Patterico's Pontifications

12/26/2015

Ron Coleman Wins Historic First Amendment Victory in Trademark Case

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:48 am

Regular readers are already familiar with Ron Coleman of Archer & Greiner and the Likelihood of Confusion blog. (If you’re not, you should be — and I will fill you in at the end of the post.) Ron just won a historic victory in a trademark case involving First Amendment issues. The bottom line is this: thanks to Ron Coleman, the government can no longer squash your speech by using trademark law to find your trademark “disparaging.”

I’ll just quote the Federal Circuit decision, sitting en banc, so that you can see for yourself how sweeping and important this is:

The government cannot refuse to register disparaging marks because it disapproves of the expressive messages conveyed by the marks. It cannot refuse to register marks because it concludes that such marks will be disparaging to others. The government regulation at issue amounts to viewpoint discrimination, and under the strict scrutiny review appropriate for government regulation of message or viewpoint, we conclude that the disparagement proscription of § 2(a) is unconstitutional. Because the government has offered no legitimate interests justifying § 2(a), we conclude that it would also be unconstitutional under the intermediate scrutiny traditionally applied to regulation of the commercial aspects of speech.

This is the part where we all rise to our feet and join a rousing standing ovation.

I was unaware of this particular case (and Ron’s role in it) until yesterday, but regular readers will remember that the issue of disparaging trademarks and the First Amendment was discussed on this blog last year, in connection with the Redskins trademark. In June, I noted that the Patent and Trademark Office had invalidated the team’s then 82-year-old mark, suddenly deciding out of nowhere (in the middle of a P.C.-driven controversy on which Obama had weighed in; odd how that happens!) that the mark was “disparaging to Native Americans.” Our reader SPQR pointed out the obvious First Amendment issues in that post, and I stated: “I agree with him [SPQR] that this decision violates the First Amendment. This is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination in a limited public forum.” (Always trust content from Patterico!)

That evening, I elaborated on the First Amendment issue, with some help from Eugene Volokh. I ended my post by saying: “I’m not surprised to hear that the Redskins are appealing the ruling — and I hope they win . . . and squash this precedent hard.”

Well, the Redskins appeal is still pending before the Fourth Circuit. But they got a real boost from the decision in the case handled by Ron, which I will turn to now. The decision is here, and it makes my heart swell with pride to see the name at the very top of the decision, and to be associated with this man:

Screen Shot 2015-12-26 at 10.19.39 AM

Ron’s client — can it really be possible that he represented this client pro bono as well? Apparently so! — is Mr. Simon Shiao Tam, who founded a band called “The Slants.” At Ars Technica, they explain: “Tam, the front man for the dance-rock band, has said he chose the mark to ‘own’ the stereotype and has said that reaction from the Asian community has been ‘very positive.'” As the court states:

Mr. Simon Shiao Tam named his band THE SLANTS to make a statement about racial and cultural issues in this country. With his band name, Mr. Tam conveys more about our society than many volumes of undisputedly protected speech. Another rejected mark, STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA, proclaims that Islamisation is undesirable and should be stopped. Many of the marks rejected as disparaging convey hurtful speech that harms members of oft-stigmatized communities. But the First Amendment protects even hurtful speech.

“Stop the Islamisation of America” is Pam Geller’s (attempted) trademark — and in the opinion, it is included in a long list of trademarks rejected as “disparaging” ranging from the ridiculous to the politically passionate. In addition to the Slants and Geller’s trademark, the list includes the Redskins; “Democrats Shouldn’t Breed”; “Republicans Shouldn’t Breed”; a symbol of the Soviet Union with an X over it (can’t disparage the commies, you know!); and many others. Meanwhile, “Think Islam” and “Dykes on Bikes” were approved after it was shown that the relevant groups approved of the message. Whether a mark was “disparaging” or contained praise ended up being critical to its treatment by the government.

So we had a situation where out government approved a “Think Islam” trademark but rejected a “Stop the Islamisation of America” trademark. Are you beginning to see the First Amendment implications yet?

The opinion notes that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board had determined that Tam was referring to Asians with the term “The Slants” in part because of his public statements that he wished to “own” the stereotype — and in part “because there was record evidence of individuals and groups in the Asian community objecting to Mr. Tam’s use of the word.” You read that correctly: interest groups whined about his use of a term they considered hurtful to their feels — and government stepped in to help squash the offender’s livelihood. Are you beginning to see the First Amendment implications yet?

The panel decision had opined, in line with previous precedent, that the First Amendment was not implicated because The Slants could use the name (just as the Redskins can use theirs) — they just would not receive statutory protection. The previous precedent had been widely criticized — yet it had been widely applied in other circuits because of the cachet that the Federal Circuit has in intellectual property matters. The Federal Circuit therefore decided to take the case en banc. Not only did the en banc court find this particular decision violated the First Amendment but — and this is the epic part — they struck down the disparagement provision as unconstitutional.

In so doing, they noted that the Obama administration (antiseptically called “the government” in the opinion, as you do) had defended the unconstitutional provision because it didn’t like the speech:

Underscoring its hostility to these messages, the government repeatedly asserts in its briefing before this court that it ought to be able to prevent the registration of “the most vile racial epithets and images,” Appellee’s En Banc Br. 1, and “to dissociate itself from speech it finds odious,” id. 41.

Are you beginning to see the First Amendment implications yet?

When “the government” is in court arguing “we should be able to disfavor this speech because we don’t like it” . . . well, you’d think a light bulb might go off inside someone’s head.

To me, this is the trademark version of the Nazis marching at Skokie — only Ron’s client is a good guy, not a bad guy.

So, the government will not be picking and choosing between trademarks based on their content any more — thanks to Ron Coleman.

What’s more, this is going to be a game-changer for the Redskins in the Fourth Circuit. I will remind you that this decision was issued by the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc — and the Federal Circuit which is the big enchilada when it comes to intellectual property issues. There is no way that the Fourth Circuit doesn’t examine this opinion closely.

I’d like to close the post by saying a little something about Ron Coleman. In addition to becoming a partner this year at Archer & Greiner and running the Likelihood of Confusion blog, Ron, along with the redoubtable Bruce Godfrey of Jezic & Moyse LLC, is defending me in the absurd and censorious lawsuit brought by convicted bomber and perjurer Brett Kimberlin. (It’s the Energizer Bunny case: still going since 2013!)

And Ron — along with Kenneth P. White of Brown White & Osborn LLP and the essential Popehat blog, who took a very active role in the case and toiled for countless hours alongside Ron — achieved a dismissal of the Nadia Naffe case in which I paid nothing and retracted nothing I had said. Ron and Ken obtained this result after Ron argued and won an important precedent in the Ninth Circuit allowing public officials to speak on matters of public concern. In some ways, being a part of that case is the most consequential thing I have done as a blogger — and I could not have done it without Ron’s help.

For many lawyers, the Slants case would be the highlight of a career. But Ron has many other highlights — and more still to come. (Including, we hope, another important First Amendment victory in 2016.)

Ron Coleman is a good man who fights for important principles. Go congratulate him on his fine work here. He can be found on Twitter @roncoleman and (more esoterically) @likely2confuse.

