Slashdot Mirror

It's almost like free speech is more of a social justice value than a meathead one.

*snort*

http://thoughtcatalog.com/andr... :

God help us if we have to rely on conservatives to defend free speech.

A list of such censorship is basically endless, so I will have to suffice with a not-so-brief list of some of the more egregious examples:

• A student at Purdue was found guilty of "racial harassment" for reading a book called Notre Dame Vs the Klan. (The Klan is the bad guy in the book.)
• A candidate in the European elections was arrested in Britain for quoting a passage from Winston Churchill about Islam.
• Gert Wilders, a politician in the Netherlands, was tried on five counts including "criminally insulting Muslims because of their religion."
• Both Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant were dragged in front of the Canadian Human Rights Commission for being Islamophobic.
• Conservative radio host Michael Savage was banned in Britain.
• The group Women, Action and Media convinced Twitter to allow them help report and censor harassment and hate speech. Twitter subsequently suspended the accounts of the anti-feminist Youtubers Thunderfoot and Mykeru (they were later reinstated). Both of them are liberals, by the way.
• Adam Weinstein at Gawker wants to "Arrest Climate-Change Deniers."
• Brendan Eich was forced to resign as CEO of Mozilla for opposing gay marriage. Another guy was fired because someone eaves dropped on his joke about dongles.
• A group called Color of Change was able to get Patrick Buchanan fired from MSNBC for expressing his incorrect opinions (that have been pretty consistent for the last 50 years) in his book Suicide of a Superpower.
• Allegedly, a man was banned from an Oregon college campus for "resembling a rapist."
• The "Pickup Artist" Julien Blanc was barred from entering the UK for making sexist comments.
• The mayor of Massachusetts banned the word "illegal" when referring to, umm, immigrants who came into the United States without going through the proper, legal channels. The Associated Press did

Andrew Sullivan — a prominent Illiberal — has drawn some fire upon himself by claiming, "we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us."

While Andrew's employment remains secure, I take an exception with this statement. Though there surely were (and remain) anti-gay bullies, I can not find a single case of a CEO being fired (or forced to resign) simply for being either a homosexual himself, or for supporting a homosexual cause. The only thing, that comes close is the US military — but even they stopped doing it over 20 years ago, when "don't ask don't tell was implemented".

This makes today's Illiberals not "no better", but worse than the "bullies of the past". Much worse...

I find Andrew Sullivan's blog, http://dish.andrewsullivan.com..., to be a great aggregator. Low nag factor, low price.

Answer this... if we knew everything about Obamacare at the time of voting that we know now... would it have passed?

No.

Actually yes. Every poll done on the ACA has shown that people approve of all the individual components and are a lot more approving of the whole when it's explained to them.

Which is why they don't tell us anything. They don't respect your vote. You don't get to decide. Your opinion is worthless. They will do what they want to do. And if you want something else they will lie to your face.

So I assume you disapprove of the standoff by John Boehner and the congressional Republicans. Where a minority of congressmen (ie the majority of the majority) for a party who received less than 50% of the congressional vote used the threat of an economic collapse to try and overrule the President and the Senate.

Was the IRS attacking political opponents of the president on purpose? Of course not. Until it was proven that they were.

Until it was proven that they weren't and there was no political bias to the IRS audits

Change the culture so gun ownership is weird, so that when you tell someone you own a device designed to kill people they give you an odd look and get uncomfortable, once that happens you'll see a real drop in guns and violence.

That's already being done, but anyone who does so has the mental state of a child. A firearm is a tool, little different from a hammer. It is a mechanically complex hammer, but at the end of the day, it is a shaped hunk of steel and plastic (or wood). Yes, it is a tool designed to kill. That is why police carry them, right? To kill as many people in as short a time as possible, right? That is why peace-keeping NATO and UN forces have them, right? To massacre people in the nations they send aide too, right?

There are limited circumstances in which carrying a tool designed to kill is appropriate, military and law enforcement are two of them because they have legitimate circumstances in which they can use the threat of death.

The gun culture in the US does not result in CDC statistics. Gang Violence due to the black market created by federal bans on recreational drugs does.

The drug trade is a huge factor in gang violence, but if you took away all their guns and replaced them with knives I'd be shocked if the homicide rate didn't drop by at least half.

More than 50% of the "gun violence" in the US is suicide. Suicide rates are independent of method. It is not a 'gun problem'. It's a mental health problem.

