Hitch v. Jon Stewart.

I'll leave it to you to guess who wins. You won't have to expend a great deal of brain power to figure it out. I promise.

Jon Stewart really is a smartish sort of dolt, isn't he?

{Hat Tip: INDC Journal}

Posted by: Kathy at 10:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

I received the most interesting trackback to this post from yesterday. You can find the link here.

The money quote:

{...}For the record, Hawaii's independence is not secession. Hawaii's sovereignty or territory was never legally ceded to the United States, either through the purported annexation via mere joint resolution, or the fraudulent so-called plebiscite for statehood and the admissions act, both domestic legislations without extraterritorial force on the country of Hawaii, which continues to be under prolonged illegal occupation. No cession, no secession. What we are talking about is not secession, but ending the occupation of Hawaii.

Whether you agree with the above or not, it is important to at least understand that perspective, which is held by many.

Ooooooooookay then. "No cession, no secession." Heh. That's a tricksy little bit of legalese, isn't it? I honestly don't see where the heck this gentleman gets that from, given that, according to the WSJ piece, native Hawaiians voted 2-1 for statehood in 1959, but hey, I suppose everyone's got a dream! It appears this gent's arguments are derived from a "creative" workaround of the facts.

See the problem with Mr. Laudig's argument is not the---oh, how should I put this? I'm going to try and be nice, but wow, I just don't see how that's possible.---insanity in it, but rather that he doesn't carry the insanity all the way through. I mean, honestly, if you're going to do it, do it right, eh?

If Hawaii was really under a "prolonged illegal occupation," Mr. Laudig shouldn't recognize Senator Akaka as a "Senator," should he? After all, you can't send representatives to a government you're being "illegally occupied" by, can you? That's not the way it generally works. I mean, what's the point in doing that, from the occupier's viewpoint? If you're going to expend the time and effort to "illegally occupy" a place---particularly for going on fifty years---why on Earth would you give its people access to representative government of the occupier, let alone all the rights and benefits that come with the citizenship you gave them upon entry into the Union? I suppose one could argue that we're taking the "killing them with kindness" path, but, really, why bother if it's just an "illegal occupation"? It doesn't make much sense, on the whole. It seems a wee bit generous.

I could go on, but I think you get the gist.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:04 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.

1 oh yeah, and of course I recognize that the U.S. sees Akaka as a senator, and does not view it as an occupation. my calling him a senator is the only point you actually raise as "the problem" with the argument, but that's beside the point. who knows, with the length republicans are willing to go with redistricting to gain seats in congress, maybe they'll decide getting rid of Hawaii's two reliably Dem senate and house seats is good political strategy

Posted by: scott crawford at August 19, 2005 04:26 AM (yNvjo)

2 Wow, lady. You really stirred up a hornet's nest, didn't you? Seriously? I find the whole "50 years of occupation" thing incredibly ridiculous. Are they contending that Hawaii isn't better off as a state in the Union? What I find curious about this is my own history in Kansas. You see, I'm originally from Southwestern Kansas and a number of years ago, there was a part of that region that wanted to secede from the state of Kansas, and become a separate state in the union. The ambition came from irritation over unreasonable taxation. For example, larger proportions of land owners in the west paying more than their fair share of revenue to prop up Eastern Kansas crap. The movement failed, but there were a lot of hot-blooded individuals riled up about it (including my own family - we have a problem with unreasonable taxation). Back to Hawaii. I've been to Hawaii. My concern here is that it sets a dangerous precedent. I also don't see how the US taxpayer can take back all of his investment in Hawaii, so I don't really see it as fair. Honestly, I don't think they have a snowball's chance in Hades.

Posted by: Phoenix at August 19, 2005 09:24 AM (4N2f4)

3 Oops. Mr. Crawford might have been given the benefit of the doubt, treated fairly and earned the respect accorded to people making worthwhile comments to demonstrate differeing points of view. He might have even gotten many people to read the articles he pointed out supporting his position. But then: who knows, with the length republicans are willing to go with redistricting to gain seats in congress, maybe they'll decide getting rid of Hawaii's two reliably Dem senate and house seats is good political strategy Unreasonable bias has been displayed. If he believes that all the gerrymandering done in this country has been done from the Republican side of the aisle, who the hell knows what else he might believe? Admittedly, this doesn't have much to do with his original argument. But of course, that's the point. Why would he handicap his cause by setting off the warning bells in our heads that we just might be dealing with a moonbat?

Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at August 19, 2005 10:25 AM (6r15q)

4 Scott, brah, you have da kine lolo ideas. Sorry, couldn't resist. The Hawaiian statehood question is a fantastic legal exercise, but nothing more. I don't doubt there's a groundswell of anti-statehood sentiment in the islands right now - having lived there for a few years in the last 80s, I saw how tightly some held onto their grievances. It's now believed that those aggregated grievances, along with some legal two-stepping, can change the fact that those living in Hawaii were given a chance to vote on statehood and accepted it, that Hawaii was admitted as a state by Congress and President Eisenhower and, most importantly, that the Hawaiian government and native Hawaiians have accepted the benefits of statehood without complaint for half a century. Hawaiians have allowed the federal government to pay for roads, schools and other capital improvements to the island before and since becoming a state. Paying taxes, voting, taking federal funds and participating in other U.S. civic exercises does imply that Hawaiians have, for years, consented with the fact that their territory is a state subject to the rules and customs of the United States. One could argue, I suppose, that the Hawaiian government was forced to take millions in federal funds from the United States and elect representatives to its government, but it's a hard sell. If those advocating Hawaiian independence want to live by the courage of their convictions, they would pull their representatives out of Congress, stop paying taxes and stop accepting funds from a government they do not recognize as their sovereign.

