Wingnuts – Page 40

A Natural Republican

Published on April 26, 20071 Comment

Could this goatherd be related to The Virgin Ben? I think we should be told….

Lonely goat herd, 116

A 116-year-old Ukrainian goat herd claims his long life is down to never having had sex with a woman.

Grigoriy Nestor, from the village of Stariy Yarichev, close to capital Kiev, said: “According to my Christian beliefs there is no sex before marriage, so I never had a wife.

“People that were not married like me live longer. People who get married just argue all the time, and that’s not good for your health.

“I believe that’s why I have lived so long, that and the fact I have never been curious.

“People who know too much always come to a nasty end. Better to stay stupid and not wonder too much about anything.”

He told local newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda he had only been to school twice when he had visited his local primary school for two days and learned to write his name.

He added: “The less you know, the longer you live. Ignorance is long life and happiness.”

His entire life has been spent tending his goats, he said.

[My emphasis]

Aha, I think the Republicans just found their new presidential campaign slogan.

Sadly, No has a post up re lawyer, blogger and online pundit Debbie Schlussel, and boy, I wish I’d never read it, or even seen or heard of her. Speaking as a former member of the legal profession (I was crap at it in practice, I freely admit) I’m under no illusions that lawyers are any more moral, clever or humane than other average mortals. Probably much less so if anything.

Nevertheless at times I’m just completely gobsmacked at the sheer ineptititude, spite and moral stupidity that comes out of US law schools. Ann Althouse, for example, and Ann Coulter and the Powerline trio – all those petty-minded little people with their petty little hatreds, who’ve been given a public bully pulpit to spout off from, just because they were able to pass a bunch of multiple choice exams and can spell ‘libertarianism’. (At least all my finals questions required actual essays, even if I did throw up in Trusts and Equity from sheer exam nerves, and had to resit it in the autumn.). Detroit lawyer Schlussel can spell libertarian too, but only in ALLCAPS.

The ability to memorise a pile of case cites and headnotes does not automatically confer the ability to reason – if only – and so it proves yet again. This US law school product turned, airbrushed-blonde-wingnut-pundit, seems to think an obsession with the race and/or immigration status of the mass-murderer of 33 people is somehow relevant to the crime, and also that the insult ‘Paki’ is a perfectly acceptable epithet for someone from Pakistan.

That’s bad enough, but Schlussel takes her lack of rational thought further into batshit insane wingnut territory as she reasons that because some students are Asians and some Asians are Pakistani and some Pakistanis are Moslem and some Moslems are terrorists – why, then it must’ve been a terrorist…

Who is the “Asian” Mass Murderer at Virginia Tech? UPDATE: Shooter is Chinese National w/Student Visa

[…]

Here’s what we know about the murderer of at least 32 students and maimer of at least 28 more at Virginia Tech, today:

* The murderer has been identified by law enforcement and media reports as “a young Asian male.”

* The Virginia Tech campus has a very large Muslim community, many of which are from Pakistan (per terrorism investigator Bill Warner).

* Pakis are considered “Asian.”

Now I’m no Majikthise, but that reasoning strikes me as just ever-so-slightly disingenuous. And “Pakis”? How very ignorant. Yet a simple google would have produced this as the top result:

Web definitions for Paki

AVOID. An offensive term referring to Pakistanis. Sometimes used in Britain as an epithet against all South Asians

If she didn’t find out whether it was insulting she’s ignorant and racist: and if she knew and just didn’t care she’s maliciously racist. Either way it’s racist. I somehow doubt Ms Schlussel will be guest of honour at the Bradford mela this year, though she might get a pash note from our very own fellow lawyer and racist Nick Griffin.

Seeing this a number of commenters kindly pointed out her error, to be met with this polite response:

MY NAME IS DEBBIE SCHLUSSEL, NOT DON IMUS. IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO FALL ALL OVER THEMSELVES IN SHAME AND GROVELLING FOR YOUR FORGIVENESS FOR SAYING SOMETHING YOU FIND OFFENSIVE, GO TO THE IMUS HOME. ALSO, THIS IS NOT MSNBC OR CBS RADIO. IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO CAVE INTO YOUR THOUGHT-POLICE ORTHODOXY LIKE A WET NOODLE, THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF THIS SITE–ALSO ME–IS NOT WHAT YOU ARE SEEKING.
DEBBIE SCHLUSSEL

Well, there’s a measured and well-thought-out reply. How does a noodle cave, exactly?

