Be civil, not British!

Uh-oh. Things are getting unpleasant at UCI. Gary Robbins of the OC Reg’s College Life blog just posted:

Protestors disrupt speech by Israeli ambassador

Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren has been interrupted nine times this evening while trying to talk about U.S.-Israel relations at UC Irvine….

Mark Petracca, a political science professor, took the stage at 6:21 p.m. and said that the protestors would be arrested.

Oren began speaking just before 5:50 p.m. Over the next 10 minutes, he was interrupted by four different men who yelled various things at him. The first said, “Propagating murder is not free speech.”

The second person yelled about “Zionism.”

The third yelled, “Israel.” The fourth could not be clearly heard.
. . .
Petracca lost his temper and yelled, “This is embarrassing … Shame on all of you.”

UCI Chancellor Michael Drake also told the 500 people in attendance that he was embarrassed by the outburst.
. . .
Hours earlier, UCI’s Muslim Student Union said in an email today that its members “condemn and oppose the presence of Michael Oren, the ambassador of Israel to the United States, on our campus today. We resent that the Law School and the Political Science Department on our campus have agreed to cosponsor a public figure who represents a state that continues to break international and humanitarian law and is condemned by more UN Human Rights Council resolutions than all other countries in the world combined.”
. . .
UCI political science professor Mark Petracca asked the crowd to be civil, saying, “(This) is not the British Parliament. It is a university.”

COMMENTS:

Anonymous‬ said... Yikes. 9:16 AM
Anonymous‬ said... I see trustee Lang there! 10:08 AM
‪‪Anonymous‬ said... Dave lives near campus. His wife works at UCI. So I wouldn't be surprised if he were there. 10:23 AM
Anonymous‬ said... Yes, Lang is in the audience sitting just in front of the first person who interupts the speaker -- you can see Lang turning around at about second 38. 

Yes, Lang's wife works at UCI and is represented by the union there. Red Emma is president of her union. She is a librarian. The UCI library is affiliated with the ALA -- unlike the current status of SOCCCD's libraries. 

I'm just sayin'. 10:30 AM
‪‪Anonymous‬ said... terrible that no reporter picked up on the inter-crowd heckling of the students by the older "community members". i saw a few girls in headscarves being repeatedly harassed by two older, jewish, men. 


also, they packed the room with the "community sponsors" and shoved students to the sides. there was a packed overflow room as well. 12:51 PM
‪‪Anonymous‬ said... Wow, this video really brings back memories--of Nazis and JDL thugs harrassing each other at SOCCCD board meetings. One would suddenly feel that one had been transported out of the country to some lawless place of unyielding louts. 1:58 PM
Anonymous‬ said... Yeah, nowadays, one feels transported to a Tea Party rally or, really, any place where people are attempting to discuss issues and the new right-wing is present. Soon, a punch in the face will be known as their most powerful argument. 2:02 PM
Anonymous‬ said... The "new right-wing is present"? These protesters are Tea Party people or otherwise from the right? You've got to be kidding. 2:21 PM
Anonymous‬ said... 2:21:
1:15, remembering the Nazi/JDL clashes of ten years ago, said, witnessing that, "One would suddenly feel that one had been transported out of the country to some lawless place of unyielding louts." 
Then I said, that "one feels transported to a Tea Party rally." The point is that one now has a new standard of "foreign" loutishness, namely, Tea Party events, such as the recent one in which racist sentiments were expressed and applauded. Then I went on to suggest yet another model, namely, the sort of ugly, racist, conspiracy-nut stuff that attached to Republican rallies during the last Presidential election. That is, one no longer must imagine foreigner anarchy or ancient hatreds to imagine loutish thuggery and the like; one need look no further than the noisy element of today's Republican Party. 3:56 PM
Anonymous‬ said... Oh, I get it, 3:56. Thanks for clarifying. Ugly uncivil left-wing shouting down of an invited speaker at UCI reminds someone of ugly uncivil loutish shouting between Nazis and the JDL from more than a decade ago, so, of course, the Republicans/Tea Partiers -- who are neither left wingers nor Nazis nor the JDL -- get slandered. It all makes sense. 4:21 PM
‪Anonymous‬ said... I think the commentators were talking about the decline of public discourse in general -- the rhetoric of the Tea Partiers being a recent, pungent example of this decline. 5:11 PM
Anonymous‬ said... What he said. 5:20 PM
‪‪She‬ said... She! She said. 5:22 PM
‪Anonymous‬ said... Yeah, I thought of that, but "what he said" is more familiar. I'm often torn between maximal rhetoric and correctness. I flip flop on that all the time. 5:26 PM
Anonymous‬ said... Extremely disturbing, and scary. What gets to me as much as the thugs who stood up and yelled were the idiots cheering them on: cheerleaders without brains. 