158 Responses to “Ron Coleman Wins Historic First Amendment Victory in Trademark Case”

  1. It’s amazing to me that this took so long — but it’s just an awesome, critically important result.

    Patterico (eac304)

  2. They would be good guys to know when the FEC starts regulating bloggers.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  3. Your remark about ” (It’s the Energizer Bunny case: still going since 2013!) ” reminded me of poor Mark Steyn. At his post:

    http://www.steynonline.com/7289/imperialist-warmongering-deniers-of-the-human

    He notes in an aside: ” ~As to the court case – Mann vs Steyn – Robert Tracinski notes en passant here that we’re now in the fourth year at the District of Columbia Superior Court. I voluntarily submitted to their jurisdiction (I don’t live or work in the District of Columbia, and nor does Mann) because I naively assumed they had the minimal competence to adjudicate a 270-word blog post in under half a decade. They don’t. It’s somewhat frustrating to be trapped in a choked toilet of a “justice” system where everything is actionable but there’s never any action. ”

    Sometimes it seems our legal system is designed to ensure that “The PROCESS is the Punishment”.

    A_Nonny_Mouse (2a6a6e)

  4. I think that Stein’s problem is that the Law suggests one outcome, while Politics suggests another. So they stall.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  5. great now I can start raising money to buy a football team so I can name them the jewskins in fond memory of the redskins owner.

    nate (278c8f)

  6. It’s simple, my kneejerk reaction is always if Obama’s minions are for it, then I’m against it. Reliable over 98.6% of the time.

    ropelight (626f1f)

  7. When it comes to the odious Perry, the reliability rate jumps to 110%.

    ropelight (626f1f)

  8. This is good news, indeed, and so important. How does one not see the First Amendment implications? It’s frightening how strong the push is to curtail and determine at all levels, ‘acceptable’ speech. I think the president’s oft-repeated rebuke is appropriate here – not that he would agree, of course, because hurts, but if there ever was an appropriate use for the reminder, it’s in this- “That’s not American. That’s not who we are.”

    Dana (86e864)

  9. The truly astounding thing which makes ZERO sense in the whole Redskins/Seminoles/Braves/etc etc etc ad nauseum issue is one I rarely see brought up:

    THESE TERMS ARE NOT BEING USED DISPARAGINGLY IN CONTEXT.

    Proof?

    You would never have heard of a team named (my pardon) “The Nashville Niggers”. Nor would you hear of (again, pardon) “The San Francisco Slopes” — because SPORTS TEAMS would never, ever do that (with a few random collegiate exceptions which tie to the college itself being down on the whole idea of organized athletics, to wit, the Banana Slugs or the Zips).

    NO — Sports teams consistently and ALMOST uniformly represent an ideal worthy of emulation — usually fierceness and power (Bears, Gators, Tigers, Bulldogs) or at least a worthwhile quality (Owls, Ravens — wisdom and cunning, respectively).

    So I put it to you — and by all means, please feel free to spread this point either quoting me or otherwise — That the reason for using the term “Redskin” isn’t to disparage people of Amerind descent, it’s to RESPECT them as fierce warriors worthy of appreciation and concern… certainly NOT as objects of contempt of any kind whatsoever.

    This mindless caterwauling is just another form of P.J. O’Rourke’s notion of “Perpetual Indignance”. The (generally liberal) effort to go on the offensive to try and keep others on the defensive, regardless of how rational the actual subject under attack might be.

    IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (668532)

  10. great now I can start raising money to buy a football team so I can name them the jewskins

    Sure. Good luck signing players or getting TV contracts. Just because government doesn’t enforce them, there are still limits.

    And a government that can bad something odious can just as easily require it.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  11. *ban. Got cold.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  12. I’m glad to see this. The problem nowadays, as I have said before, is the combination of bumper sticker thinking and narcissism in our society. That is, we care mostly about how our position makes us feel about ourselves.

    Which is why we get clear violations of First Amendment issues—because our heart tells us we are good people and don’t want someone else to feel badly.

    Simon Jester (3a06ee)

  13. Doing God’s work Ron & Ken!

    Craig Mc (bcb1c9)

  14. That is, we care mostly about how our position makes us feel about ourselves.

    I’m not so sure that’s it, SJ, It seems to me most people care much more about how others see them than they do about how they see themselves.

    Take the well known tendency to tell pollsters what we think they want to hear, or what’s politically correct, and not what we actually think. Consider the moral posturing that goes on daily on radio and TV, in newspapers and on blogs. It’s called virtue signalling and it’s pandemic.

    ropelight (626f1f)

  15. What do you mean “we”, paleface?* These are bureaucratic nebbishes in the warm bosom of mama.gov who bear little likeness to normal people. The beast ’80s conservatives talked about starving and never did because we elected Republicans instead.

    *Lone Ranger joke. 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  16. STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA sounds like trademark trolling to me. Intended to keep people other than the trademark owners from saying that. I doubt that there is a business associated with it. Did you guys know that, BTW? That a trademark cannot exist unless it is associated with a business engaged in trade? And when it comes down to it, a trademark is really a restriction on speech?

    nk (dbc370)

  17. The government and specifically President Obama is inconsistent. He has his appointments over at the FTC challenging in consent orders trade associations for NOT allowing its member to “disparage” competitors. They find it anticompetitive restriction on speech. Now its DOJ will defend to protect against disparage in trademark redskins matter. The fact is the answer to offensive speech is more speech. If and when speech moves into unprotected zones then enforce the law. This strike first ask questions later is highly corrosive to a society of solutions through discourse. This government protection in early stages of thought is counter productive to a free thinking and speaking nation. Here is one of the FTC pro-disparagement actions, which I agree with! https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/131-0205/california-association-legal-support-professionals-matter

    Randy Scott (3de4fd)

  18. the action against SIOA, seems to be as deliberate as any crimethink move we can think of,

    narciso (732bc0)

  19. proscription, is the word I was thinking about,

    narciso (732bc0)

  20. A victory is a victory but you cannot tell me this crap will not continue with a change in titular head of government:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-26/mystery-dubais-vaporized-gold-plot-thickens

    President Jarrett was behind this one but the owners of government get their cut regardless.

    DNF (ffe548)

  21. freedom i won’t let you down i will not give you up

    happyfeet (831175)

  22. So, will saying “slants” now be permitted only when referring to Mr. Simon Shiao Tam’s band, under penalties as provided by the Lanham Act? Similarly, will the Washington Redskins be able to have the word “redskins” edited out of every western book and movie on the grounds that it dilutes their trademark? Will Pam Geller be able to sue Hoagie if he says “Stop The Islamisation of America”, here, without her permission? Think about the consequences of giving someone a monopoly on a commonly used word or phrase.

    nk (dbc370)

  23. nk #22 – unless I misunderstand the situation, putting a common-use word in a trademark merely associates that trademark with a particular commercial (trade) purpose … Hoover (vacua) has its trademark name, which in limited ways limits the Hoover Institute from using the Hoover name – I suspect (and others can confirm or refute) that the main limitation is that the Institute cannot sell ‘Hoover Vacuum Cleaners’, and possibly cannot use the explicit trademarked font (for the word Hoover) that Hoover (vacua) uses …

    Alastor (5d203b)

  24. Happy St. Stephen’s Day, Alastor. I know my examples are “trademark dilution” at its most abusive. My main point is that trademarks are a restriction on speech enforced by the government. A chink in the armor of the First Amendment, and possibly a slippery slope where people could trademark speech they do not like and sue to repress it. There’s a hint that this is Mr. Tam’s intention when he says he wants to “own the stereotype”, but I admit that my slant may be extreme.