No suicide rates are not independent of method, guns are far more reliable at killing you than other forms of suicide, and when you remove guns suicides drop. One thing we can be certain with gun control is it will prevent suicides. And frankly, considering the suicide statistics if you own a gun you're putting you and your family in additional danger.

Stop vilifying True Americans who value their freedom and protect yours.

Even if I was American the civilian gun owners wouldn't be protecting my freedom, they'd be taking it away. Seriously, if I was the president and I wanted to destroy your political movement or take away your freedom the first thing I would do is give you and every one of your buddies a gun. Then I'd send in an agent provocateur, get you or your buddies to start shooting, then I show the public how scary you are and they'd let me do whatever the hell I wanted. Why do you think Assad and the other Arab dictators were so brutal in reacting to the protests? They weren't trying to scare the people into submission, they were trying to rile them into violence, the only reason Assad is still around is all the Syrians not afraid of the resistance became terrified once the fighting started.

You have this macho fantasy that you're going to intimidate the government into submission, it's BS and people are dying because of it.

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about more than his own personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” John Stuart Mill

The fact that just wars exist doesn't mean you need to go out and invent one.

Change the culture so gun ownership is weird, so that when you tell someone you own a device designed to kill people they give you an odd look and get uncomfortable, once that happens you'll see a real drop in guns and violence.

That's already being done, but anyone who does so has the mental state of a child. A firearm is a tool, little different from a hammer. It is a mechanically complex hammer, but at the end of the day, it is a shaped hunk of steel and plastic (or wood). Yes, it is a tool designed to kill. That is why police carry them, right? To kill as many people in as short a time as possible, right? That is why peace-keeping NATO and UN forces have them, right? To massacre people in the nations they send aide too, right?

There are limited circumstances in which carrying a tool designed to kill is appropriate, military and law enforcement are two of them because they have legitimate circumstances in which they can use the threat of death.

The gun culture in the US does not result in CDC statistics. Gang Violence due to the black market created by federal bans on recreational drugs does.

The drug trade is a huge factor in gang violence, but if you took away all their guns and replaced them with knives I'd be shocked if the homicide rate didn't drop by at least half.

More than 50% of the "gun violence" in the US is suicide. Suicide rates are independent of method. It is not a 'gun problem'. It's a mental health problem.

No suicide rates are not independent of method, guns are far more reliable at killing you than other forms of suicide, and when you remove guns suicides drop. One thing we can be certain with gun control is it will prevent suicides. And frankly, considering the suicide statistics if you own a gun you're putting you and your family in additional danger.

Stop vilifying True Americans who value their freedom and protect yours.

Even if I was American the civilian gun owners wouldn't be protecting my freedom, they'd be taking it away. Seriously, if I was the president and I wanted to destroy your political movement or take away your freedom the first thing I would do is give you and every one of your buddies a gun. Then I'd send in an agent provocateur, get you or your buddies to start shooting, then I show the public how scary you are and they'd let me do whatever the hell I wanted. Why do you think Assad and the other Arab dictators were so brutal in reacting to the protests? They weren't trying to scare the people into submission, they were trying to rile them into violence, the only reason Assad is still around is all the Syrians not afraid of the resistance became terrified once the fighting started.

You have this macho fantasy that you're going to intimidate the government into submission, it's BS and people are dying because of it.

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about more than his own personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” John Stuart Mill

The fact that just wars exist doesn't mean you need to go out and invent one.

As I've once or twice mentioned here, I used to be a staffer in a Congressional office. About seven years ago, I made a concerted effort to get my Member to do a Slashdot interview. It didn't pan out, but I can assure you of two things: first, that yes it probably would have been written by a staffer. And two, that the Member in question would have read it, deeply annotated and editted it, and then sent it back to be written, re-written and written once more before sending it back. That's just how it works: they have to respond in writing to thousands of requests from constituents, the media, government agencies, etc. Not to mention their colleages.

So you get your staffers to write stuff, which you then revise and approve. How much oversight goes into one of these letters? Well, mine reviewed a few thousand documents every evening, then gave them back in the morning. Each was heavily marked up with his Red Pen of Death, so I'm pretty sure that he read them all. Others, I know, don't. Some look at only the "important" correspondence, or spot-check, or more heavily use form letters (though we used those too). Ultimately, even a great representative has thousands of letters to write every day. You have to be realistic about what they can do.

As for a blog, you have to be realistic about what makes a good blog. Lots of good links (which means copious web browsing), and lots of good new content. No politician has time to generate all that and still attend to their duties. So of course they'd kick it over to their press secretaries-- that's what they're for.

