L.A. Times Columnist: Hooray for Violence! At Least They’re Doing Something!
A controversial figure speaks at Columbia University, and students rush the stage, start a brawl, and shut down the speech.
And L.A. Times columnist Meghan Daum applauds:
THE EVENTS at Columbia University on Oct. 4, in which about a dozen students stormed a stage where the founder of an anti-illegal immigration group was speaking, didn’t exactly resemble those of April 1968. There were no arrests, no soundtrack by the Grateful Dead, no occupation of the president’s office. But considering that most young people are considered to be politically apathetic, you have to credit the Chicano Caucus and the International Socialist Organization for trying.
Is Daum unaware of the violence accompanying this thuggish display? No, she is fully aware of it:
Protesters later said Gilchrist was knocked backward and his glasses were broken. The student newspaper, the Columbia Spectator, reported that “one student was kicked in the head and bleeding.”
Yet she repeats her approval later in the column:
Still, I’ll give them an A (OK, maybe a B+) for trying.
It’s qualified approval; she seems to understand somewhere in there that the actions at Columbia were not ideal. Or does she? Well, she calls someone to talk about it, and the person she picks is a former terrorist:
Seeking answers to these questions, I called Mark Rudd. A founder of Students for a Democratic Society, Rudd was among the leaders of the Columbia revolt in 1968 and was later a member of the radical Weather Underground. No stranger to the ways in which protest can go astray — he was in hiding from 1970 to 1977 in connection with a bomb-making project that blew up a building and killed three people — he has since owned up to his mistakes and writes and speaks frequently on activism. I thought he could shed some light on the recent fracas at Columbia.
I’ll turn it over to Penraker:
Somehow, Daum glosses over what really happened. Three radical communists were killed when a bomb they were making exploded prematurely. Rudd and his fellow communists had declared war on the United States, and were trying to kill their fellow countrymen. Instead, they killed [some of] themselves.
(Link via See Dubya.)
The only thing that went “astray” was who they killed.
But hey, Meghan Daum gives them an A — well, maybe a B+ — for trying.
UPDATE: Thanks to Michelle Malkin and Instapundit for the links. You can bookmark the main page here and subscribe to this site via Bloglines by clicking this button and choosing the first feed:
UPDATE x2: See Dubya sulks here. (I’m just teasing him. In case you don’t know him, he’s a great guy.)
UPDATE x3: La Shawn Barber writes to remind me that one of the protestors at the rally called a black Minuteman the N-word. La Shawn wonders what Meghan Daum thinks of that.
I assume she disapproves, but I wish she’d said so.
So, if someone walked into her office and punched her in the nose, this would be OK?
Oh, and FIRST!
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 10/14/2006 @ 6:05 pmHo ho ho, those silly communists. She talks about them as if they were lovable oafs.
AndrewGurn (8a0c5d) — 10/14/2006 @ 6:19 pmThis is disgusting even by LAT standards. I can’t believe they care so little about their paper and human decency that they will let this stand.
Will they? You know these people better than I do.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/14/2006 @ 6:31 pmAs Lenin said;
‘The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.’
So much for freedom of speech.
Bob Lane (b10fee) — 10/14/2006 @ 7:31 pmKids will be kids.Even if they are punk thugs,right? Freedom of speech is okay for some people,just as long as they’re the right people saying the right things.Herr Rudd says he isn’t going to point a finger and call the students fascist hoodlums(hey,let’s not get judgmental here!).Channeling for Joseph Goebbles Meghan Daum couldn’t agree more.Apparently you can’t set the bar so low that the L.A. Times will fail to come up to it.
Enlightened Coelacanth (3c8a1b) — 10/14/2006 @ 7:43 pmIf she gives these guys an “A — well, maybe a B+ — for trying”, I wonder if she gave Mohammad Atta and his bunch extra credit for their “initiative“.
TexasRainmaker (fb8121) — 10/14/2006 @ 7:57 pmWhat an absolute lunatic this woman is! I note that her website describes her as “Equal parts reporter, storyteller, and satirist.”
I would like to think that the column was broad satire, but her bio’s reference to her penchant for “social politics” and “class warfare”; her Vassar education, and liberal-elite ticket-punching at the “MFA writing program at Columbia University’s School of the Arts,” (layers of irony indeed, but perhaps not); and the narcissistic noir portrait at her site all suggest that this 36-year old fool is in deadly earnest.
Too bad there wasn’t any Minuteman literature at the speech that these latter-day “activists” could have put in trashcans and made into mini-bonfires. Want to take any bets on whether that irony would have been lost on Miz. Daum too?
Redhand (a55231) — 10/14/2006 @ 8:05 pm#6: They get an A+ and a smiley sticker!
AndrewGurn (8a0c5d) — 10/14/2006 @ 8:06 pmBurning books and shutting down speeches are the same thing. The Lib-Nazis want you to read and hear only what they want you to read and hear. It comes from the fear of loss of power and control. If Liberals can’t win in debate, they’ll try to win by violence. In their violence, they only reaffirm our view of them.
