They're So Cute When They're All Petulant

Over the past few years a certain subset of bloggers has made the case that money is speech, that there should be no limits on how money is spent to influence politics. The most egregious example of this is the Citizens United decision.

But, now that real people are using their own money to influence politics in the only way they can compete those very same bloggers are shocked, shocked to find out that money is a sword that cuts both ways.

Here is the legacy of Jim Haney at WMC; he sowed the seeds for a business climate in Wisconsin that pitted employers against workers. Now Kwik Trip, Johnsonville and Sargento are reaping the fruit of those vines and the perpetually aggrieved are squealing about it.

Here's a piece of advice for the next time AFP buys a political movement; you might consider the consequences of naming it after the best known boycott in American history. The real patriots of the real Boston Tea Party knew that consumers have choices that can change the system. Thanks to the Koch brothers and Jim Haney Wisconsin companies will have to deal with the fallout from that.

Hypocrisy And Selective Outrage--They're Not Just For Talk Radio Anymore

This past weekend Illy-T noted that John McAdams was getting his selective outrage on. Why? Because WKLH, the Shepherd Express and American TV had the audacity to sponsor a show with Bill Maher. Apparently McAdams felt this was terrible, because Maher cracked a few jokes at the expense of Catholics, or something.

Sykes picked up on that, and our own kr picked up on Sykes.

Today, there was a firestorm put up. On one side, their was McAdams, Sykes, Belling and several others, putting up such a stink that American responded, rather politely. Unsatisfied, and smelling blood, they kept up their assault until American acquiesced and pulled their sponsorship.

Fair enough. Freedom of speech is protected under the Constitution.

But that wasn't the end of it, really. McAdams, apparently feeling more ornery than usual, decided to take umbrage with this post of mine. He feels that it is OK for him to show his disapproval of an event, but that the left is not allowed the same privilege.

To make his arguments even more ridiculous, McAdams, who claims to be offended by Maher's anti-Catholic jokes, proudly links to those who readily insult Islam, women, homosexuals, Mexicans and people who want to give peace a chance.

Others have caught this grand act of hypocrisy:

Illy-T has been tracking it here, here, here and here.

Jay Bullock has also noted the selective outrage and the hypocrisy.

Other Side cuts to the chase, and notes their shamelessness.

But we are not helpless, my friends. If you feel that enough is enough, there are a couple of things we can do.

One is to show your support for Bill Maher. You can do so by simply going to this site and leaving a message expressing your outrage over the way the right wants to trample his rights.

You can also call American TV at (608) 271 1000 or email them through this site, and let them know that you're disappointed that they gave into a handful of vainglorious hypocrites.

SIDENOTE: Ironically, I received an email from my self-described neocon father. The email contained an old joke involving Forrest Gump entering heaven. He received this joke from someone in his church. At the end of the email was this:

Give me a sense of humor, Lord.
Give me the ability to understand a clean joke,
To get some humor out of life,
And to pass it on to other folks.

This is something that McAdams, Sykes, and the rest of the perpetually offended right wingers should add to their daily prayers.

Free Speech

Ah, is a King's work never done?

After returning from a lovely weekend in the countryside, I come back to find a plea for help. It seems that at issue is the issue of free speech, as protected by the First Amendment.

McBride, in her weekly space-filler at the Waukesha Freeman, takes state Representative Don Pridemore to task for suggesting a bill that would require third party groups running ads in elections to name the people that donate to their cause. As usual, McBride's argument is convoluted and circular. She tries to make a point, but offers no rationale behind her point. For a more clear and well written piece on this issue, I found Owen Robinson, in on of his rare posts of more than a few words, to be much clearer in presenting the issues.

Now, obviously, I don't have a problem with anonymity, as that neither capper, nor King of the Left Hate, are the names that my parents gave to me. Nor is my real name Liz Woodhouse. However, I am also a mere blogger. I am but a single voice among the thousands on the Internet. My influence on any given election is negligible, as evidenced by Walker's re-election. Oh sure, sometimes a blogger will strike gold and find a piece of information that could change an election drastically, but those times are rare.

The same can't be said for the third party ads. Their influence on elections are undeniable. Every election cycle, our TVs, our radios and even some web pages, like the JSOnline, are inundated in political ads. Many, if not most, of these ads are produced and paid for by these third parties. They have also become increasingly negative and vulgar, and often play very loosely with the facts. All one has to do is look at the latest kerfuffle regarding All Children Matter to see some of the problems with these groups.

In his post, Owen argues that naming the people that contribute to these organizations could have some real, and some very negative, impact on the people that donate, without really affecting the outcomes of the elections. I respectfully disagree with him.

While Owen's scenarios could hold true, that is only if the person continues to donate to these groups. The person also has a right to contribute to any group or movement that is more responsible on how they get their message out. There may still be repercussions, but that is much less likely if there are no slanderous statements made in the first place.

I don't know if there is a solution that everyone could be happy with, but I personally believe that there is some sort of compromise possible. Something to the effect that anyone donating less than a set amount, say $100 to a movement, can remain private. This way, most average individuals would have their privacy remain intact, but the people that would be more of an impact player would be named, so that people can see who's really behind a group. This way, the average citizen could still support whatever cause they wish to without fear of repercussion, but those with greater sway and swag would be identified, and their real intents may become clearer.