If you don't believe me, check out Andrew Sullivan or Roger L. Simon or Winds of Change or any of our friends on the Advisory Board over at Pajamas Media. Their blogs are (or are nearly) full time occupations. A politician isn't purely a media figure. In fact, many of the best are guys you haven't heard of. Expecting them to drop everything to become full time bloggers is unreasonable, but most have known the influence of the blogs for some time now.

since everyone bitches about how they have no content, let's see how many present their content, or rather: how many are black text on white background...

EVIL

* underlined+bold
* drop shadow
* cream background, not much of an improvement. some of the header text is glossy (shiney / embossed / see above one / other various "auto-artistic" trash ).
* the tiny images illustrating each entry, are dithered (i guess with a "web palette" [making it look even more horrible], which people stopped doing 5+ years ago) then jpg'd.
* cyan background (the name of 100% green + 100% blue)
* purple text, orange links. no, that's not better.
* yes i really want to be tortured with your family album pics
* half of the people leave directly (or die) with the header
* light yellow (piss-water yellow?) background.
* "I.Mter-
views" ?
i don't get it. dashes in headlines are satan.
* scary vector portrait
* horrible. evil. tasteless.
* scarier than the sixapart girl.
* yellow background.

GOOD

* pear/white background. title with first letter biggie, first line in different font from rest.
* greenish tasty tone over everything ...which i didn't follow. great. thanks. as for the equally bad link-colours being that horrible default-blue/purple, it was only around 10%. this was checking 70% of the a-list. methinks those popular people should hire someone to design their site

good design = pyros, don't remember any other. and yeah, it's not a blog.
says intersting things = ms g33k. who i'm not sure is a good thing to link, i won't link myself.

I'm not sure what the original citation is, but Andrew Sullivan claims over 30 prisoners died at the hands of American interrogators.

Except that the results of the election do not support that theory, with only a couple of exceptions Bush actually did worse in states with gay marriage initiatives on the ballot than in other states. What I mean is, his overall popular vote went up by 3.2%, but with the exception of UT and OK his percent of the vote went up less than average. In states with no gay marriage initiatives his support increased above average. See the tidbit on Andrew Sullivan's blog for details.

The problem with the cuts is that we simply can't afford them, especially not with Bush's increased spending.

That said, I find Bush to be incompetent, and find his extreme social conservatism frightening, especially considering the prospect of several Supreme Court justices retiring within the next four years.
I recommend reading conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan's endorsement of Kerry for an endorsement of Kerry coming from a viewpoint similar to yours (Sullivan regards Kerry as the lesser of two evils).

Bush scares me. He's not particularly competent, and is ill equipped for dealing with adversity. I don't necessarily agree or believe everything that Kerry says, but I believe that he is a far more intelligent and capable individual.

Idealogically, I feel that taxes are inevitable and needed. The government needs funding, whether it needs to pay for wars on foreign soil, nation building, or social programs. Neither candidate is likely to reverse the fiscal problems (record deficits) within four years, but Kerry seems much more likely to take the problem seriously. (Bush already has a track record of not taking it seriously, as evidenced by the record budget deficits, whereas Kerry's senatorial record indicates that he is much more of a budget hawk - he has a significantly better understanding of budgetary issues than Dubya)

Most people aren't entirely satisfied with either candidate. However, in the long run, Kerry will prove to be the better choice for the good of the country. At the very least, I feel he is willing to acknowledge mistakes and change course to correct them. This is something that the incumbent seems constitutionally unable to do.

Would you accept a Cheney bashing comment? How about Cheney bashing Cheney? I found the following on andrewsullivan.

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq... All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques. Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq." - vice president Dick Cheney, 1992

You can find the full context of the quote here and some newspaper spin here. Now personally, I don't have a problem with a person changing his mind. To me it's often a sign of common sense. But over in GOP-land it seems to be some kind of mortal sin! Or maybe only when a democrat does it...

Here's a sampling of the best I've found:

Vodkapundit. Stephen Green's blog. Probably the best match for my own political views. Hawkish libertarian and consumer of fine ethanol-based beverages.

Instapundit Glenn Reynold's blog. Another decent match for my own viewpoint. Glenn's more of a linker than a commentator, but he's one of the best about linking to all sides of the blogosphere. When he does extended bits (such as at his MSNBC site or his TCS columns), he's quite cogent. Has a lot of outside interests (electronic music, space policy, nano-tech, constitutional law) that dovetail into my own and make his site more interesting than the politics-only blogs. Frequently mentions Slashdot and links to relevant discussions.