Stu (a78bb1) — 10/14/2006 @ 8:15 pm2 PLUS 2 EQUALS 5 IS A MISTAKE. BLOWING UP A BUILDING AND KILLING THREE PEOPLE, EVEN IF THEY ARE CO-CONSPIRATORS IS A CRIME. IN FACT SEVERAL DISTINCT CRIMES. BUT WHO’S QUIBBLING WE’RE LIBERALS, AREN’T WE!
JACK "THE RIPPER" (71415b) — 10/14/2006 @ 8:20 pmIt’s so ironic that Rudd wants to “wait and see what they do.” I guess he’s about as concerned
Deymond Lashley (32a0e2) — 10/14/2006 @ 8:26 pmfor these students as he was for his dead friends.
LAT dog?
This is a (so-called) journalist?
Doesn’t say much about the one who hired her.
Daniel (02a7af) — 10/14/2006 @ 9:00 pmI am reminded of Bob Dylan’s line,” You’re an idiot, babe.”
pogoist (380c51) — 10/14/2006 @ 9:02 pmThe left have always tolerated violence, if perpetrated in order to advance their utopian ideals of peace & love—they just don’t tolerate free speech.
see: “Communism, 20th Century.”
Desert Rat (ee9fe2) — 10/14/2006 @ 9:04 pmI think you are either missing, or just neglecting to discuss, the larger point she is trying to make.
Though the protest didn’t go well, it is encouraging to see a “politically apathetic” demographic getting involved. Hopefully they learn from their mistakes – I give them a C+.
greg (efb594) — 10/14/2006 @ 9:23 pmIs this an example of Dean Bacquet’s efforts to get his reports to engage the readers of the LA Times? Does he really believe that trash articles like this will generate more paying subscribers? If the LA Times wants to improve its bottom line, Bacquet and his idiot left-blind staff have to go!
Mescalero (391c85) — 10/14/2006 @ 9:57 pmAt first, I was not sure where this type of thinking comes from. But then, the far left has a track record of giving credit for trying, no matter what the results. Here’s a trophy for 9th place, 2×5 is actually 10, but 7 is close enough, you graduate. And now, shutting down free speach via violence is OK since you showed interest. What’s next, practicing medicine without a license. No problem, at least he tried.
Ray-Ray (c006b4) — 10/14/2006 @ 9:59 pmImagine if the violent crowd was pro-life. What grade would Daum be giving THAT crowd?
What grade would Daum be giving someone who put their fist in HER mouth?
Leftist hypocrite.
Mark (a733e7) — 10/14/2006 @ 10:23 pmL.A. Times Columnist: Hooray for Violence! …
L.A. Times Columnist: Hooray for Violence! At Least They’re Doing Something! Patterico A controversial figure speaks at Columbia University, and students rush the stage, start a brawl, and shut down the speech. And L.A. Times columnist Meghan Daum ap…
Bill's Bites (72c8fd) — 10/14/2006 @ 10:43 pmBelow is my letter to the L.A. Times:
__________________________
Regarding Meghan Daum’s recent article (“The State of Student Activism”), one would reasonably believe that her status as an alum at Columbia would have sparked some outrage. Based on the recent events there, Columbia appears to be a cesspool for violence, intolerance and hypocrisy, but this does not concern Daum. Instead, she laments the fact that the suppression of conservative ideas was not quite organized enough.
In furthering that idea, she interviewed a terrorist. Mark Rudd merely “was in hiding from 1970 to 1977 in connection with a bomb making project that blew up a building and killed three people.” Despite this, Daum still hopes Rudd can “shed light” on this issue as if a terrorist has any moral standing to comment on the validity of anyone’s actions.
If such moral equivalence was not bad enough, Daum turns the suppression of speech into a joke, giving the hoodlums very approving grades as if their stunt was a term paper: “A- — well, maybe a B+ — for trying.”
If the degenerates storming the stage were pro-life, would Daum have given them an “A- — well, maybe a B+ — for trying”? If the students were in favor of enforcing our immigration laws and not defecating on them, would Daum have approved of their actions or quickly condemned them?
It is unfortunate that someone of Daum’s background and education can be so conveniently dismissive of violence, but it is not surprising. Those with such sympathies have justified mass murder for the last century (see “Communism”) so long as it was assumed to be committed to serve a particular agenda. That the L.A. Times hires a Walter Duranty like Meghan Daum speaks volumes about the decline of the mainsteam media.
Disappointed,
Mark (a733e7) — 10/14/2006 @ 11:58 pm__________
Comrades! Companeros! Meagan Daum is not to be criticized! Truly, did she not attempt to shake things up? I give her an A+ for effort! Naturally, come the revolution, this “class-warfare” she lightly bandies about….is she and the pathetic wannbe SDS alumni ready to experience first hand how true working class revolutionaries “demonstrate?” I tell her and the SDS – at the time when your dreams are realized – there will be no tears from you or them.