    But let me make it clear that I am not trying to take anything away from Mr. Coleman’s win. This was good lawyering.

    nk (dbc370)

  25. nk is apparently suffering from a case of Milhouse’s Syndrome by proxy.

    ropelight (67d6e0)

  26. Death to Chicago in 2016!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  27. Barack Hussein Obama: Muslim of the Year!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  28. I love the smell of the Obamastration getting slapped in the face with the Constitution in the morning! And with the Redskins victory last night, they clinched the NFC East Division, meaning there is a chance — albeit a slim, Dumb & Dumber chance — that Barack Obama’s least favorite NFL team could win the Super Bowl.

    If that happens, we’ll see if he’s man enough to host the Champion Redskins in the Oval Office and accept that jersey all the teams give the POTUS. He’d probably find something else to do that day, like the little weasel he is.

    L.N. Smithee (e698ae)

  29. Someone’s gotta stick a camera and a microphone in Barbra Streisand’s schnozz and ask why she’s poured thousands of dollars into Brett Kimberlin’s pocket just to harass and sue people.

    Sharyl Attkisson, please answer the white phone.

    L.N. Smithee (e698ae)

  30. OT: (Pepe is rabidly antiAmerican but FWIW) Warboard in finger paint:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-26/washingtons-empire-chaos-cold-war-20-new-normal

    DNF (755a85)

  31. Perhaps Streisand should be sent a notice to abate the Kimberlin public nuisance.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  32. ask why she’s poured thousands of dollars into Brett Kimberlin’s pocket just to harass and sue people.

    Liberals like Streisand are absolutely pathetic and even scary because they’re such dummies and fools when it comes to judging the good and bad in both people and situations. In the twisted world of the left (a shout out to What’s-His-Name!—that which currently occupies the Oval Office), the good becomes bad, bad become good, up is down and down is up. All of that made much worse because “lefties” believe that, even if they’re dummies, since their intentions are (presumably) warm and wonderful, they’re forgiven all their transgressions, if not, oddly enough, outright heartlessness.

    Mark (f713e4)

  33. Well already indulging in category error, missadegh would have led to a Soviet intervention, like Fletcher knebel suggested in seven days.

    narciso (b19692)

  34. Fletcher Kniebel co-wrote “Seven Days in May”. Pretty sure it did not discuss Mosaddegh. Are you thinking of Bobby Kennedy’s “Thirteen Days”?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  35. I would tell Barbra Streisand to “shut up and sing” but she’s too old to be making any more hit songs.

    But it’s fitting that the Streisand Effect has gone nukular with its remake: the Kimberlin Effect.

    John Hitchcock (5d2531)

  36. nk is apparently suffering from a case of Milhouse’s Syndrome by proxy.
    ropelight (67d6e0) — 12/27/2015 @ 8:03 am

    Now that’s funny, and I don’t care who you are!

    larry the cable guy (feee21)

  37. teeheeheeeheehee. 😆

    yoda (feee21)

  38. the backstory, to Seven Days, was a war in Iran, that took the place of Vietnam in his world, from the perspective of 1963, with the Soviets taking the North, and the US supporting the South,
    it was pointing out that Zerohedge’s starting point was bunk, now had it not been for the land reform imposed on the Shah, which was one Khomeini’s bete noires, and then Carter’s follow up,

    narciso (732bc0)

  39. Guess what I’m holding in my hand, a bite give you I will. Bottom-fondling toe-jam sniffers.

    nk (dbc370)

  40. it looks like a logo for the star killer base,

    http://www.theslants.com/

    well there is something to intellectual property, but there are limitation on that,

    narciso (732bc0)

  41. And just yesterday the Redskins cliched the NFC East. Coincidence? I don’t think so!

    Mark Johnson (8abe57)

  42. Well actually they “clinched” it but I suppose that is a bit of a cliche.

    Mark Johnson (8abe57)

  43. Meanwhile…back at ground zero.

    Ron Coleman is wonderful.

    Highly regarded…

    Under appreciated.

    McKiernan (a9b93f)

  44. It was a 9-3 decision so that must have included some Democrat appointed judges in the majority.

    Mark Johnson (8abe57)

  45. Narcisco, you’re right. It’s been a long time. Found an electronic version and searched it. I particularly was struck by this:

    “Jordan Lyman got me with his acceptance speech,” Henderson said. “First Democrat I ever voted for. I’ll never forget that line of his-‘We will talk till eternity, but we’ll never yield another inch of free soil, any place, any time.’ ”

    As I recall the actual 1972 Democrat candidate was somewhat different on that point.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  46. Lyman is an idealized Kennedy figure, who dissapoints his new supporters pushing for this deal with the Soviets, General Scott, the Lemayish war hero has other plans,

    narciso (732bc0)

  47. “You don’t have Milhouse to kick around any more, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference visit.”

    – Milhouse

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  48. Congrats, Mr Coleman. It is always pleasant to see good people winning and making the law do right by the people.

    JD (34f761)

  49. Did you guys know that, BTW? That a trademark cannot exist unless it is associated with a business engaged in trade? And when it comes down to it, a trademark is really a restriction on speech?

    nk (dbc370) — 12/26/2015 @ 3:59 pm

    Not so, NK. I can own a trademark for virtually any purpose. All I need to do is show I plan to use that mark in conjunction with a good, product, or service. And no, it is not a restriction on speech. It is a unique identifier of that good, product, or service. It is a promotion of commerce. The restriction lie where another entity may not use the same mark for another like or same product. When GM says Chevrolet, they use it to identify their mark. They are not identifying Chrysler. When I say Chevrolet, I do not mean Citroen. That bowtie is a specific identity.

    And remember- as with any other form of speech, there are three things you may do: 1) you may agree with it (in this case, buy the offer from the mark) 2) counter it (offer as good if not better a product) or 3) ignore it (decide not to buy or compete). You may not call yourself something you are not- the exact point of trademark protection. This ruling found that the government may not keep you from calling yourself something offensive, onerous, unpleasant, and so on. As with so many other things, the market will decide in fairly short order just how far “The Slants” will progress.

    Bill H (2a858c)

  50. “You don’t have Milhouse to kick around any more, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference visit.”

    – Milhouse

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 12/27/2015 @ 6:10 pm

    Colonel, don’t excite me so. Just, what did I miss?

    Bill H (2a858c)

  51. I can’t believe no one else has noted that one of Coleman’s co-counsels was named “Darth.”

    Jenos Idanian (57de13)

  52. Hmmm, the ad on Pandora I just saw on the other tab said that the phrase, “So what do I do with my money” is a registered trademark…

    I guess if Ali was in his prime today he would trademark, “I am the greatest”

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  53. Paris Hilton trademarked “That’s hot.” Be careful what you say when you eat chili.
    A building in Chicago was trademarked and a person selling picture postcards with a picture of it got a cease and desist letter from a lawyer. Afraid of litigation, he ceased and desisted. Even though the “trademark” is nothing more than a way to avoid the time limitation on design patents.
    A while back, Beldar linked a case where Starbucks ordered a tavern owner to cease and desist from selling Frappicino beer because it violated Starbucks’s trademark of frapuccino polluted water.
    And there’s lots more.

    Not too long ago, our Hoagie commented that laws are made to keep lawyers employed. That is definitely true of trademark law. In the depths to which it has sunk.

    nk (dbc370)

  54. Imagine an emoticon with a confuzzled face.

    (Oh, BTW, I hereby declare “confuzzled” a trademark…)

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  55. It’s good you picked confuzzled, because I already claim confused™. (O.o.)?

    nk (dbc370)

  56. R.I.P. Meadowlark Lemon

    Icy (74931c)

  57. Dibbs on Milhouse’s Syndrome by Proxy.

    ropelight (197636)

  58. Well, nk, it so happens I just went through the trademark maze myself. About a year ago I came up with a very new twist on an old idea: bottled water. Yes, I know it’s been done but not this bottled water. This is such an explosive idea everyone who sees it wants in, even the lawyers. My niece, knowing I’m a lazy old fart wanted to start the company she knew I would never start so we collaborated to get this thing going.