Mob mentality is just too stupid for words, and always a serious danger.

 --MAH 10:57 AM, February 10, 2010
‪‪Anonymous‬ said... " ... a punch in the face will be known as their most serious argument." Now THAT is a good one, 2:02! --

MAH 1:19 PM
‪‪Anonymous‬ said... The latest: Chemerinski weighs in: Dean: UCI protesters violated free speech 2:33 PM
Anonymous‬ said... 5:11, How can you say the Tea Partiers are an example of a “decline of public discourse in general?” Seems to me this new peaceful grass-roots effort has been civil; no property damage, no violence, etc… As compared to the left’s usual show of “public discourse” in the recent past, Tea Partiers shine! 

And 2:02, “Soon, a punch in the face will be known as their most powerful argument.” Amusing but so far I see the Tea Partiers presenting some very compelling prima facie arguments that stand on their own merits. Again, it’s the left who has been violent, while the conservatives have not. 2:34 PM
‪Anonymous‬ said... The Tea Party crowd regularly laps up demagoguery. Tancrito borrows classic and familiar racist arguments, and the crowd is entranced--and clueless. Palin suggests that the Prez could invade Iran to gain "toughness" cred, and the audience doesn't flinch. They are Neanderthals, without memory or knowledge, just a club and a torch. I would be more impressed if there were hecklers, Tea Baggers (or whatever) with some notion of who we are and where we've come from. Again, I say, view all of the video of crowds at Republican events during the last Presidential election: suddenly, racist sentiments and daft conspiracy theories were acceptable. It was horrifying. You keep referring to unruly leftists. Just who are these leftists? We have Republicans breaking into offices, spreading false rumors, hinting at the desirability of "revolution." I'm talking about Republicans, all around us, especially here in OC. Now do point out to me the Democrats among us who reveal any similar intellectual or democratic crudity. (And, BTW, those guys at the UCI event don't count. For one thing, they are likely foreign students. For another, [they're] not leftists.) 2:49 PM
Anonymous said...“The Tea Party crowd regularly laps up demagoguery.”

--What about the leftists with their anti-Bush-Cheney rhetoric, and the war has been lost, etc… I saw someone wearing a “Kill Cheney” t-shirt the other day. [They're] the ones advocating violence, not the conservatives. If any side is more consumed with race, it’s the left with their political correctness along with their demagogues like those 3 Reverends (you know who they are) who are in the race business. It’s all about race-baiting with them.

“suddenly, racist sentiments and daft conspiracy theories were acceptable. It was horrifying. Now do point out to me the Democrats among us who reveal any similar intellectual or democratic crudity.” How about our Prez’s own Reverend for 20 years? You didn’t find him horrifying?

I think you’re clueless. Most horrifying is the typical leftist Australopithecus Afarensis, incapable of doing their own thinking, who buy into all that crap about how big daddy govt. is going to take care of them by stealing property away from the rest of us… and for what in exchange? Their FREEDOM! How any American could go along with this “plot” is beyond me.

Now sit down and shut up cuz it’s time for another sleep-inducing lecture from the almighty PREZ! Yay! 8:14 PM
B. von Traven said...8:14, you have made your case beautifully. Indeed, you are thoroughly self-defecating. 
Now, go away, and don't come back. Please. This is a college blog. If you hurry, you can just catch Glenn Beck over on Fox. Perfect for you. 8:48 PM
Anonymous said...Why, thank you B. von Traven!