[the above is satire. It should chill everyone. does this writer realize that she is obliquely condoning things like the Oklahoma City bombing? As she surveyed the photos of firemen cradling bloodied and battered infants from the rubble, did she jump up, cheer and shout “Power to the People!” ??? Does tremendous “passion” for you cause act to mitigate culpability for the mayhem the believers create? Does she feel the same way about abortion clinic bombers?]
Californio (cecfe4) — 10/15/2006 @ 12:53 amY’know, I think you just explained away the whole ideal the MSM is operating under.
And used their “hero’s” own words to do it with.
Kudos.
TheSev (b30b3b) — 10/15/2006 @ 3:04 amI was a bit awe struck reading the selected portions of the article myself, but then I read the article. She’s an op-ed columnist, not a hard news reporter, so that gives her some poetic license. She doesn’t agree with what they did, though they got on the stage to get kicked in the head by a minuteman. She does however think it commendable that they did something, though misguided. This event pales in comparison to what people experienced in the 60s, so relative to that, it wasn’t that horrible. As for the Rudd, he says:
“The 19-year-old me would have done it exactly the same way,” Rudd said from his home in Albuquerque, where he’s a math instructor at a community college. “But the 59-year-old that I am now would be on the side of free speech. I would let the Minuteman speak, and I would certainly let the Iranian president speak. But I would also tell the students to understand the difference between organizing and self-expression. Young people are as thoughtful as ever, but they don’t believe they can make a difference. They don’t know how to organize and build a movement.”
Not exactly the ravings on a lunatic commie hell bent on the destruction of the American way of life. As Bush had his youthful indescretions, and we forgive him for that, so did this guy. He participated in an event that got his friends killed. I’m sure that had an impact on him.
The students who got on the stage should suffer some ramifications. The minuteman who kicked the protester in the head should go to jail for assault. Those kids should go back to their civics class, and the republican youth should rethink their choice of black shirts.
Glenn Auge (2a50d5) — 10/15/2006 @ 4:21 amYour Freudian slip is showing, hun.
Peggy Noonan hit the nail on the head with her column on Friday.
The Sounds of Silencing-Why do Americans on the left think only they have the right to dissent?
Nahanni (30a3d5) — 10/15/2006 @ 4:40 amSo some protestor rushed the stage with a dozen of his buddies, and someone’s upset that the speaker defended himself?
A “boot to the head” is easily understandable in this situation. There’s been some pretty overheated rhetoric leveled against the minutemen, and they may have reasonably thought the goon squad rushing the stage was a threat. It was certainly an attempt to shut down debate through intimidation… who wouldn’t perceive a potential physical threat in that situation?
Protestors acting like a mob should not be surprised when they’re treated like a mob.
TheNewGuy (2e7a0f) — 10/15/2006 @ 5:27 amI dunno, is Daum auditioning for the leftist answer to Ann Coulter?I looked at her article and heard a familiar tone. Did anyone else? C’mon now be honest. To be sure a stupid opinion but it did taste oddly familiar…
paul from fl (967602) — 10/15/2006 @ 5:45 amALL YOUR UNIVERSITIES ARE BELONG TO US
CAT (f12d99) — 10/15/2006 @ 5:53 am[…] (h/t’s to Michele Malkin, Paterico and Penraker Comments » […]
What the Heck was I Thinking!? :: Rudd to Columbia Radicals - Hey, That’s My Job! :: October :: 2006 (2f634e) — 10/15/2006 @ 6:05 amEducation,universities, don’t make me laugh. How about a ship of fools
jeffersonranch (1c8461) — 10/15/2006 @ 6:10 amComparable analogy-Noam Chomsky
” You can’t really blame the terrorists for 9/11 as they were trying to drive home the point of Zionist aggression in the Middle East.”
Do you think the L.A. Times would be quite as understanding if this happened:
” although the abortion clinic bomb didn’t kill anyone, you can’t blame the bomber for trying to stop abortions”
No philisophical difference but both unlawful, unethical and dispicable.
Thomas Miller (9ddfc6) — 10/15/2006 @ 7:48 amand the republican youth should rethink their choice of black shirts
Your Freudian slip is showing, hun.
Comment by Nahanni — 10/15/2006 @ 4:40 am
If I was trying to distance myself from nazis, I wouldn’t wear a black shirt to O’Reilly, that’s all. I’d probably put on something a little more conservative.
Glenn Auge (2a50d5) — 10/15/2006 @ 8:19 amAnd the Times wants to know how to improve their paper and get their readers back? Ummm, let’s see, there must be something they can do. Oh well, I’ll just get my news from the Enqirer like always.
Howard Veit (28df94) — 10/15/2006 @ 8:26 amYou’re making way too much of this. During the 60’s antiwar students used to shout down the kids who would speak on behalf of the war. It was certainly wrong, but look how our generation grew up- pretty conservative by and large.
gregdn (abf8e7) — 10/15/2006 @ 8:47 amCollege is place where you’re supposed to be liberal. After you get out and enter the real world most of us become more conservative.
