Little monsters

WHY ARE THEY ALWAYS RIGHT-WINGERS?

.....A couple of days ago, the LA Times’ James Rainey discussed the coarseness of discussion on the internet (Website comment boards bring out the inner vulgarian). Rainey starts with the Washington Post’s recent debunking of John McCain’s charge that his Democratic opponent blew off his visit with injured troops because he couldn’t bring the press along. Turns out to be utterly false, as the WP explained.
.....In response, the WP got thousands of comments on the internet, most of them anonymous. Some were civil. Many weren’t:

[One reader] complained about "the 'whitey' rants of Michelle Shaniqua Obama. Doesn't she realize that it was whitey's affirmative action policies that got her where she is today?"
…
[Another reader] scored a high imbecile quotient with just 42 words that painted McCain as a "songbird" and traitor because of the limited statements he made to his captors during 5 1/2 years of brutal wartime imprisonment in North Vietnam.

.....Rainey observes that “the Internet all too often discourages, or coarsens, a healthy civic discussion.” He quotes author Andrew Keen: "The people who post on these sites have become accustomed to behaving like beasts because they can, because no one is really monitoring them.”
.....Unlike some blogs and websites, Dissent the Blog does not filter comments. Anyone can comment and say anything. After the fact, we have occasionally deleted comments, but only in particularly egregious cases. We don’t mind people disagreeing with us (or with others). We do mind when someone calls somebody a “pig-f*cker.”
.....I dunno. That’s just too ugly to leave up there.
.....Racist stuff has been deleted, but not because it is racist. A big problem with some posts is that the writer takes a controversial position on some issue but does not bother really to give reasons for it. As near as I can tell, such writers aren’t aware that reasons would be a plus. They just attack, scream, assault.
.....Remember that little monster that popped out of John Hurt’s chest in Alien? They’re kinda like that little guy. No arguments, just horror.
.....As far as I’m concerned, you get to be a racist (or a contemner of gays or, for that matter, a lover of pigs), as long as you provide a decent argument. But none of those people ever seems to have one. They usually don’t even have an indecent one.
.....But failing to give reasons isn’t enough to get booted either. You get to be a dope, I say. But I often encounter the lovely combo of a racist (or hater of liberals, or basher of gays) who offers no reasons or arguments AND who seems to have written merely to insult or upset their perceived opponents.
.....I usually delete those.
.....Invariably, these little monsters are right-wingers. Why is that? You never hear a liberal or leftist or progressive calling somebody a pig-f*cker. Maybe they don’t have any imagination. Dunno.
.....One more thing. I take back my comparison of these internet vulgarians with that little monster in John Hurt’s chest. And Keen is wrong to call these little right-wingers “beasts,” for beasts are animals, and animals never insult. They might eat you because they’re hungry, or chew through your chest because they’re stuck there, but they do not insult or offend.
.....You gotta respect that.

OUR SPECIAL WHISTLE-BLOWER LAW.

.....Yesterday, The San Francisco Chronicle reported on a dismal ruling last week by the state Supreme Court. (Whistle-blowers lose case against UC.)
.....According to the Chronicle, “University of California employees who claim they were fired for reporting wrongdoing or unsafe conditions can't sue for damages if the university rejects their claims….”
.....As it turns out, our whistle-blower law, “which allows employees of state agencies to seek damages for alleged retaliation by supervisors,” nevertheless prevents plaintiffs from going after UC if it has investigated the alleged retaliation and cleared itself.
.....Huh?
.....The ruling concerned a lawsuit by two former computer scientists at UC's Lawrence Livermore Lab, Leo Miklosy and Luciana Messina, who, in 2003, were working on determining the safety of the country’s nuclear weapons. According to the suit, they complained to supervisors about equipment and personnel problems. Soon, Miklosy was let go and Messina quit after (allegedly) hearing that she would soon be fired.
.....Miklosy and Messina complained. The UC lab investigated their cases and judged (within a required period) that neither employee had been retaliated against. Then came the suit, but the Supremes now say these two have no right to sue.
.....One of the justices, despite agreeing with the decision, urged the Legislature to change the 1993 law that makes UC special.
.....Boy, that’s some law, that whistle-blower law.
.....“It’s the best there is,” Doc Daneeka agreed.