I guess it means I've won the argument when the moderator replies with ad hominem and asks that I go away. ~ 10:09 PM
Anonymous said...…A few weeks ago [Beck] did a special, “Revolutionary Holocaust: Live Free or Die” which was a real eye-opener for me. Did any of you happen to catch it? If not, I strongly suggest you see it.
It’s basically about how for the last 100 years, the progressives have been teaching us revisionist history. They’ve managed to associate all the “bad stuff” in the world, i.e. totalitarian regimes, genocide, man’s inhumanity to man, etc… with far-right ideologies and conveniently omitted overwhelming human atrocities by the far-left. In brief the facts are, Hitler (alleged far-right) = 7M dead, while Stalin (far-left) = 12M Ukrainians dead + Mao (far-left) = 70M Chinese dead, etc… The tally is: alleged far-right = 7M dead compared to far-left = 82M dead. And that’s not even all the far-left atrocities, just the two most prominent.
Further, Hitler’s Fascism, usually associated with far-right ideology, is in fact more in line with Stalin’s far-left Socialism. In fact when compared side by side, every element is identical except for the Nazi’s “nationalist” element hence, the actual definition of fascism is “National Socialism.” So we can easily conclude that fascism is actually a far-left phenomenon. This expose really changed everything for me, because now left-right political spectrum theory, or the conventional school of thought, is no longer relevant. What is evident, there are still two sides; good and evil. Good stands for traditional liberal philosophy: freedom, justice and humanity, while evil stands for socialism, totalitarianism and death. Today’s conservatives represent the former and unfortunately hard-left liberals, the latter.
Some folks think Glenn Beck is a joke, I certainly don’t. He was recently voted America’s second most influential conservative of 2009, by AP, survey by CBS. Why do you suppose that is? He used to work for CNN, you know. What happened to make him join the FOX news team? Was it perhaps the disintegration of good journalism at CNN?
And finally, “And, BTW, those guys at the UCI event don't count. For one thing, they are likely foreign students. For another, their not leftists.”
Did you down a half gallon of Prestone? Of course they’re leftists! What do you think the Muslim Brotherhood is? It’s a socialist movement/party born out of Nassir’s Egypt in the 1950s. ~ 9:05 PM, February 11, 2010
Anonymous said...Bummer you should not have changed out the video! The original was much better. It showed the professor at the end telling his unruly students to drop the class and that they've failed their exams. That was the best part! No worry, the OC Register has the original one. ~ 9:39 PM
Anonymous said...Reading that stuff from 9:05 gives me pause to think how many Germans must have felt in 1936; that they woke up one morning and saw a plurality of their countrymen supporting Goebbels and company, and were just stunned as to what had happened. And we know where that led. ~ 12:08 PM, February 12, 2010

Some scandal

Like Mathur, Mathur’s supporters are special. Presently, they are consumed with hatred for Don Wagner, and so they’ve assembled their spitballs and itching powder, and they’re crawling through the bushes and throwing stink bombs.

Take Mathur supporter Scamallert.  In a comment re the recent Register editorial,  he or she tries the old say it enough times and everyone will believe it gambit: “This Wagner Scandal really stinks to high heaven” she declares.

Scandal?

Scamallert suggests that we take a look at Wagner’s campaign donors. Among them, she writes, is “Union Boss” (?) William Hewitt, who gave Don’s campaign $1,000. Imagine!

Ms. Allert draws a conclusion: Wagner is neither fiscally conservative nor anti-union.

But, of course, Don is both, which is why the union, including Treasurer Bill, has opposed him during every election. Don’s on the board of Education Alliance, for Chrissake! Nobody hates teachers unions more than that crowd.

It is, I think, some sort of old-fashioned—and kinda hinky—take on politics that inclines the likes of Bill “the Schmoozer” Hewitt to contribute to Don's Assembly campaign. The rest of us dissenters contribute instead to Jane Fonda, the ALA, Satanism, Spain, and whoever makes those swell little mustachioed voodoo dolls.

Scamallert, in case you haven’t noticed, is an aficionado of daft conspiracy theories, which explains her disapproving mention of Hewitt’s long-ago involvement in the Frogue recall. (Gosh, I didn’t know Steve had fans! Maybe Scam is Steve?!)

Modjeska Grade, 1939

Her next shocker concerns the “prayer” lawsuit. The list of defendants, she notes, is practically an SOCCCD Who’s Who! That's true. So how come IVC Prez (and Wagnerian) Glenn Roquemore isn’t named in the suit?