College is not a place where you’re supposed to be “liberal” — at least not if liberal means rushing the stage and silencing others from speaking.
While breaking the elderly speaker’s glasses.
No, college is supposed to be a place where you learn and share ideas. Where you debate and compete: on the sports field, in the social arena, and last but not least, intellectually.
You’re not supposed to take the antics of a football game or wrestling match into a debate. This isn’t liberalism. It’s fascism.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/15/2006 @ 9:03 amIronic, isn’t it, that Universities adopt all sorts of “speech codes” and “safe zones” in order for students not to feel “threatened or intimidated” by such stuff as perceived sexism or racism perpetuated by the melanin-challenged or the heteronormative.
But question the leftcult dogma?
Well, then it WAS Democrat operatives who, while publicly supporting the “right to vote” slashed tires on Republican buses in 2004.
“Rights” for me, not for thee.
Darleen (03346c) — 10/15/2006 @ 9:33 amI just want to make sure that I understand this.
If a group of young people decide they dislike what the LA Times has to say, they can rush the news room and kick them in the heads?
Or, they can build a bomb and blow up the LA Times building, as long as no one gets hurt?
Or they can blow up the LA times building, as long as they own up to it as a mistake later?
Richard R (732d5b) — 10/15/2006 @ 9:38 amGlenn Auge states (re Rudd): “He participated in an event that got his friends killed. I’m sure that had an impact on him.”
Laura Bush participated in an automobile crash in which she killed a high school friend with her vehicle because of her inattention. There is a difference. Mr. Rudd, undoubtedly impacted by his experiences, participated in an organized insurrection against a lawful US government and was involved in plans to kill US citizens and destroy property. Three co-conspirators were killed and property was destroyed in the premature explosion. There is a difference between accidents, carelessness, indiscretions, and evil acts.
It’s time for more people to start making those distinctions and truly value dissent. The news is they no longer have a corner on dissent.
JAL (9fb46a) — 10/15/2006 @ 9:47 amThis discussion has devolved into the same tired falacy that happens over an over again on so many political blogs. The reasoning goes like this:
“Person X did/said something really stupid. Person X belongs to the political party I disagree with. Therefore, everyone in the political party I disagree with is really stupid!”
This bizzare argument is repeated over and over again on political blogs of both sides. Yet for some reason, many bloggers and commenters seem to think it’s new and exciting every time it’s raised.
Phil (107e9d) — 10/15/2006 @ 9:54 amI agree that we can’t tar the entire left for the actions of these students — only those members of the left who, like Daum, give some level of approval to violent disruption of speech.
As to whether such tactics are more common to the left than the right, that’s an interesting question that probably can’t be given a definitive answer.
Patterico (de0616) — 10/15/2006 @ 10:01 amAlthough I have my suspicions.
Patterico (de0616) — 10/15/2006 @ 10:02 amAs to whether such tactics are more common to the left than the right, that’s an interesting question that probably can’t be given a definitive answer.
Well, remember that the “right” is oft used to describe fascists – you know, like the National Socialist Party, kissin’ cousins of the Communists.
Let’s just lump ’em together (they’re too hard to tell apart most days, anyway), call ’em malignant narcissists, and put the blame where it lies.
ras (a646fc) — 10/15/2006 @ 10:06 amI meant, the “right” when that word is used nby the Left, of course.
The current colloquial use The Right to describe modern conservatives (who now seek to conserve classical liberal values; doncha love those relative terms!) is not at all the same thing.
When I say a word…
ras (a646fc) — 10/15/2006 @ 10:10 amTO: Pattrico
RE: If That’s What They Want…
…it can be delivered.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Chuck Pelto (cc1d13) — 10/15/2006 @ 10:11 amP.S. Personally, I think the conversative camp is (1) better prepared for war and (2) morally capable of prosecuting it. If the (il)liberals were to try it, they’d violate their own heart-felt principals and as a result, be exposed as nothing more than the hypocrites they are.
Glenn Auge:
Terence (85ca89) — 10/15/2006 @ 10:12 am“He participated in an event that got his friends killed. I’m sure that had an impact on him.”
Yeah, what matters is not whether you’re a criminal, but whether you’re a victim as well.
Leftist tripe.
“As to whether such tactics are more common to the left than the right, that’s an interesting question that probably can’t be given a definitive answer.”
Patterico, what a rank copout.
The left gives us central planning, communism, fascism: all different manifestations of group control, government domination, the primacy of the many over the few: Mob rule.
Conservatives spend all day debating friggin’ property rights.
I would say it’s more accurate to say that you don’t want to give a definitive answer.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/15/2006 @ 10:33 am“As to whether such tactics are more common to the left than the right, that’s an interesting question that probably can’t be given a definitive answer. ”
perroazul del norte (f438aa) — 10/15/2006 @ 10:34 amIn the contemporary USA and Western Europe they seem to be exclusively tactics of the left. That’s including the radical Muslims- who are operational allies of the radical West-hating Reds and anarchists-in the left category. I’m open to any evidence to the contrary, if there is any.