    We discovered that nowadays one needs to come up with a trade-markable name FIRST before one starts a corporation, a website or a logo. Of course we discovered that after doing it in the wrong order and wasting about $6,000 on legal stuff. But don’t worry, Uncle Hoagie will cover it!

    Anyway, we were advised that the easiest name to trademark is a made-up word. So we made up a “name” out of two words conjoined and Poof!, instant trademark, website, corporation and really cool logo (that was another 4 grand).

    I don’t think trademarks, patents or copyrights limit free speech so much as they protect original ideas, improvements and intellectual property. If there were no protections for the little guy the big guy would just suck up all the new and improved ideas. How could we live in a world without the Hoola-Hoop™ or the Pet Rock™?

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  59. Nice of you to reference me Patterico but it wasn’t necessary.

    SPQR (4764ea)

  60. water i love water

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  61. This water is not for happyfeets.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  62. This is the Rev. Uncle Hoagie’s water:

    https://mail.verizon.com/webmail/driver?nimlet=download&fid=Pawter&mid=9&partIndex=0.1&disp=inline

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  63. hrm is not loadering

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  64. a story, richard serrano might be interested in

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/28/notallmuslims-helped-plot-the-san-bernardino-attack/

    just kidding, nothing to see here,

    narciso (732bc0)

  65. trademarks, patents or copyrights limit … protect original ideas, improvements and intellectual property.

    Totally agree. My quarrel is with the cross-eyed nitwits at the PTO and the flesh-pulling lawyers who abuse them.

    nk (dbc370)

  66. Hey Rev.,

    Can’t get it to work.

    BTW, did you see where we’all drafted you to move to Wisconsin and primary Paul Ryan? It was figured you had the wealth to start it off yourself,
    but I didn’t see a response from you.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  67. Sorry. That copy and paste should have been

    I don’t think trademarks, patents or copyrights limit free speech so much as they protect original ideas, improvements and intellectual property.

    nk (dbc370)

  68. The Sleepwalkers… http://americandigest.org/aasleepwalker.jpg

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  69. From today’s NY Times:

    Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, U.S. Commander in Gulf War, Dies at 78

    Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, who commanded the American – led forces that crushed Iraq in the 1991 Persian Gulf war and became the nation’s most acclaimed military hero since the midcentury exploits of Generals Dwight D. Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur, died on Thursday in Tampa, Fla. He was 78. The general, who retired soon after the gulf war and lived in Tampa, died of complications arising from a recent bout of pneumonia, said his sister Ruth Barenbaum…

    ropelight (197636)

  70. Two things:

    1.

    I can’t believe no one else has noted that one of Coleman’s co-counsels was named “Darth.”

    Jenos Idanian (57de13) — 12/28/2015 @ 4:25 am

    I just noticed that! Did some Googling and it seems there’s no way around the origin of his name.

    He also is apparently a soccer referee in a minor league.

    2. Ropelight, Stormin’ Norman died three years ago yesterday. Is the New York Times reprinting his obituary?

    L.N. Smithee (e750c1)

  71. LNS, it’s gone. I saw it then, but I don’t see it now. I’ve been taken in by a smooth criminal.

    ropelight (197636)

  72. So we had a situation where out government approved a “Think Islam” trademark but rejected a “Stop the Islamisation of America” trademark. Are you beginning to see the First Amendment implications yet?

    I often muse that people of the left — instead of making a mess of things and then ultimately having the ease and comfort of voting with their feet and the moving van — should be packed up and moved to a part of society where their ideology/ethos is pretty much monolithic and running rampant (eg, throughout today’s Nidal-Hasan-ized US government greatly influenced since January 2009 by What’s-His-Name), citing the city of Detroit as a paradigm place for that.

    To add to the options, and wanting such people to not be allowed to foist off their irresponsibility and idiocy onto others but to instead live the experience 24/7, 365 days a year:

    americanthinker.com, Thomas Lifson, December 28, 2015:

    File this one in the “no good deed goes unpunished” directory. News24 in South Africa reports:

    THE good Samaritans who took onto their farm over 100 refugees displaced by this year’s xenophobic violence, now claim they have been threatened with murder by the same people they had set out to help. Besides property being destroyed, the ­family who took in the immigrants have also been accused of not helping them to be ­relocated back home or to another country, driving a chasm between them.

    Owners of Hope Farm in Cato Ridge, ­Andrew and Rae Wartnaby, were yesterday forced to evacuate their 10 children from their farm house in fear that they would be attacked or used as “bargaining tools”. This, after a group of the foreign nationals they are housing on their farm attacked their home in the early hours of yesterday morning and threatened to kill Andrew.

    The Wartnabys took in about 139 foreign nationals from countries such as Burundi and the Congo, including children, after they were arrested for squatting at the Chatsworth Sport Ground where they had been living during the height of the ­xenophobic violence in the province.

    Kind of reminds me of this:

    Because they don’t have free wi-fi, a gang of African migrants in their tiny host town in Italy rioted, blocking streets, demonstrating and turning over garbage bins. The refugees, mostly from sub-Saharan Africa, have been in a villa in the Italian town of Ceranova, courtesy of the country’s taxpayers. Under Italian rules, they can not work, so they lounge about, spending their free time using Skype to call their families back home, Breitbart is reporting.

    But it’s impossible to Skype without wi-fi, so they’re demanding faster service. The protests began last week when the refugees began blocking the roads in the tiny town of 2,100 people. The riots escalated with the migrants trying to intimidate the local community by throwing garbage into the streets of the town.

    They’re also demanding maid service paid for by the government.

    Mark (74fce8)

  73. So, will saying “slants” now be permitted only when referring to Mr. Simon Shiao Tam’s band, under penalties as provided by the Lanham Act? Similarly, will the Washington Redskins be able to have the word “redskins” edited out of every western book and movie on the grounds that it dilutes their trademark?

    No, of course not, any more than greengrocers are prohibited from advertising apples for sale, or the word “yankee” is edited out of the many books that use it. Apple Computers’ trademark only prohibits others from selling computers under that name, while Apple Records’ trademark prohibits others from selling music under that name (which is why Apple Computers ran into a problem when it started selling music). So nobody else can use “Slants” to sell music, and nobody else can use “Redskins” to sell football paraphernalia.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  74. A chink in the armor of the First Amendment, and possibly a slippery slope where people could trademark speech they do not like and sue to repress it. There’s a hint that this is Mr. Tam’s intention when he says he wants to “own the stereotype”,

    That’s a completely different sense of “own”. He doesn’t want to possess the intellectual property in the stereotype, he wants to claim the stereotype as his own, instead of running away from it.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  75. nk is apparently suffering from a case of Milhouse’s Syndrome by proxy.

    I hesitate to name the syndrome ropelight suffers from. It’s not printable in a family environment.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  76. they seem to have left somethings out of the picture,

    http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-sb-shooter-investigation-20151224-story.html

    narciso (732bc0)

  77. Colonel, don’t excite me so. Just, what did I miss?

    Nothing. Go jump in the lake, jerk.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  78. “Go jump in the lake, jerk”

    Ironically, that’s exactly what the all-knowing, sarcastic jerk Milhouse tells the little girls before he drops their bodies in the cold, dark lake.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  79. Is it just me,
    Or is the Rev. declining to acknowledge the “draft Hoagie to better Wisconsin and save the Republic” movement?