Reason's Hit and Run Another libertarian blog, run by Reason magazine. Much more in tune to the Libertarian Party than the above.

Virginia Postrel YALB (Yet Another Libertarian Blog). Postrel is a former editor of Reason. More of a social commentator these days and has written some fascinating books recently. Seems to have become ever-so-slightly more hawkish since 9/11.

The Corner National Review's blog. Conservative and largely Catholic, it's best feature is Jonah Goldberg (the token non-Catholic), who has a pleasantly snarky, pop-cultural laden view of current events. Least pleasant on the blog in John Derbyshire, who is quite the math geek but is way out there on the borderline-racist right (quite pleasant in email, though).

Andrew Sullivan. Classical liberal, Oakeshott conservative. A very incisive and passionate writer, he has an infuriating habit of demonizing the opposition. Originally very pro-war (and spent much time fulminating against the "fifth columnist" element on the left), he's now got a new enemy (those opposed to gay marriage/gay rights), so all those who were the enemy last year (the Democrats/John Kerry) are friends, and all those who were friends last year (the Republicans/George Bush) are enemies who can now do no right. When his emotions are not ruling his thinking, though, he's very, very good.

Mickey Kaus Slate's resident blogger, Mickey is a DLC "New" Democrat. He's one of the more honest of the bloggers (zings his own side often, recognizes good arguments on the other side) and a good source of insider media stuff.

Josh Marshall Establishment Democrat. I found his stuff to be really good a few years back, but recently he's spending more time rooting for the team (DNC/Kerry) than being objective. Also, darkly hints at constant "breaking soon" scoops that either never appear or completely underwhelm. Very bright guy, though, and insightful when not attempting to spin too obviously.

Kevin Drum Another Establishment Democrat. Kevin tends to be more self-reflective than Josh, which stands him in good stead. Great place to capture the mood of the DNC political types.

New Republic They have a couple of blogs (&c. and Campaign Journal). &c. is by far the better of the two. Skews left, but a sort of rationalist left (understands that while America may suck at times, other places suck more).

Tapped This used to be a great blog back in the

One other page to check out is campaigndesk. . It isn't exactly a blog, but it's got excellent media criticism (and even occasional praise). It's put out by the Columbia School of Journalism.

Finally, and this one's in no way a blog, ABC News' TheNote summarizes and links a lot of political reporting every day. TheNote has much more praise than criticism, but during the political season it's part of my essential daily reading.

1. Instapundit. Written by a Glenn Reynolds, a libertarian law professor at the University of Tennessee whose expertise is in second amendment issues, technology and communication. Perhaps the most influential and widely read blog.

2. The Corner. National Review's group weblog. Lots of contributors, who vary widely in tone (after you read it a while you come to recognize who the various authors are, and what points of view they hold). If you're not a conservative, you should check it out -- you won't agree with most of the stuff, but after a while you might learn that the folks on the "other side" aren't a bunch of moronic power-mad nazis: They actually have coherent reasons for believing what they believe, and can ably articulate those views. Understanding their arguments will help you sharpen your own.

3. The Volokh Conspiracy. A group weblog of libertarian and conservative law professors. The lead conspirator, Eugene Volokh, is a computer programmer-turned UCLA law professor; he is an expert in free speech issues, with some expertise in the second amendment as well. A lot of bloggers could learn from the civil tone of this blog -- i.e., no yelling, taunting or name-calling. Volokh believes writers should try to persuade others, not alienate them with overheated rhetoric.

Note that Volokh, like Reynolds, is a true libertarian: Conservatives are unlikely to agree with either of them on things like abortion and homosexuality.

4. Andrew Sullivan. An influential writer for Time, The New Republic and other print outlets. Perhaps the best-known openly gay conservative.

5. Kausfiles. A moderate-to-conservative Democrat, Mickey Kaus is utterly unsparing (and occasionally downright brutal) in his criticism of liberal excess, fellow democrats and the media. Doesn't write a lot, but is witty and sometimes offers extraordinary insights you won't get anywhere else.

6. Best of the Web. The Wall Street Journal's blog, written by James Taranto. A once-a-day read, it sums up a lot of current issues from a conservatives' point of view.

Yes, there are many many many many others. But if the conservative/libertarian blogosphere is like a tree, these are the trunk.

