the bill are traitors to the cause and their votes mean nothing. How can a vote for cloture and then a vote against the bill be construed as a vote in support of the bill? And what about conservative disdain for the filibuster and the notion that presidential initiatives and nominees that come up in the senate deserve and up or down vote?

Posted by huckupchuck
June 25, 2007 12:08 PM

Now, compare these comments with one directed at me by one of my other opponents, who wrote later in this very same thread:

If you don't want to get your nails broken or pumps scuffed, best for you to stay at Barbra.com or some such place "kinder, gentler" place, Huck. You'll find few "compassionate" {said in a drippingly sarcastic tone} conservatives here.

Posted by Cartman
June 25, 2007 9:00 PM

And yet Cartman continues to have posting privileges while I am banned. Not that Cartman´s harmless post should be a bannable offense (and I don't think it should), but comparatively speaking, I think his posting would constitute more of a bannable offense than any of the three comments I posted previously, especially under Hawkins' own rules for posting comments.

This is just one of the many examples of the experiences I have when posting comments on this blog. Fine. I expect to take some tough hits and even some personal ribbing on a conservative blog; but there is the question of parity in terms of what kinds of comments merit wholesale banning from the site, and what kinds get passes.

Again, perhaps this is just some unfortunate mistake or some kind of technical issue. And if it is, I will most certainly update this posting to reflect that.

But if it does end up that I was banned for the content of my comments, then I ask you to check the full range of them out for yourself, come to your own conclusions, and suggest to me any rational explanation that does not call into question the claim that this website, Right Wing News, is different than those which seem to ban commenters randomly for nothing more than expressing a critical, opposition opinion.

UPDATE: 28 June 2007, 2:53 CST: I still have not heard back directly from John Hawkins, but I gather from the number of referring pages to my blog coming from a particular discussion thread at RWN that the offending passages may have been my comments in the discussion thread on a posting by Hawkins that addressed the subject of his running liberal ads on his blog. I did cynically question whether Hawkins´ rationalization for running such ads was a principled one. Personally, I believed it to be unprincipled behavior and I said as much, explaining my reasoning. But, that's me. You might think otherwise; so, I encourage you to click the link above and decide for yourself if anything I said there would merit wholesale banning.