    MD in Philly (not in Philly) (deca84)

  80. maybe he’s just upset over the trademark rejection, the key to an insurgent movement is like Brat in Virginia, they need to be nearly invisible, until they pop up like in Red Dawn, otherwise you get the O’Donnel, McDaniel, Wolfe treatment,

    narciso (732bc0)

  81. You can jump in the lake too, “colonel”. If you can’t be civil, shut up. I am never the one to take things personal, but if you attack me I have the right to respond in kind.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  82. Lighten up, Francis.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  83. far from an attack
    it’s more of an exposé
    no judgments rendered

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  84. look at you

    happyfeet (831175)

  85. a loser since birth
    he sits Shiva for his dreams
    he is chopped liver

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  86. Milhouse, you as much as called me a paranoid lunatic for pointing out that Christianity was being given short shrift while Islam received favorable treatment. The following is from the Thoughts on Christmas Eve post.

    There is no “pervasive bias against Christianity and favoritism for Islam”. That is a wicked myth that paranoid lunatics like to spread. It’s almost as ridiculous as Trutherism. Some of it reflects a view that the government ought to promote Christianity, and a hankering for the days when it routinely did so.

    Milhouse (8489b1) – 12/26/2015 @ 5:52 pm

    You’re dead wrong on that point. A blind fool could see it.

    And now you won’t name the Syndrome you say I’m suffering from because of some imaginary family restriction. No problem, wouldn’t want to see you suffer any more than you already do.

    ropelight (197636)

  87. And now you won’t name the Syndrome you say I’m suffering from

    I don’t know about you, but a variety of posts from Milhouse through the months have illustrated liberal (ie, ass-backwards) tendencies. He doesn’t want to admit that about himself, but — as in any 12-step program — the first step to recovery is at least admitting you have a problem.

    Mark (74fce8)

  88. Milhouse, you as much as called me a paranoid lunatic

    No, I wrote that the myth that there is a “pervasive bias against Christianity and favoritism for Islam” is one that is invented and spread by paranoid lunatics. You might be such a person, or you might be innocently quoting such a person, not realising that that is what s/he is. It’s just as false as the claim that Cheney staged the 11-Sep-2001 attacks, or that vaccinations cause autism, but like those claims, lots of people are deluded into believing it.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  89. And now you won’t name the Syndrome you say I’m suffering from because of some imaginary family restriction.

    Not an imagined family restriction. This is a family site, and I’m sure Patterico wants it kept clean.

    Mark, however, is certifiably insane. He’s got his own peculiar definition of “left”, which is all about the one topic that is constantly on his brain: homosexuality.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  90. By Mark’s definition, Patterico is even further to the left than me, because he actually supports same-sex marriage, which I don’t.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  91. Milhouse, the fact you can’t even admit that you do on occasion reflect left-leaning biases, but instead play ad-hominem games with “insane” and “homosexuality,” is due to what?

    BTW, whenever you feel those liberal urges welling up in the corner of your brain, stomp on them, throttle them, flip them off. Liberal sentiment often deadens a person’s logic/common sense and, worse of all, makes such a person sympathize with the wrong (or bad) person/group/situation and, in turn, ostracize the right (or good) person/group/situation. Hence, liberalism has a knack of making a person ass-backwards.

    Mark (f713e4)

  92. 82.Is it just me,
    Or is the Rev. declining to acknowledge the “draft Hoagie to better Wisconsin and save the Republic” movement?

    Sorry, I must have been running around doing Christmas stuff. Thanks however, I must decline. Sorry that link won’t work. If I get another coy that does I’ll show y’all.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  93. Milhouse if you deny the pervasive bias against Christianity and favoritism toward Islam, you deny the obvious. The article you tried to nitpick contains several examples of bias which I’m sure you had a chance to read.

    You’re the one spreading wicked myths: “There is no “pervasive bias against Christianity and favoritism for Islam.” You’re the one defending the indefensible.

    Now, why is the question, why continue to push a point of view that’s so obviously dead wrong, and what motivates you to do it?

    ropelight (a520ba)

  94. And then you see a poll like this:

    A new poll reveals that 45 percent of the Democrats who responded believe that Christians are a greater threat to America than Muslims.

    No shock that 72 percent of atheists agree.

    But the surprise is that 18 percent of those who consider themselves ” very conservative” agree.

    As do 29 percent of Protestants.

    And 23 percent of Catholics.

    Interestingly, the sample of Muslims was very small, but 100 percent said it is Muslims who are the greater danger.

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/democrats-think-christians-bigger-threat-than-muslims/#qTtvEWpvrkkwjtS0.99

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  95. louse, louse
    get out of milhouse
    moose, moose
    turn loose teh milhoose
    is he a gadfly
    or a blowfly?

    Colonel Haiku (c7ccf8)

  96. WND is less credible than Russia Today. And it depends whom you ask and which “Christians” you’re asking about. I think Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ (Obama’s church) is more dangerous than Muslims; and Episcopal Church USA (if I have that right as the one with the “married” homosexual bishops of both sexes) even more so because it is larger, wealthier, and more insidious.

    nk (dbc370)

  97. you want he should leave
    but teh schmuck still runs amok
    needs a mohel now

    Colonel Haiku (c7ccf8)

  98. It’s the truth that counts, not where it’s published – WND or Russia Today. The LA Times, the NY Times, and the WaPo do occasionally get it right but more often than not, especially when it comes to Conservatives, and dramatically so when it comes to Donald Trump, those Democrat Party House organs omit, twist, and outright manufacture events to fit their preconceived narrative. Everyone knows it even if not everyone will admit the truth when it’s right under their noses.

    The truth is important, not who says it, and not why they say it.

    ropelight (a520ba)

  99. Well nk you forgot the democratic convention where the delegates boo’d god and Israel.

    narciso (48ecae)

  100. How the dems act, time and again, ‘they stand with the moslems’ at every crucial point, whether supporting Maliki till the last minute, or pushing the salafi rebels in libya and syria.

    narciso (48ecae)

  101. A new poll reveals that 45 percent of the Democrats who responded believe that Christians are a greater threat to America than Muslims.

    Merely another illustration of the way that left-leaning sentiments make a person ass-backwards in terms of how they judge the good and bad in both humans and situations.

    But the surprise is that 18 percent of those who consider themselves ” very conservative” agree.

    I bet they’re conservative in the vein of a George W Bush, referring to people who believe “conservative” needs to be qualified with “compassionate.” Or, as in the case of Bush Jr’s father, will express pride about appointing someone like a David Souter to an important position when it turns out such a person is a big squish, if not flat-out liberal. Or they’ll believe Africa is a socio-economic-political mess not necessarily because of the generations-long failings of the so-called indigenous population but because of the greed and hegemony of more recent arrivals (eg, white Europeans). Or — as in the case of Peggy Noonan, etc, back in 2008 — they’ll believe What’s-His-Name’s winning smile means his lousy, nasty leftist characteristics aren’t necessarily all that lousy and nasty (or leftwing).

    Liberal bias probably exists in (and infects) most humans, but the degree does vary from person to person.

    Mark (f713e4)

  102. The strange part is that nk and Milhouse know better, yet they insist on dissembling. I called it Milhouse’s Syndrome by Proxy. If someone has a better description let’s see it.

    ropelight (a520ba)

  103. Now, why is the question, why continue to push a point of view that’s so obviously dead wrong, and what motivates you to do it?