“Very fishy indeed,” she snides.

Well, if Ms. Scama had bothered to read our complaint, she would discover that it names the trustees—they are the district—and then includes persons who participated in the actions and events that are the subject of the suit (showing "Jesus" videos, removing obstacles to trustee prayer at events, etc.). Tod Burnett and Raghu Mathur definitely participated. Roquemore did not, in part because he’s fifteen miles from the action. (Yes, the Chancellor’s opening session occurred at IVC, but it was strictly a district event, choreographed by All That Goo.)

Scamallert seems to think that Hewitt is involved in the suit. In fact, HE HAS NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. Hell, I don't think we'd have 'im!

Scamallert next goes off the rails completely, asserting, absurdly, that the lawsuit derives from plaintiffs’ “hurt feelings.” Even if that were true (I'm against the "establishment" of religion, and my feelings are fine), it would do nothing to serve her fish theory.

Evidently frothing at the mouth, she next notes that two of the suit’s plaintiffs (the two students) are anonymous. “Hmmm…. What are they trying to hide?” she oozes.

Actually, I argued against anonymity, but the other faculty plaintiffs, concerned about the students’ vulnerability, were adamant. (I think it's a nesting thing.) These two young people believe in the separation of church and state. That's why they've signed on.

OK, having established that (1) Bill Hewitt gave Don a check for one thousand bucks and (2) two of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs are anonymous, Scamallert declares: “The big puzzle is beginning to come together”!

Her grand vision finally spills forth in a tour de force of cascading disconnected imaginary factoids:

Some people wanted Mathur gone so badly, they figured all they had to do was flip one trustee…So they cut a backroom deal with the trustee to make Mathur an offer he couldn’t refuse – hire as a high paid admin, the woman … who hates Mathur, or Mathur is OUT! …The incentive for the trustee was financial support for his bid for CA Assembly [namely, that cool grand from Bill] …If the trustee wins that seat in Sac, it eliminates him from our board – one less conservative! … Now [?] while emboldened and on a roll, hit the district with a big lawsuit and hopefully take-out some more conservative trustees (all paid for by the taxpayer!) … The stench is rapidly becoming too overwhelming!

Wow. What an idiot.

There’s no scandal here—just the usual semi-hinky machinations of a peevish and arrogant right-winger. In the end, this was about Wagner and one seriously lousy employee: Don could no longer abide the fellow's connivery, and so he pulled the strings and arranged the ducks to remove him, even if it meant permanently pissing off the pious and sulfurous Tom “Big Foot” Fuentes.

Some scandal.

El Toro 1951

Two boys receiving medals, El Toro Marine Base, El Toro, CA, 1951

I found this photo at the USC digital library site. It is a part of the “Los Angeles Examiner Negatives Collection, 1950-1961,” and it is entitled, “Medals given boys at El Toro Marine base, 1951.”

There's no further information.

Obviously, the ceremony concerns war deaths: the little boys are receiving medals in honor of their fathers’ sacrifices—no doubt in Korea.

I noticed some names barely legibly written on the photo (backwards). One of them: Mary Nell Scott (and Bobby Scott). I did some quick looking and found that one Californian named Scott died in Korea at that time:

“Corporal [Gerald L.] Scott [of San Francisco] was a member of the 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division [Army]. He was Killed in Action while fighting the enemy in South Korea on March 12, 1951.” [Born in 1931] (Korean War Project)

Another name: Molly Rohwer.

One Californian named Rohwer died in Korea at the time:

“Corporal [Gaylen Floyd] Rohwer [born: June 11, 1924; from Venice, CA] was a member of Company F, 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division. He was Killed in Action [in Seoul] while fighting the enemy in Korea on September 24, 1950.” (Korean War Project)

Also handwritten on the photo: "General William Wallace"* and the number "9186." Don't know anything about either.

A date is written on the photo: "6-11(?)-51." No doubt it is the date of this occasion.

That was Rohwer's birthday. He would have been 27.

*I can find no General (of that era) with this name.