Posted by: Slublog at August 19, 2005 12:39 PM (V7NgR)

5 Here we go again. Americans blabbing about what we are not or we cant do or something else that completely avoids the Truth of the racist and illegal theft of Hawaii. The US Constitution says that treaties are the "supreme" law of the land. Is that true or not? Is your word of honor for real or not? The US broke just about every single treaty it had with native peoples and all with Hawaii. So? So lets go to a neutral non US court for a judgement. We tried at the Permanent Court of Arbitration but the most powerful, richest, self rightous nation on the planet would not come. Bottom line. The US has admitted that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii was "illegal", and that said government was the "lawful". One cannot "annex" or make a "state" out of something that was stolen. Lastly, it was non native Hawaiian Americans who voted for statehood. This included all US servicemen and their families.

Posted by: steven at August 19, 2005 01:13 PM (g8EE1)

6 Oh, where to begin... First, "racist" is not a synonym for "everything I disagree with," okay? Throwing the word around like so much confetti only makes it harder for those of us who value the language to use it when it really applies. Second, this Hawaiian independence movement is largely based on the 1993 apology resolution sponsored by Senator Daniel Akaka. You wrote:The US has admitted that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii was "illegal", and that said government was the "lawful". One cannot "annex" or make a "state" out of something that was stolen.In that case, Kathy's original point still holds. A U.S. Senator elected from an "illegal" state would not have legal standing to sponsor such legislation. By the act of electing Senator Akaka and all of the other representatives to Congress, the Hawaiian people have shown they are willing to consent to the rule of the U.S. government. Unfortunately, with the right to elect senators comes the responsibilities of statehood. Hawaiians want it both ways - they want to use the rights given to them as a state to advocate for their independence. Again. If they want independence, they should stop paying taxes, withdraw Congressional representation and cease cashing treasury checks. Until that happens, this is just a lot of hot air and empty protests.

Posted by: Slublog at August 19, 2005 01:31 PM (V7NgR)

7 MRN, i was making a joke. or trying to.

Posted by: scott crawford at August 19, 2005 01:41 PM (yNvjo)

8 Scott, If that's the case, then please accept my apologies. Its difficult to joke about things like that, because as you can see from poster Steven above, the truly blinkered lemmings come out of the wood-work on issues like this.

Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at August 19, 2005 04:48 PM (QKvIa)

9 Just wrote something (about akaka of the "akaka bill" (S147)- that might fit here: In a message dated 8/18/2005 11:40:19 PM Hawaiian Standard Time, scott@aloha.net writes: actually he's (akaka) still not saying it precludes it (independence), just that it has nothing to do with it, and that he doesn't support it. he's trying to satisfy both sides, and it's funny to see him bounce back and forth in how he explains it. He has "sworn on oath" to support the (u.s.) federal constitution (and I don't know what else). Hawai'i independence is not something that the "constitution" provides for. Actually - it's something that the "constitution" DOESN'T provide for and/or actually restricts (in one way or another). So - his compliance with federal law, policies, etc., ALL goes opposite from where WE want to go. Don't expect MIRACLES. "Akaka" is not the first step towards independence - it is the last step FROM independence. On another angle, the Doctrine of Terra Nullis and the Foundation of Manifest Destiny are still alive and well in u.s. outlook and practice. Let's face it - being "brown" and (seemingly) "non-Christian" does not help our cause. (Anyone who feels that america and the akaka bill has nothing to do with race is a blooming idiot.) When Lili'u was on the throne, they said that "Hawai'i was ripe for the 'taking.'" So - they took in brazen defiance to all the rules of "civilized" relations between nations/states. Now the traitors among us are poised to complete the job - making it able for the u.s. to seamlessly finish what it set out to do - "relating everything back" as if the Monarchy (and its subjects) voluntarily transitioned to "the Hawaiian governing entity" (that is nowhere a "government" that will be part of a "government to government relationship" that OHA and others want everyone to think that the outcome will be) - with all historical, legal, etc., glitches [like the "annexation" that didn't happen and theft ("ceded") of our lands] being hit by the "delete" button. The actual transaction will be factually a lot more inferior than the Indians' selling Manhattan for a handful of beads. Is there anything like a "voluntary" theft? --- Where the victim helps the thief rob himself? On the other hand, after all - isn't this what wardship is all about? We aren't "big enough boys and girls" to take care of ourselves and all our resources - and "patrimonious" u.s. is here to take care of us - and rape us and ours (and our resources) any which way it can. (This is NOT a laughing matter.)

Posted by: Ku Ching at August 22, 2005 02:04 PM (6mUkl)

10 Ku Ching, don't clutter up my comments section by posting articles. It's rude and it's not appreciated. The management.

Posted by: Kathy at August 22, 2005 02:17 PM (QKvIa)

11 kathy, i realize it might not be clear, but except for the first paragraph quoting an email from me, the rest of the post is original words from Ku. Might have composed it in response to my message on an email list and then cross-posted it here, but it is still an original comment and not an "article" fyi.

Posted by: scott crawford at August 22, 2005 11:56 PM (yNvjo)

12 Scott, I do realize that. Ku posted a thousand word + article in the comments right below his earlier post. I deleted it. I just wanted to let them know where it had gone and why.