I missed comment #40, Patterico.
Please accept my apology.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/15/2006 @ 10:35 am“As Bush had his youthful indescretions, and we forgive him for that, so did this guy. He participated in an event that got his friends killed. I’m sure that had an impact on him.”
Not enough of an impact. About 10,000 foot-pounds of impact would be about right. These guys killed people and now he’s an expert ? Columbia has become notorious again, and not for education. Bush’s “indescretions” are mostly left wing rumors and slanders. Just like Kerry’s grades, they evaporate in the light.
Mike K (dfe6aa) — 10/15/2006 @ 10:55 amRude and Intolerant Liberals at Columbia University…
White liberals can be quite the intolerant fools, can’t they?
La Shawn Barber's Corner (1b383c) — 10/15/2006 @ 10:58 amI didn’t get a chance to blog about the so-called protest against members of the Minuteman Project at Columbia University. The students rushed the stage and attacked Jim Gilchr…
#23 “The students who got on the stage should suffer some ramifications. The minuteman who kicked the protester in the head should go to jail for assault.”
I don’t know the specific circumstances of the alleged assault, but presumably citizens have the right to defend their rights under the First Amendment-especially when the campus police seemed to have their thumbs up their rectums. A private citizen forced to act by events unforseen as a de facto law enforcement officer should be given some leeway.
perroazul del norte (f438aa) — 10/15/2006 @ 10:58 amFrom Daum’s website, a description of her book, “My Misspent Youth”:
Yeah, I’d say that pretty much sums her up: Dumb as rocks and she admits it.
Tex Lovera (45fc16) — 10/15/2006 @ 11:04 amOn the “news” said, back in 2005 two LAT reporters described ANSWER LA as an “antiwar and anti-racism group”, without any quotes.
ImmigrationMarchOrganizersHaveForeignLinks (05c6a0) — 10/15/2006 @ 11:05 amWhat? Please you reason not emotion when trying to sort through life. The acts were unacceptable by anyone who wishes to live in a just society.
bee (973c49) — 10/15/2006 @ 11:07 amLA Times Meghan Daum said, “…you have to credit the Chicano Caucus and the International Socialist Organization for trying.”
Trying? Trying? What were they trying to do? To violate the civil rights of an invited speaker? To silence a point of view they oppose? To make Columbia look like a third-rate, third reich?
Meghan Daum thinks the Chicanos and Socialists should be commended for making an effort. She doensn’t seem to note that it would have been better for all concerned if the goon squads had stayed home.
Black Jack (211e83) — 10/15/2006 @ 11:08 amNo Good Deed Goes Unpunished…
So I shot off an e-mail to Patterico saying, “Hey, pal, here’s some top-notch LA Times criticism at Penraker”, since LA Times criticism is what Patterico does best, and it’s a good link, and I’m a good guy. And he……
JunkYardBlog (621918) — 10/15/2006 @ 11:10 amLeftist columnists like Daum reveal how superficial their pacifism is with their underlying approval of violence in the service of their cause. Anyone alive in the late 60s, early 70s can remember the violence of the anti-war, anti-establishment movement on the left. Today’s left would *never* advocate violence but are true descendents in their willingness to cheer when it happens. Taking turns and listening politely is just too tiring, especially when it allows those moronic fundamentalist fascists to spread their hate (i.e. conservatives). Freedom of speech is just so not fair.
So the protest didn’t “go well”? A protest doesn’t go well when no one shows up or the mikes don’t work not when it degenerates into a physical assault on the speaker. The other commenters are right on the money when they ask how Daum would react if the thugs rushing the stage were pro-lifers? And those on the right are the only hypocrites?
inmypajamas (a0dd95) — 10/15/2006 @ 11:28 amClearly, the Chicago Tribune has not yet fired enough of the LA Times staff.
Robert Schwartz (022897) — 10/15/2006 @ 11:34 am[…] I guess the LA Times is all for mob violence and the crushing of free speech as long as they don’t like the speech. But, hey, at least the mob is involved! […]
Crushing of Disent « Checksum Crusader (6175c2) — 10/15/2006 @ 11:38 am…which must not leave much time to discuss indefinite detentions with neither charge nor trial, accusations of “treason” against those who dissent, spying on law-abiding Americans without a warrant, government spending into record-breaking deficits, torture, forced confessions, elimination of habeus corpus, kidnapping (“rendition”), elimination of reproductive choice, tax breaks for the very rich, threats of prosecution against journalists who expose government wrongdoing, forcing prayer into public schools, campaign contributions and all-expense paid junkets from Jack Abramoff, excuses for an unneccesary invasion, subsidies for oil companies making record profits, and blame for the democrats when one of their own gets caught instant-messaging young congressional pages.
Rick (c4e376) — 10/15/2006 @ 11:45 amRick, I hate you.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/15/2006 @ 11:54 amThe writers (and most of the Left) believe that there should be a dictatorship by the Left. What the kids do to the Minuteman at Colombia U. is censorship, pure and simple. Can any democrat say it wasen’t? Isn’t it time to visit the LA Times printers and destroy their presses’ because they believe in censorship and fascism of the left?