Counselor Schluessel has the online manners of a rampaging hippo on angel dust and the literary skills of our 3-legged cat Hector. No wonder she chose punditry over litigation if that’s her courtroom persona. Schlussel, from my admittedly brief perusal of her works, doesn’t strike me as the unambitious type; but if she really wants to reach the giddy heights of Instahackdom (and don’t they all?) it’d help if she had a handle on the correct euphemisms to use when making brioad, sweeping, racist generalisations.

So here, courtesy of Loren Javier is a handy aide-memoire for Schlussel when those racist ants in her undoubtedly pristine pants start to get a little itchy:

Asian
A term either describe somebody of Asian descent or something that comes from Asia. When speaking of Asians who are American citizens, however, use Asian American, Asian Pacific American (APA), Asian Pacific Islander (API) or Asian American/Pacific Islander (AAPI).

Asian AmericanThis phrase was first used in the 1980 Census to describe American citizens from all Asian ethnic backgrounds. It is a commonly used term and is preferred by those of Asian descent who were born and raised in the United States.

Asian Pacific American
This is a relatively new term that is inclusive of both Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. It is abbreviated as APA. Some other acceptable terms are Asian Pacific Islander (API) and Asian American/Pacific Islander (AAPI)

Cantonese
Chinese dialect spoken in the environs of Canton, now known as Guangzhou, near the South China Sea. The dialect of many of the early Chinese immigrants to the United States in the 1840s to 1870s. Also the principal dialect of Hong Kong. Still widely spoken in U.S. Chinatowns.

China Doll
AVOID. A figurine, usually porcelain, but when used metaphorically or as a comparison the implied image of female submission demeans women of Chinese heritage.

[…].

Desi This is a colloquial name for people of South Asian descent, particularly those of Indian and Pakistani descent, to self describe each other or their community. The term is derogatory outside of the South Asian community.

Dragon Lady
A cartoon character from the popular 1930s comic strip, “Terry and the Pirates.” Variations of the Dragon Lady were later popularized in many Hollywood adventure movies of the 1940s and later. She was portrayed as sexy and evil in Chinese silk gowns with long sleeves, cigarette holder between two fingers

Gook
AVOID. This is an offensive term that American soldiers coined to describe Koreans during the Korean War. “Gook” is actually Korean for “country.” “Han Gook” describes a person from the People’s Republic of Korea while “Mee Gook” describes a person from the United States. The irony is that American soldiers believed Koreans were describing themselves as gooks when, in reality, they were describing Americans. The term eventually was used during the Vietnam war and became widely used as a derogatory term for all Asian Americans.

Gosei (GO-say)
Fifth-generation Japanese Americans, generally born in the new millennium. Term is mainly of historical interest only.

[…]

Paki
AVOID. An offensive term referring to Pakistanis. Sometimes used in Britain as an epithet against all South Asians.

Pinoy/Pinay (pee-NOY/pee-NAHY)
This term describes a Filipino American man (Pinoy) or woman (Pinay). While it is widely used within Filipino American communities, some consider it derogatory. It is advised that media use “Filipino American” unless quoting someone who self-identifies that way.

Potato Queen
This is a slang term used to describe lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Asian Pacific Americans, particularly men, who only date Caucasian people. While it is used tongue-in-cheek, it is considered derogatory by some people and, therefore, advised that media avoid it, unless quoting someone who self-identifies that way or is used by an Asian Pacific American in a more opinion or editorial tone.

More…

You’d think a lawyer’d have the necessary research skills to have found that out herself, wouldn’t you? Unless of course that lawyer were determined to give full rein to her basest lizard-brain feelings in the hope of making herself an online career. Otherwise, she’d probably be sitting in some law mill with a thousand other associates churning out boilerplate real-estate contracts. If not for blogging and an unfortunate turn for hateful bile, most of these wingnut lawyer/blogger/pundits’d be doing the same. Aren’t the interwebs wonderful?

[*Note to male progressive bloggers, re Michelle Malkin and oingoing references to pingpong/patpong: much as we loathe her, this post applies to you too. But feel free to use ‘potato queen’ though. It seems rather apt in light of Jesse Malkin’s undoubted caucasianity.]

Palpatine’s Progress

Published on April 15, 20074 Comments

A while back there was a lot of fuss in Australia about Dick Cheney’s entourage of imperial stormtroopers and the military clampdown that they imposed on Sydney citizen’ during his visit:

For three days and nights before Cheney arrived, army Black Hawk helicopters buzzed the Sydney CBD, ostensibly for counter-terrorism training. Several residents contacted newspapers to complain of unbearable noise. One reader told the Sydney Morning Herald: “We are … being buzzed by huge noisy helicopters flying probably only about 20 storeys up. [Five] times in an hour—we can’t hear TV, we can’t talk on the phone.”