Posted by: Kathy at August 23, 2005 12:12 AM (QKvIa)

13 oh, okay, sorry about that. i'll mind my own business

Posted by: scott crawford at August 25, 2005 02:58 PM (yNvjo)

14 "Ku Ching, don't clutter up my comments section by posting articles. It's rude and it's not appreciated. The management. Posted by: Kathy at August 22, 2005 02:17 PM" Those were my comments!!! Was it an article? Might be debateable. However, my comments are as viable and appropriate as anyone elses - especially if its the "truth" from the "other" side. ku

Posted by: Ku Ching at September 21, 2005 03:54 PM (6mUkl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

So, the husband and I are walking through downtown Cake Eater Land this evening, enjoying the weather, hoping that the powerball ticket we just bought is THE ONE while simultaneously knowing that we have a better chance of being hit in the middle of the night, in our bed, on the second floor of our house, by a rogue NASCAR driver. We're cool with it. But to what should our wondering eyes appear at the main intersection?

Protesters. About thirty or forty of them. Standing in front of a pricey jewelry store of which they'd undoubtedly start winging rocks through the windows if they learned they were selling conflict diamonds.

Anyway. One of them had a sign that read: "George W. Bush: Talk To Cindy Sheehan!"

For fuck's sake. It was bad enough before the election. If you weren't dodging stupid little MoveOn.Org employees, registering voters, who never remembered that THEY'D ALREADY ASKED YOU TWICE BEFORE if "you would like to help remove George W. Bush from The White House?", you were dodging the stupid peace protestors who hogged the corners. Then you'd have to wear earplugs to avoid all the stupid idiots who were honking either in support or derision---you rarely knew which.

But then Kerry didn't pull through and all the little nutjobs went away. No more MoveOn twerps. No more Mother Earth hippie types flashing you the peace sign. No more honking. George W. Bush's win last November really and truly was a win for peace---because all the stupid noisy types left the neighborhood and all was well in the fair fiefdom of Cake Eater Land.

So, the last thing I expected to see tonight was these doltish protesters out there again, hogging the corners, blocking the way of pedestrians. I truly thought we were done with this crap. It's just so boring. So yawn-inducing. Geez. If I'm tired of it, you'd think they'd be tired of it as well. But apparently not.

I'm wondering if this was an organized move by MoveOn and their ilk. I'm assuming it was. It's not like you had a Moonbeam there, who whipped out her own protest sign and wielded a magic marker like a light saber. Everyone looked well prepared with homemade signs or those stupid "Support The Troops, Bring Them Home" signs that they'd ripped out of their front yards (where they've been since March, 2003) and were waving them with glee. The problem is I know I'll feel dirty if I click over to their site to fing out.

Anybody want to do it for me?

UPDATE: the full story is here and here

Posted by: Kathy at 10:38 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.

This is disturbing.

The Senate is poised to sanction the creation of a racially exclusive government by and for Native Hawaiians who satisfy a blood test. The new race-based sovereign that would be summoned into being by the so-called Akaka Bill would operate outside the U.S. Constitution and the nation's most cherished civil rights statutes. Indeed, the champions of the proposed legislation boast that the new Native Hawaiian entity could secede from the Union like the Confederacy, but without the necessity of shelling Fort Sumter.

The Akaka Bill classifies citizens by race, defying the express provisions of the 14th Amendment. It also rests on a betrayal of express commitments made by its sponsors a decade ago, and asserts as true many false statements about the history of Hawaii. It should be defeated.

The Akaka Bill's justification rests substantially on a 1993 Apology Resolution passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton when we were members of the Senate representing the states of Washington and Colorado. (We voted against it.) The resolution is cited by the Akaka Bill in three places to establish the proposition that the U.S. perpetrated legal or moral wrongs against Native Hawaiians that justify the race-based government the legislation would erect. These citations are a betrayal of the word given to us--and to the Senate--in the debate over the Apology Resolution.

We specifically inquired of its proponents whether the apology would be employed to seek "special status under which persons of Native Hawaiian descent will be given rights or privileges or reparations or land or money communally that are unavailable to other citizens of Hawaii." We were promised on the floor of the Senate by Daniel Inouye, the senior senator from Hawaii and a personage of impeccable integrity, that "as to the matter of the status of Native Hawaiians . . . this resolution has nothing to do with that. . . . I can assure my colleague of that." The Akaka Bill repudiates that promise of Sen. Inouye. It invokes the Apology Resolution to justify granting persons of Native Hawaiian descent--even in minuscule proportion--political and economic rights and land denied to other citizens of Hawaii. We were unambiguously told that would not be done.{...}

Now, while I would like to pass each of the the fomer senators who authored the piece a brown paper sack to help with their hyperventilating, I don't think they're completely off the mark here. If this bill is passed, not only would racial preferences be put into law, but Hawaii could, conceivably, give secession from the Union a good hard whack. This would be precedent setting for all those other groups of people---African Americans, Native Indians, etc.---who would like special racial recognition and the accompanying reparations, land, etc. from the federal government to "right" past wrongs.

I have to admit, however, that it's ironic it should be the Hawaiians who are on the brink of succeeding with this sort of legislation where so many others have failed. Hawaiians have benefitted quite handsomely from being incorporated into the United States and its citenzery. Other groups have not. That's curious. What, precisely, is their beef? That there's too much tourism?

Posted by: Kathy at 11:44 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 529 words, total size 3 kb.

So, it might just be me, but it would seem somewhat iffy to listen to Tom De Lay about "judicial activists" when he associates with some very wacky people. One of those wacky people seems to think quoting Stalin in reference to a sitting Supreme Court Justice is an appropriate thing to do. Even though that particular quote could be construed by some, particularly when taken in context with Stalin's actions, as a death threat.