JSF (71415b) — 10/15/2006 @ 12:01 pmHey rick, how about documenting your charges including the context in which they alledgedly took place. Thanks.
buzz (2aeea9) — 10/15/2006 @ 12:27 pmThat’s because it is the sacred duty of God-fearing patriotic Americans to hate all of those who dare speak-out against the US government. Those that oppose the policies of the Bush administration and the Republican Congressional majority can only be treasonous, defeatist, cut and running, tax and spending, terrorist-appeasing, communist Islamofascists.
Rick (c4e376) — 10/15/2006 @ 1:39 pmNo, Rick, I hate you on personal moral reasons. It has nothing to do with the American government or your nationality. I’m not even American.
Since I will never meet you in real life and I will never have an opportunity to act logically on my hatred for you and since that we both live in democracies and I believe in rule of law I wouldn’t act anyway… I’ll leave this rather than carry this out on Patterico’s blog or elsewhere. I won’t explain it to you. It’s pointless anyway.
But, no, I hate you, personally, not necessarily those who speak out against the U.S.A.
You have the floor. Continue attacking your country, which had nothing to do with why I hate you, only in part why I despise you.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/15/2006 @ 1:47 pmHate the sin, not the sinner.
Plus, Rick has some valid points mixed in there with the invalid ones. (I’m not getting off into a tangent as to which is which. You can tell.)
Patterico (de0616) — 10/15/2006 @ 1:54 pmThis girl I had my first serious crush on said that to me.
She was much better than I am. I haven’t pulled that off yet.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/15/2006 @ 2:03 pmIsn’t this the newspaper that has put a team of investigative reporters on the case as to why they’re losing subscribers?
Maybe idiot columnists is one of the reasons — unless you could imagine that Daum would take the side of, say, Young Republicans charging the stage at a Streisand concert.
The Hound (bfa4b3) — 10/15/2006 @ 2:09 pmThey put people on it, Hound, the people are called the “Chicago Tribune”.
😛
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/15/2006 @ 2:12 pmPro-Illegals Violently Threaten Peaceful Speaker; L.A. Times Columnist Cheers…
Michelle Malkin has pointed out how leftists stormed the stage and prevented the Minutemen Founder and others from speaking at Columbia University. Now World Net Daily reports how the leftists and pro-illegals actually called the Black Minuteman speake…
Common Sense Journal (4fa309) — 10/15/2006 @ 2:20 pmThe students who stormed the stage were thugs. They should have been expelled, or at least suspended, for their actions. They violated the Minuteman’s civil rights under the First Amendment. They committed a crime, for which they should be punished. Anyone who defends them shows disdain for the First Amendment.
I guarantee you that if those who stormed the stage were right wing, the columnist would not have defended them. The LA Times should be ashamed of itself.
NMS (a7ba0e) — 10/15/2006 @ 2:28 pmHey Jessie Jackasson and Al Sharpton dont you think you should go to Columbia Univesity and lodge a complaint about this het that was ablackman who was assualted by those hooligans i think maybe you should emand that the big wigs there at columbia should resign and there is good news i understand that the guy who was assualted is suing columbia and frankly i hope he sues that mob of thugs and gets them all expelled and a good old fashion whipping of their rotten butts
krazy kagu (fbcc60) — 10/15/2006 @ 2:38 pmHere’s a reality check for you: How many times have you heard of liberals assaulting a conservative speaker? Plenty, huh? Have you ever heard of conservatives assaulting a liberal speaker? Now which side do you think is composed of Neanderthal thugs?
Tantor (f07f79) — 10/15/2006 @ 2:40 pmHey #31,
Right to the Nazi/Black shirt analogy. How creative! You left off Bush “stole the 2004 election” and the “Downing Street memos prove Bush wanted war in 2002.So impeach.” Yawn.
Thomas Miller (b34465) — 10/15/2006 @ 2:46 pmCriticizing the policies and actions of my government is not attacking my country; on the contrary, when my government violates the most basic principles of freedom, justice, and decency on which my country was first founded, it is my right and my duty to criticize it.
Rick (c4e376) — 10/15/2006 @ 3:01 pmI don’t give much of a damn about you attacking your country, Rick. On a scale of 1-10 with reasons why I hate you, this may be a 3. But never fear, you also accomplished a 9-10 so rest assured, I hate your guts.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/15/2006 @ 3:06 pmMore political violence, which I abhor. Violence that is; I still hate Rick.
www
.protv.ro/filme/
exclusive-footage-of-chinese-soldiers-shooting-at-tibetan-pilgrims
.html#4265
Oh, after watching that URL, you can’t help but admit that the U.S. is every bit as bad as Communist China. After all, when I went down to Washington state recently, I was living in constant fear of being shot in the back by your border guards. Until I finally made it off the ship and behind the protective cordon of our very cute and sexy, but unarmed, Canadian customs officers, I just didn’t feel safe.