Last night, the airspace over Sydney was closed for US Air Force Two to land, and sections of the airport were virtually “locked down”. No members of the public were permitted to enter the vicinity. Dozens of police, security officers and snipers were on the tarmac, as well as inside and outside the airport. A grey Air Force plane arrived first, carrying Cheney’s cavalcade of bulletproof black limousines and an armoured van, while at least three state police helicopters hovered above.

Cheney even pressured the .au government into changing the law so his henchmen could carry guns openly in public, which is bad enough – but a story from Sifu Tweety at The Poor Man makes it horribly clear just how obscene the VP’s arrogance is getting. Apparently Cheney is so completely paranoid that he travels in a plane inside another plane.

Airstream’s appeal seems to have few limits, and indeed a powerful world traveler recently provided proof of its persistent appeal. On a trip to Asia in February, Vice President Dick Cheney traveled in an Airstream — inside an airplane.

Mark Silva, chief of the Washington bureau of The Chicago Tribune, accompanied the vice president as the press corps’ pool print reporter. The group flew on a huge gray C-17 cargo plane that the Air Force calls the Spirit of Strom Thurmond,in honor of the late senator.

!?! Strom Thurmond?. That says so damned much…

Mr. Silva said that when he boarded he noted the familiar outline of the Airstream roof inside the vast fuselage.

What? That’s how he travels? Seriously, is Cheney trying to make himself into a cartoon supervillian? He’s like a white trash Dr. No; would it be surprising at this point if his team of doctors turned out to be sexy martial artists or dwarfs?

Pelosi gets shit for following the common sense recommendations of security professionals, and meanwhile Cheney’s rocking the turducken of air travel. When does this crappy-ass Bruckheimer movie of imperial sunset end, again? Because it’s really stupid.

By the way, I’m sure he uses the C-17 for security purposes. But seriously, the fact that he needs to travel with a small army anywhere he goes in the world doesn’t make it any easier not to see him as, well, what he is.

“The turducken of aviation”. Heh. There’s only one thing missing to make that comparison absolutely perfect.

Little Blog On the Prairie

Published on April 11, 20076 Comments

Evil, evil HTML Mencken, for pointing me at this:

Is it safe to let kids read?

We’ve all heard about librarians who don’t want filters to protect children. What about books? Who’s watching the publishers? Greg Smith’s blog notes that recently he looked through a publisher’s catalog at the YA titles and found:

A book on paralysis
A book on death of a parent, alcoholism, and unwanted pregnancy.
A book on death of a parent through cancer
A book on alcoholism
A book on armed assault with a deadly weapon
A book on death of both parents in a car crash
A book on death of both parents in a car crash and an unwanted pregnancy
A book whose catalog copy is vague, but appears to involve at least armed robbery and child abandonment
An historical book on suicide
A contemporary book on suicide
A book on death of a parent and economic hardship
A book on censorship. And sex.
A book on death by accidental shooting (or general stupidity)
A book on child abandonment, alcoholism, and an accident of indeterminate nature (resulting in, possibly, death)
A book on divorce
A book on death of a parent, economic hardship, robbery, and risking death.
Two books on (1960s) sex, drugs, and rock & roll (and therefore, at least metaphorically, death)

I’m glad I read only horse and dog stories when I was a kid (and Laura Ingalls Wilder); a lot of them were sad, but at least they didn’t commit suicide or steal.

I know, let’s build a big bonfire and burn all those nasty seditious, depressing books in a grand conflagration of all that’s icky.

Then, let’s decapitate those nasty liberal publishers in a loving, biblically Christian sort of way and just pop their heads up on a pole outside the church, so everyone can see what dwelling on unpleasantness can lead to.

Then there’ll never be any more bad things, never, ever again and all will be puppies and rainbows.

There, now, isn’t that nicer?

The Phony War

Published on April 3, 2007

If you read nothing else today please read Sara Robinson’s essay at Orcinus about the harassment of Kathy Sierra and the wider issue it raises of the treatment of vocal women online. She posits that the world of online discourse has effectively been declared as another theatre of war by the US Right, and any notions of rules of engagement have, like the Geneva Coventions, been declared quaint and outdated.

This ties in directly with what I posted yesterday about the US government’s attempt to steal the root keys of the whole internet: that there has been an unofficial (ie the pundits have announced it but the government hasn’t – dodging accountability yet again) ‘declaration’ of proto-fascist, imperialist online war by the Right. now they’ve lost the political argument and the facts are against them.