I'm not trying to tell the Evangelicals how to run their churches, but it would appear that hosting these sorts of "events" and, moreover, being politically active is a great way to lose your tax-exempt status with the government.

But God only knows, if that happened, they'd blame the loss of that rarefied status on "Secularists bent on destroying Christianity and the good folks who follow it." Then they'd probably burn the state tax commissioner in effigy. They might wave a few pitchforks around for good measure.

It gets so tiresome after a while. You almost wish they'd switch it up a wee bit, just for variety.

{Hat Tip: Andy}

Posted by: Kathy at 03:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 1 kb.

Sadie has a question for you:

Pop quiz time - who wrote the following inarticulate statement?

I donÂ’t think women generally have the sensibilities to run the country. Before you jump all over me, itÂ’s important that you know I donÂ’t care what you think. YouÂ’re reading this blog, so you obviously care what I think, so there it is.

Well, folks, in case you were wondering, it's that cutting-edge, I'm-a-big-shot-and-you're-not "Conservative" Blogger, La Shawn Barber.

To be fair (more fair than she is apparently) this is what she wrote in its entirety:

Rice for President: One of my advertisers is a group called Americans For Rice, and IÂ’ve been asked by several people where I stand on the Condi-for-president meme. I wouldnÂ’t vote for Condoleezza Rice for president of the United States. First, I donÂ’t think women generally have the sensibilities to run the country. Before you jump all over me, itÂ’s important that you know I donÂ’t care what you think. YouÂ’re reading this blog, so you obviously care what I think, so there it is.

Second, Rice is pro-choice and might be pro-race preferences. No moderate Republican who I know is a moderate will ever get my vote.

So, what we have here is a statement against Condoleeza Rice for President. La Shawn has her reasons for not potentially voting for her. That's all well and good, but to say that "I donÂ’t think women generally have the sensibilities to run the country" is beyond the freakin' pale. Note how she uses the qualifier "generally," as if that's going to keep her from getting into trouble. Then she acknowledges that people might be a wee bit upset about her sexist remarks and makes the most unbelievably arrogant statement I've seen yet: "Before you jump all over me, itÂ’s important that you know I donÂ’t care what you think. YouÂ’re reading this blog, so you obviously care what I think, so there it is." (My emphasis.)

You know what, LaShawn, I don't read your blog unless someone points out something inane and stupid that you've written. What can I say? I revel in it when someone who has such a puffed-up sense of self-importance gets slammed. I'm mean that way. Sue me.

I could say an awful lot about LaShawn's blatantly sexist attitude, but Jody does it better. But it doesn't end there. Oh, no. {Insert best Ron Popeil voice here} But wait....there's more! When LaShawn, in a fit of magnamity, deleted Jody's trackback, Beth had a few choice words to say about La Shawn's apparent inability to have people disagree with her.

Apparently, according to a comment La Shawn left at Jody's place and an update to the post linked above, the easiest way to discount someone who disagrees with you is to chalk it all up to jealousy over traffic and Ecosystem rankings.

First, the comment:

Way harsh and uncalled for. What did I ever do to you? Don't envy my ranking. I've worked hard for it. If you apply yourself, you can do it, too. By the way, save yourself the aggravation and don't wander over to my blog anymore. It's only going to get worse, I promise you. I'm starting to care less and less what people of any political stripe think of me, male or female.

Notice how she doesn't bother refuting the merits of Jody's argument. It's all about Ecosystem rankings and how hard she's worked to get where she is. I particularly adore the patronizing tone of the "If you apply yourself, you can do it, too" statement. I'd like to thank all of the little people...

Second, the update:

New/smaller bloggers, IÂ’ve got something to say to you. One day a few of you may become huge. Your traffic and Ecosystem ranking will rise, and your reputation in the blogosphere will grow. Or not. But whatever happens, do me a favor? DonÂ’t forget about or bad-mouth the bigger bloggers who linked to your posts and helped you back when you were smaller or first starting out, OK? ItÂ’s bad form. Especially if you asked them to link to your posts.

Sadly, itÂ’s happened to me, and itÂ’sÂ…sad. The bitterness dripping from one such post wasÂ…bitter, and I donÂ’t know why itÂ’s there. IÂ’m not a flame warrior, so I wonÂ’t link. It really doesnÂ’t matter who it is. Just remember old LBÂ’s advice.

To quote Kevin Spacey's character, Lloyd, from The Ref:

"You know what I'm going to get you for Christmas next year? A big wooden cross. So the next time you feel unappreciated for all the sacrifices you've made, you can climb on up and nail yourself to it."

See, since Jody asked the simple question: "Please someone tell me why she is so high in the ecosystem?" LaShawn could easily chalk Jody's criticism up to jealousy. I'm sure she'll do the same thing to me if she bothers reading this post, even though I don't give a rat's flaming behind about Ecosystem rankings. It's that simple for LaShawn: you don't like what I have to say? Well, since my blog is bigger and better than yours is, I must be bigger and better than you are. Hence your criticism is invalid and I will go along my merry way, spreading my inane ideas across the blogosphere to wide acclaim because no one will know if anyone disagrees with me because I will---ahem---delete their trackbacks and ban them from my blog.

I ask you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, is that an attitude that represents the best of the blogosphere? Is this an attitude that represents the most intellectually honest position one could take?