But China, man, well, leftists are cool. Way cool.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/15/2006 @ 3:13 pmBy a very fascinating coincidence, without ever having known me personally and just on the basis of my beliefs, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would have certainly hated me, too.
Rick (c4e376) — 10/15/2006 @ 3:20 pm“When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use.”
Joseph Stalin
Bob Lane (b10fee) — 10/15/2006 @ 3:25 pmYes, Rick, I hate you on the basis of your belief. That’s why I hate you. It’s the only reason.
Very good. Glad you were able to able to figure that out. You’re right.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/15/2006 @ 3:26 pm[…] Patterico excoriates a Los Angeles Times columnist for lauding the students who rushed Jim Gilchrist. Filed under:Immigration— Conor Friedersdorf @ 2:42 pm […]
A Special Report on Immigration - Beyond Borders Blog » An LA Times Apologist (8a9a2e) — 10/15/2006 @ 3:42 pmWell, all false modesty aside, it really wasn’t that tough to figure out, Christoph. After carefully considering and then excluding the various alternatives, there’s nothing else for you to judge me on except those beliefs that I have expressed here.
Unless…hey, you wouldn’t happen to be that guy who had the really big crush on my gorgeous wife at the time she fell in love with me, would you? ‘Cause that would make sense…
Rick (c4e376) — 10/15/2006 @ 3:57 pmI’m sure she is your better half, Rick.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/15/2006 @ 4:11 pmShe is, but if you knew her beliefs, you might think otherwise…she makes Maureen Dowd look conservative.
Rick (c4e376) — 10/15/2006 @ 4:20 pm…I suppose that just killed your crush on her, huh?
Rick (c4e376) — 10/15/2006 @ 4:22 pmDid this switch to a liberal blog? That’s where I see these sorts of immature conversations.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/15/2006 @ 4:38 pmThis is a silly conversation, guys.
Patterico (de0616) — 10/15/2006 @ 4:42 pmYou’re right, Rick, if I knew her beliefs I might hate her too.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/15/2006 @ 4:43 pmAgreed, Patterico, but mostly because of the distance. Anyway, what do you think about my waterboarding comment?
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/15/2006 @ 4:44 pmIMO, these leftist liberals are Nazis in the making. When they start attacking people and creating violence, then they have turned into the Nazi party, fascism and all, that they claim to hate.
What is this kind of thuggery if not a Nazi intimidation tactic?
Rep J (6f2b95) — 10/15/2006 @ 5:07 pmYeah, that’s a really great point, Sharon: no one expresses hatred or posts anything silly on a conservative web site; no, not ever. There is no doubt; once again, this could only be because of the Democrats.
Rick (c4e376) — 10/15/2006 @ 5:10 pmThis particular brand of irony is also wearing a little thin, Rick.
Patterico (de0616) — 10/15/2006 @ 5:34 pmSharon is right. Atrios, in particular, specializes in threads where his commenters go all personal with all kinds of irrelevant nonsense. Even with attempted spoofs of Atrios by our host, this site has avoided going that route. I have no doubt that Mrs. Rick is a person of great charm but it is unseemly for Rick to bring her into his discussion with Christoph. (But man, I am saving some great Canadian jokes for the next open thread.)
nk (5a2f98) — 10/15/2006 @ 6:57 pmI accept your opinion (I don’t agree with it, as neither you nor Sharon nor Christoph know either me or my wife, and what you think about either of us isn’t really going to impact our lives), but do you also find repeated explicit expressions of hatred to be “unseemly”?
Which commentator, in your opinion, went “all personal”? Who attack whom, “personally”, nk?
Rick (ea2ac3) — 10/15/2006 @ 7:40 pmI meant, who attacked whom, “personally”?
Rick (ea2ac3) — 10/15/2006 @ 7:42 pmRick, I think nk’s point is that when a man says he hates you, bringing your wife into it is unseemly. As a leftist, I’m not surprised you don’t understand this.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/15/2006 @ 7:44 pm…what about saying that you hate someone? Is that unseemly, too?
Rick (ea2ac3) — 10/15/2006 @ 7:57 pmBoth of you acted in a silly manner. Ironically, you actually descended into the sewer — something you recently accused me of doing when I hadn’t.
Patterico (de0616) — 10/15/2006 @ 8:01 pmRick, damnit, in respect of Patterico, this will be my last comment in this conversation with you, which I started.
It is unseemly to tell someone you hate someone, sure. However, sometimes justified anyway. Free speech includes the freedom not just to debate ideas, but also express feelings and conclusions. I conclude you are an evil leftist, but that there are others far more dangerous than you and frankly I can’t be bothered.
However, if you are in a discussion with a man who is saying he hates you, which you could reasonably interpret as aggression, then it is really really stupid to bring your wife into it as some sort of shield or point scoring mechanism. It’s dumb as hell and unseemly squared. That’s nk’s point.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/15/2006 @ 8:06 pmI won’t deny that I lowered myself, Patterico; I’m honorable enough to admit that I did. Oh, and btw; it was a swamp.