    Merely in keeping with the ass-backward sentiments of George W Bush, who on the day after 9-ll felt the need to proclaim that “Islam in a religion of peace,” even though the theology and history of Islam is anything but peaceful. So, in fact, the terrorists who brought down the WTC could actually point to their religion’s founder and hero and say, “He too assassinated even those who merely mocked him, much less those who were infidels!”

    This is another example of the way that liberal sentiment infects even generally right-leaning people—and easily leads to the idiocy of Nidal-Hasan-ism even in the…US military.

    Mark (f713e4)

  104. Really. nk? I realize you occasionally act the wise guy to be provocative but look at this photo and tell me which poses the greater threat.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2015-12/195735_5_.jpg

    Also as ropelight pointed out, if you take in information from many sources you gotta keep your eyes open to fakes. But it does not mean everything is a fake. Especially when if you read carefully WND was teamed with a polling company. So it’s just not their word. It is after all, just a poll and most of those are garbage anyway.

    I would like to understand how you “think Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ (Obama’s church) is more dangerous than Muslims;”? Exactly what is Trinity United’s kill numbers compared to moslems? Are you insane?

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  105. I called it Milhouse’s Syndrome by Proxy.

    Not sure how much of that leads to an odd indignation about reliable accounts and reports of Adolph Hitler being homosexual or refusal to believe that. BTW, the left’s favorite boogeyman, and a figurehead sometimes used to smear the right, was also a vegan and big fan of animal rights.

    Mark (f713e4)

  106. I would like to understand how you “think Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ (Obama’s church) is more dangerous than Muslims;”

    nk may mean that the insidious ideology and theology of such organizations can corrupt and weaken the US — certainly from within and not just from without — far more thoroughly than even the most anti-US followers of Islam (including terrorists) will ever be able to achieve.

    Mark (f713e4)

  107. . I called it Milhouse’s Syndrome by Proxy. If someone has a better description let’s see it.

    It fits like an Isotoner™ glove, ropelight, and should be in Wiki and the Urban Dictionary by 12/31. Matter of fact, trade mark it!

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  108. To be fair, Bush was probably listening to norquist, who was being told this by alamoudi and al arian, who turned out to be unreliable guides.

    narciso (48ecae)

  109. This is another example of the way that liberal sentiment infects even generally right-leaning people—and easily leads to the idiocy of Nidal-Hasan-ism even in the…US military.

    Your observation may be entirely correct Mark, but wouldn’t one need to be mentally weak to succumb to this crap? Or have so many Americans bee so mal-educated they don’t have the capacity to understand the differences?

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  110. People don’t know the details, and state run press doesn’t endeavor to inform them, or at worst is complicit. Serrano e.g.: seems to lead dog trainer readers to think San bernardino was totally spontaneous.

    narciso (732bc0)

  111. but wouldn’t one need to be mentally weak to succumb to this crap?

    Hoagie, part of that is related to the desire to “go along to get along,” which regrettably more often favors the left than the right, along the lines of “mommy” (or liberalism) often striking a warm chord in most people compared with a guarded response towards “daddy” (or conservatism).

    The ignorance and foolishness behind accepting that stereotype tends to flourish because of the mindset of “shhh, please don’t talk about his/her politics (or biases) because that’s rude, overly personal and makes people uneasy!” So, at worse, that allows closeted liberals or certainly closeted squish-squish-squishes to have a much easier time getting through life.

    BTW, I just saw a segment on CNN a few minutes ago that played recorded comments made by Donald Trump several years ago where (to paraphrase) he dismisses as nonsense the attempts to impeach Bill Clinton over his lying before the judicial system and saying that, by contrast, George W Bush’s entrance into Iraq was a far more serious offense and more appropriate for impeachment. Trump is a perfect example of a person not totally consumed by left-leaning sentiments but certainly full of squish-squish-squishy.

    Mark (74fce8)

  112. To be blunt Mark, I think Trump is consumed with Trump. He’s not squishy, he goes where the wind blows. That doesn’t mean he’s a squish it means he has few if any core values. He’s not a Republican or democrat or conservative or leftist he’s a Trump. That’s his brand, his trade mark, his political party and his religion all wrapped into one. All Trump all the time.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  113. Milhouse’s Syndrome by Proxy: Not joining in mindless Muslim hatefest, plaintive whining, and pants-pooping fear-mongering. Guilty.

    nk (dbc370)

  114. Sorry nk, you don’t get to change the definition of Milhouse’s Syndrome by Proxy only ropelight can do that. But if you really do believe it’s “mindless Muslim hatefest, plaintive whining, and pants-pooping fear-mongering” I’m sad you miss the point. Then again, we all can’t agree on everything and you are apparently unmoved by the murder of Americans you don’t know so I assume it will take the murder of someone you care for before you understand what moslems mean by the word “Jihad”. It’s odd nk, because you’re usually level-headed and don’t accuse people of being mindless, whining, hating cowards. Especially other conservatives. Hell, we get enough of that name calling crap from the leftists on TV and in politics, we really don’t need it from one of our own.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  115. That doesn’t mean he’s a squish it means he has few if any core values.

    Hoagie, when it comes to the effects of left-leaning biases on people, unless Trump is a borg or zombie, he’s no different from Person A, B or C. IOW, I can often detect liberal sentiments fueling people’s opinions from a mile away (eg, look at nk), and Trump has no shortage of those “progressive” biases.

    I’d accept your theory that he lacks core values, however, if he had a long record of also expressing conservative reactions through the years, but I don’t see that in his record. But you can theorize he has been adversely influenced by decades of being surrounded by New York limousine liberals, and to avoid being the outlier or looking like the rightwing grump, he mimics the two-faced leftism espoused by all the folks in his social circle while being privately more conservative in demeanor.

    Mark (74fce8)

  116. I’m gonna urge we ease up on nk. Sure, he can be inconsistent, abrasive, arrogant, opinionated, and dead wrong from time to time, but so may we all. However, over the years he’s been more right than wrong and he’s earned a little slack.

    I’m willing to give it to him. You make your own call, I’m moving on.

    ropelight (a520ba)

  117. It’s the truth that counts, not where it’s published – WND or Russia Today.

    If the source is WND, there is no more reason to suppose it the truth than you would if the souce were Michael Moore or Al Sharpton.

    Especially when if you read carefully WND was teamed with a polling company. So it’s just not their word.

    Oooh, a polling company. I’m so impressed. A company nobody has ever heard of, that WND hired to produce this result. And this is supposed to strike fear into our hearts?! This is the quality of the “evidence” that has convinced you all that there is this “pervasive bias against Christianity and favoritism for Islam”. All the “evidence” is of this quality. You all sound exactly like the people at Daily Kos who are convinced that the MSM favors us, that we only ever win elections by frightening “minorities” away from the polls, that we all want to push grandma off a cliff, but only after we’ve fed her dog food, which we’ve poisoned, and then we’ll drag a black man behind the car and burn a gay couple to death. And then shoot their corpses with all our guns. And then convert them posthumously.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  118. Meanwhile you have Mark, who has one thing on his brain: homosexuality, and that is his sole measure for left and right. Which puts Patterico to my left, but he’s got the brains not to accuse our host of “leftist tendencies”.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  119. and in this case, the disdain for judeochristian teachings, explains part of this, not mere politics,

    narciso (732bc0)

  120. “Conversion therapy” is a fraud, just like laetrile or whatever that thing was called. Worse, it messes up its “patients”.