I don't think so. Furthermore, I just flat-out love how LaShawn is all about helping the little bloggers. Her post has many little bits flavored with all sorts of advice for bloggers, yet she makes one of the most egregious errors of etiquette you can make in the blogosphere: she deletes the trackback of someone who disagrees with her. The only time it's appropriate to delete a trackback is when it's spam---of either the blogger-generated or pr0n operator variety. That's it. The rest of us humble bloggers see this format as a means of having a conversation. It's a sort of cocktail party, wherein you can chat with many people, gain many different ideas, and, most importantly, make up your own damn mind about whether or not those ideas have merit. LaShawn is anything but humble. She, apparently, is the cocktail party guest who says "SHUT THE HELL UP AND LISTEN TO WHAT I HAVE TO SAY BECAUSE I'M THE MOST IMPORTANT PERSON IN THE ROOM AND THE REST OF YOU ARE PEONS!" Then, if someone has the temerity to speak up, she puts her hands over her ears, in a most childlike fashion and screams, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Most bloggers are interested in debate. LaShawn, from what I can gather, is only interested in herself.

I have some questions for all you bloggers/blog readers who read LaShawn's blog: does LaShawn Barber's Corner really represent the best and the brightest of the blogosphere? Does she embody all the promise blogs and the blogosphere present? What, precisely, do you get out of reading her blog? I'm completely serious when I ask these questions. If you think the Ecosystem has any merit to it, you should know that LaShawn is ranked #20 within it. Is her blog better or worse for her ranking? Or am I out of line when I criticize her inability to take criticism simply because I'm ranked #913 (as of today)? Would you judge my criticisms of her "work" as valid---no matter what my ranking---or should I just kow tow to a "big dog" because that's the way LaShawn would have the blogoshpere work?

I'm interested to hear what you all have to say about this one because it really does get down to the heart of what a good deal of us think the blogosphere is about: the spread of ideas. How those ideas are spread is, apparently, an issue of debate itself. Would you rather read a blog that cares about debate? Or are you only interested in blogs that are echo chambers of approval for their authors? The blogosphere, I believe, is all about saying what's on your mind and then listening to what people have to say about it. It's about furthering the discussion.

Is it really interesting to you to read a blog written by someone who only has a mouth, but no ears?

UPDATE: Yeah, LaShawn, we're all really jealous of your ranking!

{...} have reason to believe these people are either envious of my ranking (who cares?) and donÂ’t want me to be there, or canÂ’t figure out why IÂ’m there in the first place. HereÂ’s the irony: because of their boredom/pettiness and links, IÂ’ll rise even higher over the next few days. The ranking is based on links.

Thanks, kids, but IÂ’m not worth your precious time. Contribute something to the blogosphere that doesnÂ’t revolve around what another blogger is doing or writing. ItÂ’s boring.

Christ. Could LaShawn's head get any bigger without exploding and splattering stuff all over the place?

The only reason I ask is because I don't want to get any on me.

UPDATE DEUX: Oddybobo has a few choice words for LaShawn and Andy believes LaShawn's second post was actually directed at him for something Intelligent Design related in that massive linkdump---which, quite frankly, could be the case: she's just nutty enough to piss off that many people. Go and read both posts.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:21 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 1622 words, total size 10 kb.

1 Great post, indeed, Goddess of Snark! I thought you might be able to answer that pop quiz with flying colours. A+

Posted by: Sadie at August 04, 2005 02:54 PM (7SNDe)

2 Bravo, Kathy, Bravo! Well said (written) Isn't it ironic, regarding the UPDATE entry, regarding what other bloggers are doing or writing? Hmmmmm. A. Isn't that half of what the 'spere is about? and B. wasn't that part of what LSB was doing in the post that Jody linked to?

Posted by: William Teach at August 04, 2005 03:00 PM (cuTsc)

3 I don't read her. It's not that I have any great beef with her, but she's just not my cup of tea. The one time I linked to her was to comment on a disagreement she had with INDC Bill (I sided with Bill). A number of people took either side in the dispute, but at the time she said http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/06/03/if-2/ "Update IV (6/6): I canÂ’t believe people find this post so interesting. Was it something I said? Whatever. I hope youÂ’re putting as much energy into condemning thug terrorists who want to destroy the U.S. as you are commenting on this post. Say what you will about me, as long as you link to the blog and spell my name correctly." Apparently he editorial standard has changed to "link to the blog, spell my name correctly, and agree with me."

Posted by: The Colossus at August 04, 2005 03:45 PM (BHNam)

4 To be honest I rarely read LaShawn. But the one time I did link to her disagreeing with her over-the-top hostility toward anyone condemning Tom "Bomb Mecca" Tancredo, she deleted my trackback too. Writing, "I don't care what anyone else says about me," while simultaneously trying to expunge all dissent from her trackbacks & comments is NOT the behavior of someone who truly doesn't care what others say about her. If others want to read her and link to her, so be it. I personally don't see the appeal. But I can't figure out why Atrios is popular on the left either.

Posted by: Doug at August 04, 2005 03:56 PM (7P5xE)

5 Would you judge my criticisms of her "work" as valid---no matter what my ranking---or should I just kow tow to a "big dog" I don't see what anyone's ranking has to do with whether or not you're allowed have an opinion. I base my opinion on who makes the most sense to me on any given issue. A lot of my favourite bloggers are ones I don't always agree with -- present company included -- and I like it that way. Less boring. (And BTW, I think ranking should be by blog age) (then I'd be a "big dog" and get all that kow towing)

Posted by: Ith at August 04, 2005 04:10 PM (P595i)

6 I gave up on the ecosystem, It ranks links higher than daily traffic. It's not too hard to get links everywhere. It's much tougher to get people to check your blog everyday. I also think LaShawn is a moron for not trusting women. That's just the kind of PR Republicans don't need.