Rick (ea2ac3) — 10/15/2006 @ 8:16 pmI’m sure the Columbian mob did get credit for trying. Extra course credits from some of their Marxist professors.
Jeff Bargholz (62d4dd) — 10/16/2006 @ 12:06 amRick writes:
Thanks for dealing that deck of DNC canards. Speaking for myself, I cant get enough of the left’s dishonest sloganeering. Please hit me with some more.
Just for the record: Indefinite detentions of terrorists are legal and practical, aiding and abetting our enemies is treason, not “dissent,” Warrants are not always necessary to monitor phone conversations between Americans within the country–much less conversations between Americans and overseas terrorists, leftist complaints about budget deficits are never directed at spendthrift Democrat presidential administrations, water-boarding terrorist scum saved thousands of innocent lives, habeas corpus has not been suspended–much less “eliminated” (even though the President has the Constitutional right to do so,) “kidnapping” is not a synonym for “capture,” abortion on demand has not been eliminated, the very rich pay far more money in taxes than the poor do, tax breaks for the rich were all approved with the help of the same Democrat party who benefits from them, no journalist has been prosecuted for illegally leaking classified national security information and defaming Republican government officials with easily exposed lies, public prayer has been forced out of public schools in direct violation of the First Amendment, Jack Abramoff’s clients paid off plenty of Democrats who hypocritically kept the money, the reasons given for the necessary removal of a vicious despot in Iraq are still valid, conservatives disapprove of oil subsidies, and Republicans are forced out of office for writing dirty instant messages to 18 year old men, while Democrat pederasts and whore-mongers like Barney Frank and Gerry Studds are touted as moral authorities and allowed to stay in office until retirement.
Rick went on to spew:
Lying about the policies and actions of your government goes beyond mere criticism, and definitely constitutes an attack. Many of the policies you distort were enacted to protect this country–something you are obviously trying to prevent. the “basic principles of freedom, justice, and decency on which [your] country was first founded” are not being violated by the President’s administration as you claim. They are being violated by the Democrats trying to grant Constitutional rights to foreign terrorists and the activist rulings of the Supreme Court which contravene the Constitution in matters such as: abortion, religious freedom, affirmative action (rank racism and misandry,) Presidential authority, granting rights to foreign terrorists who have none, redefining treaties like the Geneva Conventions unilaterally and illegally, etc.
By a very fascinating coincidence, without ever having known you personally and just on the basis of your beliefs, the Founding Fathers would have certainly hated you. Zarqawi would have considered you a useful fool.
Jeff Bargholz (62d4dd) — 10/16/2006 @ 1:25 amChristoph:
Are you the same Christoph I used to know in Seattle who used to work for a medical equipment company?
Jeff Bargholz (62d4dd) — 10/16/2006 @ 1:26 amNope, Jeff, not he.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/16/2006 @ 1:29 amyeah, what jeff said, squared!
jdlangan (71ff08) — 10/16/2006 @ 9:02 am“Yeah, that’s a really great point, Sharon: no one expresses hatred or posts anything silly on a conservative web site; no, not ever. There is no doubt; once again, this could only be because of the Democrats.”
Thanks for proving my point (albeit, unwittingly) again, Rick. Your comment is precisely the sort of junk I see frequently on liberal blogs when the person doesn’t want to actually debate real points but just wants to launch into personal, and boring, attacks. The people involved don’t want to have dialogue; they aren’t interested in different perspectives. Their main point is to behave boorishly and insult people. I would suggest you go read one of those if that’s what you are interested in.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/16/2006 @ 9:06 ambut then I read the article. She’s an op-ed columnist, not a hard news reporter
Even worse — that implies the editorial board approves of the contents of the piece.
Purple Avenger (d1729c) — 10/16/2006 @ 7:09 pmSharon:
As an automaton of the left, Rick is incapable of any independent thought beyond self gratification. He simply repeats whatever propaganda he’s programmed with. Even his insults and ad hominems are pre-programmed.
He’s not the only robot out there. The left is comprised of an army of marching morons just like him. Their programmers are the truly frightening ones.
Jeff Bargholz (62d4dd) — 10/17/2006 @ 1:05 amIt appears you’ve caused Meghan Daum quite a headache Patterico.
She’s posted another one and you’re in it
[Yeah, I saw that last night and plan to post on it later today. — P]
Rovin (e4c3cf) — 10/21/2006 @ 7:42 am[…] I wrote a post about it which you can read at this link. It then gained a wider audience, as Daum explains in today’s column: That column [Daum’s column from last week] was excerpted and discussed on a political blog called Patterico’s Pontifications, which was then linked to other blogs. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Meghan Daum on Internet Rage (421107) — 10/21/2006 @ 1:56 pm[…] But at least they cared! […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Minutemen Co-Founder Has Speech Disrupted at Major University (421107) — 11/1/2006 @ 11:10 pm