One other issue that demonstrates McBride's poor journalistic skill is her use of attributions, or lack thereof. McBride writes:

The speculation derived from a blogger who admits she was completely making it up. The best line came from Freeman columnist James Wigderson, who opined that he’d like to see my husband in the state Assembly because "after the first meeting he’d probably demand mandatory Breathalyzer checks for his colleagues."

Now, I am sure James is pleased to see his name in print again, being the publicity hound that he is. But why wouldn't she name the other blogger, who actually helped to inspire at least this paragraph, and several posts? Is it jealousy? Or is there some other reason, like maybe Paul is really toying with an idea of running?

Who knows? But for those of you who might have missed it, as I wrote last week, the blogger is Cindy Kilkenny, and this is her post.

And on an ending note, it is no wonder that McBride would be against this sort of bill. She is probably afraid that if it was noted that, say she or her husband, had donated to one of these sliming agencies, she might receive the same treatment that she gives to other people who chose to cast aside their cloak of anonymity.

On Banning Free Speech

Having read some of the silliness emanating from a local conservative blog regarding that owner's "liberal" use of banning commenters for perceived meanness, or slams against Christianity, the meaning of free speech was on my mind as I surfed the Internet today. I came upon this piece by Glenn Greenwald in which he comments on the "noxicity" of hate speech laws. He writes of the case of Ezra Levant, "... a right-wing Canadian neoconservative who publishes Western Standard, a typical warmongering, pro-Likud journal -- a poor man's Weekly Standard for Canadian neocons."

A little background: In 2006, Levant published the Danish Mohammed cartoons. An Islamic group's imam filed a complaint against Levant. Greenwald writes that rather than dismissing the complaint out-of-hand as it should have been, the Alberta Human Rights Commission decided to investigate. Though the hearing was closed to the public, Levant insisted on recording the proceedings. His wish was granted with the proviso Levant would not publish the video. He did so anyway and below is this video. As Greenwald says, it's “... nothing short of stomach turning: ...”



As repugnant as Levant's views are, free speech means that he should have the right to expose them to the light of day. For those heads on the right nodding sleepily, Greenwald goes on to say:

For those unable to think past the (well-deserved) animosity one has for the specific targets in question here, all one needs to do instead is imagine these proceedings directed at opinions and groups that one likes. If Muslim groups can trigger government investigations due to commentary they find offensive, so, too, can conservative Christian or right-wing Jewish groups, or conservative or neoconservative groups, or any other political faction seeking to restrict and punish speech it dislikes.

Down that ugly path lies people like Newt Gingrich, openly advocating that the First Amendment be narrowed considerably to exclude advocacy of "radical Islam" as a means of combating terrorism. People who favor and seek to exploit Canadian and European hate speech laws are but opposite sides of the same tyrannical coin as Gingrich and his allies who are eager to restrict political expression here.

Government control of speech, however well-meaning its surrender by citizens and regardless of how well-intentioned the government may be, is never the answer, because anyone believing the government will easily give back what it has been given is easily and frighteningly deluded.

No Freedom Of Speech For You

Charlie, whenever he sees or hears something he doesn't like, like common sense, goes ballistic on it. When someone points this out to him, he trots out his pat, "Well, yes, they have the right to do such and such. And I have the right to say that it's stupid."

However, Charlie doesn't necessarily believe that right extends beyond himself and maybe some of his best buddies.

So when Mike Mathias chooses to talk about childhood obesity and expresses his disappointment that Donald Driver, a hero to young and old here in Wisconsin, has a promotional relationship with McDonald's, well, that is enough to give Charlie conniptions. He ranted about it on the air. He ranted about it on his blogsite.

Apparently, Mr. Mathias isn't allowed to express his opinion. Charlie writes:

Listener asks: "When did ‘humorless’, ‘sanctimonious’, and ‘liberal’ become synonyms?"

and then goes on to link and quote from Mr. Mathias's post.

I didn't get a chance to see it myself, but apparently Charlie, the former journalist, the former Milwaukee Magazine editor, and the so-called "blogfather" was so upset that he couldn't even spell correctly.

Oh, and Charlie, just for your edification, even liberals have the right to free speech and are free to criticize. Despite the best efforts of you and your ilk, this is still a (relatively) free country.

More on Shoebat

Everyone knows about the story of Walid Shoebat, who has been invited to speak at UWM. There has been some controversy about UWM officials wanting to charge an excessive security fee to the student group that had invited Shoebat to speak. Sykes, Belling and McBride all chimed in about how unfair this was, which it was, until the UWM officials did the right thing and dropped the extra security fee.

The Brawler expressed agreement with letting Shoebat speak, but pointed out that the outrage of his appearance is perfectly understandable. He also pointed out the hypocrisy of Sykes, who was yet again using selective outrage.

But, showing that Brawler wasn't the only intellectual in the Cheddarsphere, Tim Rock of Other Side did a little more research into the matter of who is Walid Shoebat. His conclusion: Shoebat is a charlatan.

Too bad for the right-wing squawker brigade that they can't hold a candle to these two intellectuals, or are willing to do basic research before they get their feathers all ruffled.