Posted by: Tracy at August 04, 2005 04:44 PM (q0Pd2)

7 I confess I have been a reader of LaShawn's, if for nothing more than seeing some different perspectives. But long ago I began having serious reservations about her and her ideas. As she proclaims her faith, it seems, in practice, much has been left out in practice. Humility being one of them. As much as Christ stood firm on the truth, he was meek -- expressing his power as much through his silence as through his strong stances. Her self-given title of a Voice in the Wilderness leaves little more than a bad taste in my mouth anymore. And this 'little incident' has been the last straw for me. Sad.

Posted by: jae at August 04, 2005 04:48 PM (ijOac)

8 In the past, I rarely read La Shawn's page mostly because one only has so much time in the day to goof off reading blogs, right? Then I had the same exact experience as Doug from Bogus Gold. I disagreed with LSB over the Tancredo affair and her reaction and promptly got my trackback deleted. In the few times I've visited her site since then, I've noticed a disturbing tendency on her part to talk a lot about herself, her popularity and her influence in the blogosphere. My take? She's too thin-skinned to be a blogger and unless she backs off the 'I'm a big influential blogger and you're not' schtick, she's going to find herself extremely unpopular not for her ideas, but for her online persona.

Posted by: Slublog at August 04, 2005 05:06 PM (WGC+b)

9 This whole deleting of trackbacks thing is so immature. God - I have no words!! You've said it all, Kathy. Disagreement just cannot exist for some people. They experience it as an attack. They must belittle you for disagreeing. It's so stupid. But ... the deleting trackback thing is so transparent. Yuk. I like MY way of blogging much much better.

Posted by: red at August 04, 2005 05:08 PM (ht6hc)

10 Red, I do believe everyone loves your way of blogging There's always something good going on at your blog.

Posted by: Kathy at August 04, 2005 05:19 PM (QKvIa)

11 Oh Kathy that was great. I will disagree with her here: I have complete faith in the sensibilities of women to do the job of president. In fact, I think the position would be better served by a woman. I know I could do the job. I guess that LaShawn knows that she can't.

Posted by: Oddybobo at August 04, 2005 05:22 PM (6Gm0j)

12 Arrogance is arrogance...and it's unbecoming whether it's being spewed by the top dog in the blogsphere, or an insignificant microbe like me. I'm all for differing opinions but the "I'm-so-great" attitude behind this blog is tacky. Then again, I'm just one of the little people. What do I know?

Posted by: Barbara at August 04, 2005 07:10 PM (k6r/W)

13 Oh...and just in case I wasn't clear...I didn't mean THIS lovely blog. lol

Posted by: Barbara at August 04, 2005 07:12 PM (k6r/W)

14 I have heard of Barber, but not read her blog before now. Sounds like maybe her traffic had gone down and she posted something deliberately provocative. She doth protest too much, and that ALWAYS makes me suspicious.

Posted by: Ruth at August 04, 2005 08:15 PM (K36aS)

15 Be fair, LaShawn feels that womnn are not generally fit to be president, Then neither are men generally I have more faith in male canidates, because there are vastly more men running for president. A certain percentage of men start running for president about the time they start to shave. With women, tney more apt to start running after they send their youngest off to college. Most men and most women do not want to be presidnet, but more men do. So the talent pool is larger. Maggie Thatcher was a great PM but she is rare bird. Right now that about the only women I can see as presidential timber is Condi Rice. As women tend to enter politics later, they don't have the time to develope as canidate.

Posted by: David L at August 04, 2005 08:43 PM (enA7B)

16 Be fair, LaShawn feels that womnn are not generally fit to be president, Then neither are men generally Curiously enough, David, she didn't state that. She said: First, I donÂ’t think women generally have the sensibilities to run the country. Before you jump all over me, itÂ’s important that you know I donÂ’t care what you think. YouÂ’re reading this blog, so you obviously care what I think, so there it is. I fail to see why anyone should bother arguing about the merits of her argument when she has yet to present one.

Posted by: Kathy at August 04, 2005 08:54 PM (QKvIa)

17 Exactly, Kath. She just makes statements without backing them up...not very persuasive as a form of writing or blogging, is it? Another bit of irony is that she thinks bloggers who blog about other bloggers is too 'boring.' Isn't that the post that started it all anyway...she did a massive link dump with the Condi paragraph right in the middle. Whatever. She's a damn token and nothing more. If I were her, I'd probably go into denial over that painful little detail as well.

Posted by: sadie at August 04, 2005 09:21 PM (7SNDe)

18 Wow. Lately I've thought she went downhill by sounding like someone who would support Nehemiah Scudder for President, but I still read her. I don't even necessarily think it's wrong to opine that women aren't cut out to be President. I disagree, but it's not an unreasonable thing to believe or to say. Of course, I have been on the Condi for President bandwagon since before I started blogging, so I disagree about her in particular. The interesting thing is that she's one of those already-a-writer or already-MSM-associated bloggers who was never truly little or unknown, and she didn't have a long wait or big struggle rising in the rankings with which she seems to retain newbie levels of obsession. In her post about this and similar posts on other blogs, she went over the top, and that bothers me far more than anything she said in the original post. I actually held off linking her when she hit the scene for that reason; a distaste for the instant stardom effect. But she could write and was cool, so I got over it. Now? I dunno. Perhaps in a few days it'll pass.