Don Wagner celebrates his own money-grubbin’ self

About an hour ago, over at the always-mediocre OC Red County blog (AD 70 Watch: Wagner Leads The Field In Fundraising), Allan Bartlett notes a new press release from the Wagner campaign:

Wagner Leads Republican Field in Fundraising

Conservative leader posts top number of all candidates

Irvine, California – Don Wagner, founder of the Orange County chapter of the Federalist Society and president of the South Orange County Community College Board of Trustees, has announced his fundraising totals for his campaign to succeed Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, who is running for the U.S. Senate against liberal Barbara Boxer.

Wagner bested all other candidates in the race with $145,700 raised to date and $109,300 in the bank.

“I am running for the State Assembly because we need a conservative voice to succeed Chuck DeVore and a proven leader on budgetary issues,” said Wagner. “I will have the resources necessary to communicate our message of fiscal discipline and traditional values and I will work hard as a candidate and as a member of the Assembly. I will not be going to Sacramento to make friends or add a title to my resume, I am going to make change.” [?]

Don Wagner and his wife, Megan, and their three children live in Irvine. He is a graduate of UCLA and the University of California, Hastings College of Law. Don has been elected to three consecutive terms on the Board of Trustees of the South Orange County Community College District, and currently serves as the Board's president.

Bartlett then (mediocrely) opines:

These are decent numbers for Don, but I still can't believe any GOP candidates haven't "shock and awed" the field with better numbers. This is the 70th AD, one of the most Republican/richest ADs in CA. This race is still wide open. I see the three way field so far as pretty evenly balanced. Jerry [Amante] started out strong, but has fizzled out of late. Don has the most grassroots activists ready to help him, along with leading in the money chase, and Steven Choi has arguably the best name ID in the district.

I have a strong vested interest in this campaign because it is where I live. I want the strongest possible conservative/limited gov/reformer to get the GOP nomination. I'm pretty sure I've made up my mind who I am going to support. I will make a big announcement here at Red County before the local CRA endorsing convention on Feb 20th.

Gosh, we're on tenterhooks, almost.

It's semi-official: 77% of Republicans are flat stupid

Just in case you missed it: not long ago, the Daily Kos revealed the results of a poll of self-identified Republicans. As the blog explains:

The Daily Kos Republican Poll was conducted by Research 2000 from January 20 through January 31, 2010. A total of 2003 self identified Republicans were interviewed nationally by telephone. Those interviewed were selected by the random variation of the last four digits of telephone numbers, nationally.

The margin for error, according to standards customarily used by statisticians, is no more than plus or minus 2% percentage points. This means that there is a 95 percent probability that the "true" figure would fall within that range if the entire self identified Republican population were sampled. The margin for error is higher for any demographic subgroup, such as for gender or region.

Here’s one striking result (one of the 25 questions):

QUESTION: Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?

.............YES...... NO..... NOT SURE
All ...........77 .....15 .........8
Men .........79 .....14......... 7
Women..... 75 .....16.........9
White .......79 .....13......... 8
Other/... ...58 .....31......... 11
18-29 .......74 .....19......... 7
30-44 .......75 .....17......... 8
45-59 .......78 .....15......... 7
60+..........78 .....13......... 9
NE............70 .....23..........7
South........82 ......9.......... 9
MW ..........77 .....14......... 9
West........ 72 .....21......... 7
Def ..........78 .....14......... 8
Vote ........77 .....15......... 8
Not L .......76 .....18......... 6
Def Not.... 75..... 19......... 6
Not Sur ....75 .....19......... 6

So: 77% (give or take 2%) of Republicans think public school students should be taught, well, Creationism.

Wow.

Genesis: “And the LORD smelled a sweet savor”

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
. . .
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.
. . .
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
. . .
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
. . .
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet [sic?] for him.
. . .
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
. . .
And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth
. . .
Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, there went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
. . .
And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.
. . .
And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a sweet savor….

From Genesis, The Holy Bible: King James Version

Other results of the poll (of self-described Republicans):

• 58% either thought Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. or aren’t sure.
• 57% either think Obama “wants the terrorists to win” or aren’t sure.
• 76% either think ACORN “stole the 2008 election” or aren’t sure.
• 86% either think Sarah Palin is “more qualified to be President than Barack Obama” or aren’t sure.
• 64% either think Barack Obama “hates White people” or aren’t sure.
• 42% either think their “state should secede from the U.S.” or aren’t sure.