    It’s appropriate to prosecute for fraud those who charge money for it and claim that it’s effective, because they have no reasonable grounds for believing that.

    It’s also appropriate to ban licensed medical practitioners from using their professional practise to dispense such “therapy”, on the same basis that they’re banned from using it for other witch-doctor treatments.

    If an effective method for changing sexual orientation should one day be discovered, then the issue will have to be revisited.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  121. Not sure how much of that leads to an odd indignation about reliable accounts and reports of Adolph Hitler being homosexual or refusal to believe that.

    There is no reliable evidence for this.

    BTW, the left’s favorite boogeyman, and a figurehead sometimes used to smear the right, was also a vegan and big fan of animal rights.

    No, he wasn’t. You’re making s**t up again, Mark.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  122. that wasn’t the argument they used, such treatment seems to ignore that we are a sin tainted world, and as such, there can often be relapses in behavior, feldman is the one who helped enshrine Sharia in the Iraqi constitution,

    narciso (732bc0)

  123. such treatment seems to ignore that we are a sin tainted world, and as such, there can often be relapses in behavior

    Sin?! Therapy is supposed to be medicine, not religion. Either it works or it doesn’t. I see no reason, in principle, why it should be impossible to change someone’s sexual orientation, in either direction; in fact I’m convinced that some method to do this exists, and may one day be discovered. But so far it hasn’t been, and these “conversion therapy” quacks of NARTH are raking in the money while seriously harming their “patients”. What they’re doing is dangerous, and after doing it for more than 40 years they still have no evidence of success. See the evidence that came out in the JONAH case in New Jersey. It’s frightening. The result is tainted because the judge told the jury to find for the plaintiffs even if they thought the therapy worked, which he should not have done; but the evidence showed that it doesn’t.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  124. Milhouse, those left-leaning biases in you need to be stomped on and squished. Don’t ever trust them, don’t ever rely on them. Make sure you realize they don’t make you a better, more humane, more down-to-earth person. Make sure you know they also don’t give you or others with the same affliction a more realistic and honest way of looking at the world.

    washingtonexaminer.com, January 2013: Newly discovered notes from a U.S. Army interview of former Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler doctors reveal that the madman had homosexual tendencies, did not sleep in girlfriend Eva Braun’s bedroom, and was doped up with multiple drugs including female hormones. Written in erratic shorthand, Army interrogator Herman Merl, a Vienna-born medical technician enlisted to interview Hitler’s doctors, Karl Brandt and Theodor Morell, scribbled “Homosex” in his notebook where he sized up the mass murderer’s sexuality.

    He then wrote: “Eva Braun = separate rooms” before adding “female hormone – injection 50,000 units.” Elsewhere he wrote, “His sexual life and intercourse with Eva Braun was told to me.”

    psychologytoday.com, November 2011: Remarkably, as soon as the Nazi Party came to power in 1933, they began to enact scores of animal protection laws, some of which are still operative in Germany. For example, in Nazi Germany, people who mistreated their pets could be sentenced to two years in jail. The Nazis banned the production of foie gras and docking the ears and tails of dogs without anesthesia, and they severely restricted invasive animal research. The Nazi Party established the first laws insuring that animal used in films were not mistreated and also mandated humane slaughter procedures for food animals and for the euthanasia of terminally ill pets. (The Nazis were particularly concerned with the suffering of lobsters in restaurants). In addition, the German government established nature preserves, a school curriculum for the humane treatment of animals, and they hosted one of the first international conferences on animal protection.

    While concern for animal suffering was not universal among the Nazi hierarchy, Arluke and Sax convincingly argue that pro-animal sentiment was widespread. In 1933, Hermann Göring announced he would “commit to concentration camps those who still think they can treat animals as property.” The feared Heinrich Himmler once asked his doctor, who was a hunter, “How can you find pleasure, Herr Kerstein, in shooting from behind at poor creatures browsing on the edge of a wood…It is really murder.”

    …There is no doubt that Adolf Hitler claimed to be animal lover. In his 1938 autobiography, Mein Kampf, he describes how, when food was scarce, he would share his meager meals with mice. Hitler had a particular fondness for ravens, wolves and dogs. He abhorred hunting and horse-racing and referred to them as “the last remnants of a dead feudal world.”

    Hitler once told a female companion who ordered sausage while they were on a date, “I didn’t think you wanted to devour a dead corpse…the flesh of dead animals. Cadavers!” Hitler claimed that meat-eating was a major factor of the decline of civilization and that vegetarianism could rejuvenate society. His henchman Goebbels wrote in his diary, “The Fuhrer is a convinced vegetarian, on principle. His arguments cannot be refuted on any series basis. They are totally unanswerable.”

    Mark (74fce8)

  125. #120, Milhouse, it’s easy to miss the point if you try. And it’s dishonest to assume my opinions come from any single source, then trash the source and call me names. You’re one sick jackass, and a stupid one at that.

    ropelight (3f500f)

  126. Ropelight, that poll came from a single source, and it’s a nutty one. All the so-called “evidence” for the opinion that there is a “pervasive bias against Christianity and favoritism for Islam” comes from nutty and unreliable sources. And let me point out for the record that once again you resort to personal attack. I never do so, but you seem to have no problem with it.

    Mark, I have no left-leaning biases at all. Not even a little one. But I don’t share your peculiar obsession with teh gay. There is no reliable evidence that Hitler was gay. None. An alleged shorthand notation in Herman Merl’s alleged notebook is not evidence of anything. And Hitler was certainly not a vegetarian, let alone a vegan. Nobody but you even claims he was vegan.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  127. Milhouse, please type up a list of Milhouse Approved sources so we won’t need to run afoul in the future. It seems that if one even considers a source not approved by your highness one must be a retard or other type of moron. You seem to believe everything printed at WND is a lie and every polling company is a co-conspirator to fix the outcome.

    You do realize there are ways of disagreeing with others without going atomic douchebag?

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  128. yes, that seems highly unlikely, he had extreme animus toward all cosmopolitan elements he found in Vienna, gays, Jews, communists,

    narciso (732bc0)

  129. Mind you it’s not impossible. He may have had such tendencies and hated them in himself and therefore in others. The self-hating homosexual is even more common than the self-hating Jew, and tere are plenty of those. But there just isn’t any credible evidence for it.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  130. Mark, I have no left-leaning biases at all

    Milhouse, the first step in the 12-step road to recovery is admitting you have a problem. In this case, liberal biases. To repeat, if you weren’t susceptible to that little left-leaning twinge in the back of your mind, you’d, for one thing, have no trouble accepting the idiosyncrasies described above of Hitler.

    Generally, it’s mainly peculiarly liberal sentiments that will make a person resentful or disbelieving of Hitler’s homosexuality and vegan/pro-animal traits. Right-leaning biases, by contrast, will not make a person place a halo around the world of the GLBT and animal rights. So such a person will accept matter-of-factly if those things are also associated with Germany’s most notorious, ruthless politician.

    Mark (74fce8)

  131. BTW, the left’s favorite boogeyman, and a figurehead sometimes used to smear the right, was also a vegan and big fan of animal rights.

    No, he wasn’t. You’re making s**t up again, Mark.

    Milhouse (8489b1) — 12/30/2015 @ 5:11 pm

    Yes Milhouse, he was. Hitler became a strict vegetarian shortly after coming to power in ’33, and was always in favor of animal rights. Too bad the groups he considered animals didn’t enjoy the same protections. He was also a teetotaler to the point of drinking apple juice in place of white wine, and forbade smoking in his presence, introducing programs to the armed forces to quit tobacco.