Posted by: Jay at August 04, 2005 10:44 PM (l4+Wd)

19 I've considered her a good writer and someone who reports well, usually. She should come clean on the ego things, though, the sooner the better. Flame wars never accomplish much, and that is pretty much what this seems to turn into. It is its own form of entertainment, but I get the feeling that most aren't enjoying it all that well. But what do I know? I'm on the outskirts of the blogoshere, for the most part.

Posted by: ilona at August 05, 2005 12:36 AM (GFY6C)

20 I'm wary of anyone who behaves as if they are "holier than thou." Whatever their opinions. I used to read LaShawn -- but frankly, she's too conservative for me. I like a little liberalism sprinkled in with my conservative crunchies in the morning and well, frankly, it's people like her who made me quit visiting church on a regular basis. Too much clucking and tch tch'ing going on. And yet -- they're the first ones to have the "I'm not perfect but I'm SAVED!" bumper stickers. Mmmhmmm. Sorry, my bias is showing.

Posted by: Margi at August 05, 2005 02:51 AM (nwEQH)

21 LaShawn Who? Never visited, don't care to. All of those so-called top bloggers, in fact, leave me a little nauseous. The fact of the matter is, they are a bit too refined - I don't find them in the least compelling, original, or even GASP! interesting. I prefer to eat cake at the chronicle, enjoy a bit of feisty repartee, or even a few fistfuls of fortnights. I don't see what the big deal is - she sounds like an irresponsible and arrogant individual. I can't even imagine coming to the conclusion that "I'm somebody because the Nobodies care what I say." Sounds like Dan Rather, to be honest. As to the question of whether a woman "generally" has the "sensibilities" to be President...I've always felt that sweeping generalities are dangerous. Isn't it past the time when we should all be judged on our merits and not on our sexual organs? Seriously! This is too stupid for words.

Posted by: Phoenix at August 05, 2005 09:49 AM (4N2f4)

22 Hi, I'm Chris. We're the folks at Americans For Dr. Rice who advertised on her blog. Now we're not pissed off or anything like that. It's her blog, she can say what she wants. She could probably stand to do a little more research into where Condi stands on abortion or race preferences than she obviously has. But the fact that she's making a blanket statement that women can't be President because they're not wired to do the damn job is simply dumb. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir led their nations in two wars. LaShawn strikes me as a "more catholic than the Pope" conservative, who would hold out for a Human Life Amendment instead of trying to reach some sort of national consensus on the abortion issue as Dr. Rice would advocate.

Posted by: Section9 at August 05, 2005 11:22 AM (CkV9t)

23 Thanks for chiming in, Chris. It's good to know where you stand. I was just wondering, though, are you going to keep advertising on her blog? It's apparent that she's more than willing to take your money, but doesn't really care all that much about your cause...would that affect where you choose to spend your advertising dollars? Or is it simply a traffic thing for you? Do you even have any control over it? Don't feel you have to answer and divulge everything if you don't want to. It's simple curiosity on my part. Thanks for stopping by.

Posted by: Kathy at August 05, 2005 11:30 AM (QKvIa)

24 Up until now only thing that attracted me to Ms. Barber's blog were her frequant take-downs of people who advocate "minorities are victims" and "quotas are required to equalize the outcome". Her intolerance of commenters who disagree with her, though, has caused me to reduce my visits lately. That she cares not what they think makes me wonder why she even has a Comments section. Her idea that women "generally" are unfit for national leadership will probably increase my visits, though. I am incurable curious about commentors with views so ridiculous. Finally, yes, you could have done without the bit about the size of her readership. It does taste just a bit like jealousy. Otherwise, your Fisking of her is spot-on.

Posted by: Doug Purdie at August 05, 2005 11:46 AM (00DOn)

25 Doug - LaShawn is the one who starts the "readership" argument, not any of us. First she says "who cares?" about her ranking and then goes on to tell the little people how to get better rankings. This is cognitive dissonance at it's finest, opposing thoughts rattling around LaShawn's empty skull like some kind of cranial maracas. Also, it's being overly generous to call LaShawn's comments box a "comments box." I believe the correct wording is "echo chamber" (because maracas sound even cooler with echo effects!). I'll agree with others who have suggested elsewhere that LaShawn's popularity with the MSM is because she's such a caricature of the right. She makes right-wingers look like crazed, religious idiots. All of that said, it's still fun to poke her with a sharp stick.

Posted by: andy at August 05, 2005 12:06 PM (vX6Is)

26 Just for the record, since I am guest blogging over at Steal the Bandwagon, I am enjoying the flame war immensely.

Posted by: William Teach at August 05, 2005 12:23 PM (Pzlrt)

27 LaShawn LOVE the ranking. Work HARD for it. Remember her roots, she does. Try like heck to help the little people. Little people ungrateful bunch of sots!

Posted by: Greg at August 05, 2005 03:36 PM (d8pUH)

28 Geez, Kathy, I wish you'd warned me about this stomping before I read the comments. I could have changed into a pair of coveralls to avoid getting any blood on my good work clothes. "Take down to the Cake-eater. Two points."

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at August 05, 2005 06:15 PM (6krEN)

29 I left the following comment on La Shawn's blog, which she deleted. " '...itÂ’s important that you know I donÂ’t care what you think. YouÂ’re reading this blog, so you obviously care what I think...' "I'm not reading it anymore. You really need to check the ego, La Shawn." I'm also getting an access denied message. Did she ban me, or is there a technical problem?

Posted by: Matt at August 07, 2005 01:01 PM (FR7lz)

30 I'm also getting an access denied message. Did she ban me, or is there a technical problem? Matt, this may answer your question. LaShawn bans anyone who has ever disagreed with her, even if they do so on another blog.