Comments:

Anonymous‬ said...
It's stupid to believe in the Bible?
9:34 PM, February 06, 2010

‪Anonymous‬ said...
It's stupid to imagine that the Bible - oh, well, nevermind.
10:04 PM

Anonymous‬ said...
Not to pick nits, but, exactly what does the book of Genesis explain, if not how God created the world? That's not to say it correctly explains, or scientifically explains, just that it explains. So, if there is to be any teaching of the Bible in school (say in a literature class, a comparative religion class, whatever), I think the majority of the 2,003 self-identifed Republicans are clearly right to say school kid should be taught that this is what the book of Genesis says. They should also be taught that War and Peace explains Napoleon's Russian adventure. Again, maybe not correctly, but that is what the book does. 

For a self proclaimed logician, Roy, your conclusion from the question polled, that Republicans believe "Creationism" should be taught, just doesn't follow. Focus. And lighten up.
10:49 PM

B. von Traven said...
10:49, Well, yes, it is possible that some of the self-described Republicans read the question as you suggest. 
You seem to ignore the manifest ambiguity of “explains” in the question, for surely the question can also be read as asking whether students should be taught that the Bible correctly explains how God created the world. I suspect that that is how it was read by most participants.

 After all, according to the poll,

 58% either thought Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. or aren’t sure. [!!!!]
 57% either think Obama “wants the terrorists to win” or aren’t sure. [!!!!]
 76% either think ACORN “stole the 2008 election” or aren’t sure. [!!!!]
 86% either think Sarah Palin is “more qualified to be President than Barack Obama” or aren’t sure. [!!!!]
 64% either think Barack Obama “hates White people” or aren’t sure. [!!!!]
 42% either think their “state should secede from the U.S.” or aren’t sure. [!!!!]

 Again, I say: stupid people.

 Also, I think you're a little tone deaf. The post was light-hearted, not heavy. I don't really think these people are "flat stupid." They're just stunningly, appallingly ignorant.

 I.e., "stupid people."
11:22 PM

‪Anonymous‬ said...
Don't you just love it when people say, "Not to pick nits," and then they proceed to--pick nits? 

Yeah, right. These Republicans were thinking, "Well, we don't care if you say Genesis is the truth or not--just that there's this book, Genesis, and it gives this explanation! You know, like Gilgamesh and Br'er Rabbit!"

 Yeah.
11:36 PM

Anonymous‬ said...
Roy, that's probably not how it was read by most participants. You only think so -- or pretend to think so -- because you start from the proposition that Republicans are stupid. Why else would they be Republicans, right?

 Tone deaf you say? The post was light hearted? Goodness. How jolly to be called "flat stupid." I thought "name-calling is not argumentation, unless we're having a really slow day. But if you must call people names, please be clever about it." 

What a clever jokester you are. You called the results "striking." As in jarring, appalling, unsettling, disturbing, somehow revealing a fundamental truth that Republicans are flat stupid and support Creationism. Thanks for the yucks. 

Face it, logic guy, you drew an unwarranted and unfair conclusion and are now seeking cover behind the lame response that you were "just kidding."
11:40 PM

‪Anonymous‬ said...
By the way, Roy, I'm not the one ignoring any ambiguity. I pointed out the ambiguity by explaining the alternative reading. YOU are the one who posted the bad poll with the bad question in it and then drew a conclusion that does not follow because of that ambiguity. YOU ignored it to malign Republicans. But it was all in good fun, huh?
11:49 PM

Anonymous‬ said...
Oh, and not to pick nits, 11:36, but if Roy can use his subtle and lighthearted humor, as he so successfully did here, I can use understatement. Sorry that you missed it. I hope you at least got Roy's clever joke.

 Yeah.
11:55 PM

B. von Traven said...
Uh-oh, the Incorrigible One is back. 
Like a dog with a bone.
12:10 AM, February 07, 2010

Anonymous‬ said...
Good answer, Roy. You tell 'em. Kill 'em with humor.
12:13 AM

Anonymous‬ said...
If this poll is even roughly accurate, it is disturbing. The methodology seems sound. I am amazed. 
64% either think Barack Obama “hates White people” or aren’t sure! A majority thinks that Obama might want the "terrorists to win"?! Where is this crap coming from?
12:17 AM

Anonymous‬ said...
The poll is very disheartening.
8:43 AM

Anonymous‬ said...
Gosh, if they're so sure that Obama was lying about his origins, faith, etc - where was the outcry when he was elected to the Senate?
11:12 AM

Anonymous‬ said...
"Revealing a fundamental truth that Republicans are flat stupid and support Creationism."