Oh no, what to do? Slash and burn and blow up the ‘battlefield’. As in real life, so online – no virtual atrocity is now considered out of bounds :

[…]

Back in the bad old days, in most Western cultures, abusive men were protected by a sweetheart deal with the rest of society. The line was clear, simple, and firm: Within the privacy of your home, you could abuse the women of your household in any way that pleased you. That was your right as lord of the castle. As long as you kept it behind closed doors, the community would take your word over hers about what happened, and look the other way rather than notice her bruises. A man’s right to abuse women was absolute and protected — as long as he kept it out of the public eye.

But — and this was the catch — if a man abused a woman in public, where other people would be forced to acknowledge the brutality, all bets were off. Once there were witnesses, it became everybody’s business. Of course, the sanctions focused less on the welfare of the victim, and more on society’s perception of the perpetrator: a man who lost emotional control in front of others lost status and deniability (from then on, those bruises might be noticed after all) — and was at risk for losing his job, his money, and his freedom as well.

There was, however, one place this contract didn’t reach. In war zones, even “civilized” men were excused from any accountability for their actions towards women. In wartime, even “civilized” nations have regarded the public rape and slaughter of women as just another act of war.

And that’s what concerns me here. Metaphorically, the Web is analogous to a public street or meeting hall, and most of us adhere to the same social conventions that we’d use in real-world public places. Women may get whistles and cat-calls (which are every bit as annoying online as they are on a city street — and, fortunately, as ignorable as well); but by and large, we reasonably expect that men will let common courtesy govern their interactions with us.

But if you read her blog, it’s obvious that Sierra’s attackers weren’t adhering to anything like the town square behavior code. (To make the point: if a gang of men had surrounded her and threatened her with rape and murder on a city street, she could have called the cops and had them put away for a long, long time.) Instead, everything about these attacks suggests that those responsible assumed they had a war zone exemption, which suspends accountability for even the most extreme forms of violence against women. Which tells me that, somewhere in their minds, these guys no longer recognize the Web as a community, or the women they meet there as legitimate and equal members of that community. Instead, they see it as a battlefield, where violence is the expected norm. In this imaginary war zone, any woman who’s out in public without male escort has already forfeited any claim to dignity or life.

Where did they get this idea? Sierra’s blog was a downhome tech blog, not a political free-for-all. Her readership was largely male, and she’d served them well for over four years. The vast majority of men would never allow themselves to be seen treating a woman (or anyone, for that matter) this way in public; but these guys figured they could brutalize her, in broad daylight in front of hundreds of other people, with impunity. Why?

Most likely, it was because the men who put up the most heinous comments were right-wing authoritarian followers (RWAs), whose high-social-dominance (high-SDO) leaders given them permission to unleash their violent impulses, and encouraged them to direct it toward high-profile female targets. They did it because someone they regarded as an authority figure told them that the community rules don’t apply any more. America is a war zone. The President has told them so. Their leaders have given them the formal go-ahead to behave accordingly. And that has very specific implications for how they’re allowed to treat women they see as standing outside their own in-group.

[…]

Read whole thing

This is an excellent examination of the way in which certain objectified individuals are isolated and attacked as away of building coherence within an in-group. All are united in the five-minute hate.

If I have any argument with this essay at all it’s that it doesn’t acknowledge that this is the kind of behaviour that minority bloggers of whatever gender have to put up with day in, day out. Sara Robinson herself quotes this from Salon:

But it coarsens you to look away, and to tell others to do the same. I’ve grown a thicker skin. I didn’t want skin this thick. And what does it mean that women writers have to drag around this anchor every time they start to write — that we reflexively compose our own hate mail, and sometimes type and retype to try to avoid it? I can honestly say it’s probably made me more precise and less glib. That’s good. But it’s also, for now, made me too cautious. I write less than I would if I wasn’t thinking these thoughts. I think that’s bad. I think Web misogyny puts women writers at a disadvantage, and as someone who’s worked for women’s advancement in the workplace, and the world, that saddens me.

Without wishing to denigrate the experience of women so afflicted I do have to wonder if, had that read ‘minority’ and ‘racism’ in the place of ‘women’ and misogyny’, whether the topic of online harassment would have got half so much coverage in blogtopia (thanks Skippy).

There’s also the question of anonymity and the licence it gives to be considered, though it’s not as though Orcinus hasn’t tackled that or the position of minority bloggers in the past, so these are minor criticisms.

But, continuing the analogy of a unofficially declared online war, this move to intensify the attack on visible women can be seen as just another battle tactic – attacking your enemy where she’s percieved to be weakest.

The Right is too stupid and vaingloriously testosterone-addicted to realise that women are far from weak; the fact that they see us as being so says all we need to know about their paucity of their intelligence sources and the illusory nature of their ‘online war’ capability.

They’re chickenhawks, not only in life, but also online: and like all abusers they should be named and shamed, using every online tool available. You can tell a lot from an IP address.