Posted by: Slublog at August 15, 2005 10:03 AM (V7NgR)

31 Oops, I should use this type of redirect link instead. Sorry about that.

Posted by: Slublog at August 15, 2005 10:17 AM (V7NgR)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

In the immortal words of Jeff Goldstein: "{This}, my friends, is called throwing down the gauntlet, hard..."

Muslims who resent the British way of life should leave the UK, regardless of whether they are citizens or not, a senior Conservative said last night in comments that have heightened already tense community relations.

Gerald Howarth, the shadow defence minister, last night told The Scotsman that extremist Muslims who see the Iraq war as a conflict against Islam should be considered as treacherous as Soviet sympathisers during the Cold War. His remarkable claim shatters the tri-party consensus which Michael Howard, the Tory leader, sought to make with Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, and the Liberal Democrats.

Mr Howarth said yesterday that he is incensed by suggestions from Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, that Britain is "part of the problem" in Iraq - and said that the problem in the UK lies in fanatical Muslims living within our shores.

He is the first mainstream UK politician to suggest that extremist British Muslims should leave for Islamic societies. The government is looking at deporting foreign-born nationals and imprisoning British Muslims who incite or glorify terrorism.

"If they don't like our way of life, there is a simple remedy: go to another country, get out," Mr Howarth said. Asked what if these people were born in Britain, he replied: "Tough. If you don't give allegiance to this country, then leave."

He added: "There are plenty of other countries whose way of life would appear to be more conducive to what they aspire to. They would be happy and we would be happy." {...}

Gauntlet, indeed.

The fact that this is a war against those who would advocate civilization and those who wouldn't is coming home to roost, it seems.

It's too damn bad that it took two bombings---one which, of course, failed---to get that message across.

Related: Gorgeous George Galloway also has been at it again.

Someone needs to slap a burqua on gool ol' George and then we'll see how much he enjoys Muslim "civilization."

Posted by: Kathy at 05:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 359 words, total size 2 kb.

Amnesty International has come out against the Iraqi "Insurgents."

LONDON - Armed groups in Iraq that oppose the U.S.-led coalition are committing war crimes by killing civilians, taking hostages and torturing and slaying defenseless prisoners, the human rights group Amnesty International said.

Ah, but don't get too excited.

The London-based organization also said it recognized that many Iraqis believe U.S.-led troops also have committed grave human rights violations. But it denounced the Iraqi insurgents for a "failure to abide by even the most basic standards of humanitarian law."

"There is no honor nor heroism in blowing up people going to pray or murdering a terrified hostage. Those carrying out such acts are criminals, nothing less, whose actions undermine any claim they may have to be pursuing a legitimate cause," Amnesty said.

Hey, try not to judge Amnesty too harshly. At least US Troops are now on equal footing with the "insurgents." There's something to be said for that.

Because all terrorists are created equal, no? Now there's a human rights campaign for ya!

Posted by: Kathy at 11:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

In case you might not have heard, King Fahd died.

This, I have to admit, is not interesting news in itself. He's been sick for quite some time and has played no active role in leading his country, having handed that task over to his half-brother, Abdullah, formerly the Crown Prince, now the king. Now, Abdullah himself is no spring chicken at 81. King Fahd was only three years older than him and his successor, another half-brother, named Sultan is 77. These are the sons of Abdul-Aziz bin Saud, who founded the Kingdom. And these are only three of his sons: he sired forty-two children that we know about. God only knows how many illegitimate children he fathered.

I think it's safe to say that nothing interesting is going to happen in The Kingdom until Abdullah and Sultan pass on, provided Sultan moves to the "younger" generation---Abdul-Aziz's grandsons---for his successor. If Crown Prince Sultan doesn't move to the younger generation for his successor, well, things could get interesting of their own accord. Saudi Arabia needs younger leadership: Fahd was great for stability, but Saudi infrastructure is stagnating and needs a boost. If Crown Price Sultan sticks with his own generation for his successor, that could create even more problems within an already disenfranchised population. This would give ground to Islamofascists and democracy activists alike: who both want the House of Saud to crash to the ground.

I'm no expert on The Kingdom, but politics are politics: whether it's in the Kingdom of Great Britain circa 1400 or The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia c. 2005. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the House of Saud holds great power, but that said hold is slipping. The only way to keep that power from slipping further is to find a balance between what's good for the House of Saud and what's good for the population of the country and is something they're willing to live with. There's quite a bit to be done within the Kindgom as it stands right now. Unemployment is sky high within the native population (there are plenty of guest workers, including westerners, but educated young men are increasingly frustrated at the lack of employment opportunity within the country); the economy, other than the oil industry, is stagnating; a great deal of the country's wealth is in the hands of a very small number of people, like this guy, (yeah, he's the guy whose money Rudy Giuliani refused for the 9/11 fund) who would prefer to bring in westerners to rebuild the infrastructure of the Kingdom rather than spending his tens of billions of dollars doing it himself. And this, of course, says nothing of that particularly frustrating brand of Islam called Wahhabism that the House of Saud promotes that causes its own bunch of problems.

Whomever gets the reins after Crown Prince Sultan is going to dictate the direction of Saudi Arabia. The country will either go up in revolutionary flames, or it will continue along the same path with what could be considered to be radical improvements. The ball is still rolling in the same direction it was under King Fahd. We're going to have to wait and see what happens to the ball when the younger generation takes power.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 554 words, total size 4 kb.