Well, this is pretty much correct, isn't it? When there's an attack on [a] dictionary in a school library, or a diatribe against the "homosexual agenda," or a demand that creationism be taught as if it's actually scientific, which party is being represented?
11:51 AM

Anonymous said...
Yuck, 11:40. "Tone-deaf" is putting it mildly. As usual, Roy takes the high road when your venom comes flying, while you unfailingly take the low road. Please get lost. There're plenty of blogs that would never dream of criticizing Republicans.

Do go there, please.
1:57 PM

alannah said...
Dare I hope that this poll somehow had an unsuspected selection bias toward ignorant people and/or fundamentalist Christians and/or conspiracy theory lovers? How was the survey done?
I'm really hoping this is not a true cross-section of Republicans (and before anybody can say anything, no, I do not intend that as a pun).
3:44 PM

Tea Party Girl: "They came into our colleges..."

From today's Los Angeles Times, as reported by Kathleen Hennessey from Nashville, site of the National Tea Party Convention: 

     Some conference attendees said they were worried about religious freedom and immigration. They said they sensed a withering pride in American ideals and the country's place in the world.
     Often those concerns were tied to the post-1960s culture wars.
     "You took the radicals out of the '60s.  They came into our colleges, they became teachers and they began to teach our children," said Alice Moore, 69, who got her start in political activism fighting against what she deemed inappropriate textbooks in her West Virginia town.
     "The indoctrination of kids for 35 years or longer, this is what led us to the election of this president.  It is why we're here," Moore said.

"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be very careful about what we pretend to be."

COMMENTS:

Anonymous said...
Wow - a wee bit scary. Look at that logic.
(Where's the quote from?)
3:02 PM, February 06, 2010

Anonymous said...
ah, teachers again - root of all evil.
3:40 PM, February 06, 2010

Anonymous said...
So is that the only way they can explain the election of a black president?
9:10 AM, February 07, 2010

Anonymous‬ said...
Looks like Tancredo has come out as a racist. Or perhaps he's unaware that he is repeating the notorious arguments of historical racists? He can't be that ignorant. 
But it's OK to come out as a racist with this crowd. Listen to 'em!
12:32 PM

B. v Traven's addition: Tancredo welcomes the Tea Partiers:

Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh, who eschews tea, entertains his flock with the word "retard," which he finds to be apt and, I guess, way underused:

Wagner’s campaign: recent contributions

I perused records on Contributions Received by Don Wagner’s Assembly campaign—referred to this morning by Rebel Girl. (See also here.) Here are some “highlights.”

Evidently, DON WAGNER loaned himself $100,000.

The COMMITTEE TO ELECT TOM FUENTES contributed $3,900.00. Presumably, this is money left over from Fuentes’ recent reelection campaign.

The FAMILY ACTION PAC—a local right-wing group—made contributions amounting to $3,000.

Some familiar OC right-wing regulars have contributed to Wagner’s campaign, including JIM RIGHEIMER, JAMES LACY, HUGH HEWITT, LEE LOWREY, SHAWN BLACK, HOWARD KLEIN, and JOHN EASTMAN.

I noticed that one MICHAEL CORFIELD contributed. He’s an attorney for the Young Men's Christian Association Of Orange County. I seem to recall that he was Raghu Mathur’s hapless attorney when Mathur sued me for reporting his violations of a students privacy rights.

Other familiar names among contributors:

GLEN ROQUEMORE, $1,000.00
WILLIAM HEWITT, $1,000.00
JOHN WILLIAMS, $500.00
RAGHU MATHUR, $500.00
JOHN WILLIAMS, $300.00
MARCIA MILCHIKER, $300.00
TOD BURNETT, $250.00
WILLIAM JAY, $250.00
ROBERT COSGROVE, $250.00
RONALD ELLISON, $100.00