    Bill H (dcdd7b)

  132. No, Bill, he wasn’t. You are delusional, just like Mark. Hitler was never a vegetarian, and nobody but Mark (and now you) even claims he was a vegan. Hitler ate meat. Regularly. And liked it.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  133. To repeat, if you weren’t susceptible to that little left-leaning twinge in the back of your mind, you’d, for one thing, have no trouble accepting the idiosyncrasies described above of Hitler.

    On the contrary, one of the typifying traits of the left is that they couldn’t give a **** about the truth. Anything that supports the cause is pravda, because there is no objective reality. See 1984. This comment of yours is very telling, because it shows that you are the true leftist.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  134. Milhouse, ignorance combined with arrogance leads directly to ridicule – and you deserve it.

    ropelight (fd3ae4)

  135. It is documented and therefore undeniable that a homosexual can become heterosexual. Cases of people who were formerly gay are not even unusual. There are books about it. Whether some particular method of changing people’s sexual orientation works is another question.

    Gerald A (5dca03)

  136. It is documented and therefore undeniable that a homosexual can become heterosexual. Cases of people who were formerly gay are not even unusual.

    Indeed, and there are even more documented cases in the other direction. Yes, they always say “well, he must have been gay/straight all along, and suppressing it”, and looking back one can always find signs of anything one likes, but that path leads quickly to a semantic bog.

    There are books about it. Whether some particular method of changing people’s sexual orientation works is another question.

    Again, indeed. No such method seems yet to have been discovered. What is certain is that the methods promoted by NARTH don’t work.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  137. Milhouse, ignorance combined with arrogance leads directly to ridicule – and you deserve it.

    Says the ignorant clown.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  138. On the contrary, one of the typifying traits of the left is that they couldn’t give a **** about the truth

    Milhouse, that’s why you on various occasions, in various threads, including this one (most ironically), do express reactions emanating from left-leaning biases. Again, you should never trust those biases, you should never respect those biases, you should never be anything but wary of those biases in yourself.

    Mark (f713e4)

  139. Hitler became a strict vegetarian shortly after coming to power in ’33,

    Moreover, the basic concepts of socialism, or a generally leftist comfortability with a power-hungry government, were embedded in his ideology or modus operandi. (“The full name of Adolf Hitler’s party was Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party; NSDAP”)

    While ultra-conservatives can meet in the middle with far too many leftists (or not necessarily even ultra-liberals) and both end up allowing the public sector to go overboard, there’s something more innate to liberal sentiment that tolerates or embraces that type of situation.

    Mark (f713e4)

  140. Mark, facts are facts, and they remain the same no matter whose agenda they suit. You disagree; you make things up just because you would like them to be true, which makes you a hard leftist.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  141. Milhouse, once again, the first step in the 12-step road to recovery is at least admitting you have a problem. In this case, the condition of liberal bias.

    Mark (f713e4)

  142. Mark, you are the one with the problem, and it’s a severe one. You’ve got teh ghey on the brain. What’s odd is that you hang out on a blog whose owner supports same-sex marriage (which I don’t).

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  143. Milhouse at #130: “And let me point out for the record that once again you resort to personal attack. I never do so,…” (emphasis added)

    Then in response to my comment at #137 (Milhouse, ignorance combined with arrogance leads directly to ridicule – and you deserve it.)

    Milhouse at #140 calls me an ignorant clown.

    He doesn’t see the contradiction. Just like he doesn’t see a few other examples of muddle-headed thinking.

    ropelight (fd3ae4)

  144. Do I need to point out that 140 is greater than 137? Also greater than 129. I never turn the discussion personal, but when you attack me do you expect me not to respond?! You subject me to vile abuse; how can you expect me to sit there and take it?

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  145. Milhouse at #30:“And let me point out for the record that once again you resort to personal attack. I never do so,…” (emphasis added)

    Milhouse at #140 calls me an ignorant clown.

    Milhouse at #148: “I never turn the discussion personal, but…

    Milhouse at #92 (8489b1) – 12/28/2015 @ 9:50 pm

    Mark, however, is certifiably insane. He’s got his own peculiar definition of “left”, which is all about the one topic that is constantly on his brain: homosexuality.

    Milhouse at #136: No, Bill, he wasn’t. You are delusional, just like Mark.

    One of the major symptoms of Milhouse’s Syndrome is a pronounced tendency to simultaneously hold contradictory positions, another is to accuse others of one’s own shortcomings, and yet another is an unearned but highly elevated opinion of the self with a corresponding tendency to denigrate others, and yet another symptom is a pronounced inability to admit error.

    For sufferers of Milhouse’s Syndrome never never seems to last very long.

    ropelight (cc19b1)

  146. Once again, let me point out that 140 is greater than 137 and 129. You are the one who turned this discussion personal. And Mark has established himself for a long time as our resident lunatic homophobe, who constantly attacks anyone who doesn’t share his obsession. He attacked me in #90 and continued on from there.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  147. Turn the discussion personal,
    Milhous, always right he is!
    A legend in his own mind!

    Yoda (feee21)

  148. Attacked Yoda in the past he has! When a comment not directed at him, responded with vitriol he did!

    Yoda (feee21)

  149. I don’t recall the circumstances, Yoda.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  150. you see, yoda? It’s all circumstantial!

    Welcome 2016, same as 2015.

    felipe (56556d)

  151. Milhouse, this particular dispute began when you took exception (#59) to narcisco’s comment #55 on the Thoughts on Christmas Eve post.

    I defended the article(65) as both accurate and informative.

    Your response (#68) Milhouse (8489b1) – 12/26/2015 @ 5:52 pm follows:

    There is no “pervasive bias against Christianity and favoritism for Islam”. That is a wicked myth that paranoid lunatics like to spread. It’s almost as ridiculous as Trutherism. Some of it reflects a view that the government ought to promote Christianity, and a hankering for the days when it routinely did so.

    If you’re going to continue to deny that obvious bias against Christianity and favoritism for Islam that is pervasive, and to deny the legitimacy of polls or news outlets reporting it, no one is going to stop you (except perhaps Patterico) but calling me or others names isn’t going to strengthen your position, it’s only going to put you in the category of unreliable sources you claim WND belongs and will consequently invalidate everything you say – just exactly as you claim WND’s article in completely unreliable because they only published one of Muhammad’s several birth dates.

    You’re nuts and dishonest and stupid.

    ropelight (cc19b1)

  152. There is no “pervasive bias against Christianity and favoritism for Islam”.

    If you truly believe that Milhouse, you’re broken. There is a pervasive bias against Christianity and favoritism for just about any religion or political belief you can think of. The list of evidence is so long and so continuous I refuse to go over it for you because if you can’t see it for yourself as I said you’re broken.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  153. And Mark has established himself for a long time as our resident lunatic homophobe, who constantly attacks anyone who doesn’t share his obsession.

    Damn, Milhouse, I wend my way over to this rapidly aging thread out of mere curiosity to see if there were a few more clues to determine how you think, what makes you tick, whether I got your number correctly. You’re way worse than I originally thought. I say that not be to snarky or as a gotcha, but because you truly are more emotionally-ideologically unreliable and flaky than I assumed to be true. So when I see your name attached to a post in the future, I’ll treat it with a ton of suspicion and skepticism.

    Mark (f713e4)

  154. this is an effing gamechanger

    happyfeet (831175)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5488 secs.