- Alaska Jack

http://www.instapundit.com/ - the king of all blogs
http://andrewsullivan.com/ - gone way down hill but still readable
http://www.allahpundit.com/- good mix of political fun
http://claytoncramer.com/weblog/blogger.html - guns and fun
http://www.powerlineblog.com/ - more right slant fun.

http://www.iraqthemodel.com/ - differnt view inside Iraq
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/ - more good insight in iraq
http://www.iraq-iraqis.blogspot.com/ - and again

http://cbftw.blogspot.com/ - used to be one of the best blogs in Iraq until the man cracked down on him. But MUST READ THE ARCHIVES!

To keep abreast of liberty, I read the following:

Mises Blog
Lew Rockwell's Blog

To find out what the enemies of liberty are up to, I also read:

Daily Kos
Atrios
InstaPundit
Andrew Sullivan

I believe the URL above should be: AndrewSullivan.com

Andrew Sullivan is a conservative journalist who often writes for TIME. His gay rights stance is also notable (he's a homosexual himself). Here is the correct link to his site.

The link to Andrew Sullivan's site isn't right. It should be www.andrewsullivan.com

Not to criticize js7a--he gave you fair warning--but his list leans to the left. I don't know if I have the definitive right-leaning counterexample, but here's a list of guys who are biased right but seem to be fair in their analysis...
mainstream media:
Best of the Web Today
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner
blogs:
Instapundit
oxblog
JustOneMinute
Daniel Drezner
Captains Quarters
cartoons:
Cox and Forkum
Day by Day

All are blogs and/or openly opinionated. They are generally right wing. This is in no way a complete list, and should not even be considered the "best of", since I haven't spent a lot of time exploring. YMMV.

I'd actually be interested in hearing from people who knew of right-leaning blogs not on this list that they recommended. I am not trying to start a flame war about who's better or why Instapundit/Daily Kos is a snooty liar.

Good luck finding an intelligent news source that currently supports Bush's domestic policies. Conservative (not to be confused with Republican) commentators like Andrew Sullivan now reluctantly support Kerry. Zell Miller's bizarre keynote address at the Republican convention certainly didn't help matters.

Good luck finding an intelligent news source that currently supports Bush's domestic policies. Conservative (not to be confused with Republican) commentators like Andrew Sullivan now reluctantly support Kerry. Zell Miller's bizarre keynote address at the Republican convention certainly didn't help matters.

Comparing the ratio of the size of the US economy to that of the sum of the sizes of the countries currently in the EU, you will see that this ratio was much greater than one (say, 1960) and is less than one now; the US relative advantage has disappeared.

I believe "cultural exports" includes movies (e.g. Disney) and music; I am not proud of a lot of our "cultural exports."

When I was in Pisa in June, 2002, a Euro was worth (about) US$0.86. In July, 2003 in Germany, a Euro was worth (about) US$1.14. Right now the Euro is even stronger (US$1.30 ??).

I did not notice any ill-will toward individual Americans.

As the "leader" of the world, the US has extra responsibilities.

• Anyone over 40 knows they can find this article at a library. (Having been a public & academic librarian, I'd like to think that those under 40 know this as well, but experience has taught that I can't take this for granted.)
• Substantially the same text is found in a book written by Bush 41 & Scowcroft (still in print), so these words aren't going to disappear from public discourse anytime soon.
• Substantially the same passage is quoted and implicitly critiqued by at least one articulate and widely-read defender of the invasion of Iraq, namely Christopher Hitchens, so its difficult for me to see how it can be considered fatally embarrassing to the current administration--if it were, Hitchens wouldn't even have brought it up.
• Other instances of "airbrushing":
  • AP
  • BBC
• It isn't in Bush 41's or Scowcroft's interest to see this article disappear: now that the utter brutality of the former Iraqi regime is more completely revealed, Bush 41 and Scowcroft more than ever need to justify their failure to topple Saddam in '91.

The explosion of weblogs and other peer-to-peer media mean that it is more difficult than ever before to create a "1984" society.

But to the main point: "the reviewer has greater incentive to give a good review". sure, but, whith an affiliate program, we're not dealing with professional reviewers....

If I (as an amateur) like a book, and give it a good review, and make a few cents from that, I don't see much harm.

All well and good so long as there was a pretty clear distinction between "amateur" and "professional".

A professional is someone who gets paid for his work, and an amateur is, literally, someone who does the work out of a love for it (Latin, amare, to love, being the root of "amateur"). Affiliate programs quite literally turn an amateur into a (low paid) professional; that's the point of these programs.

But this conversion to professional status doesn't come with the traditional professional "baggage": codes of conducts, oaths, test, certifications, guild membership, peer review. A lawyer's conflict of interest is (supposedly) checked by the Bar Association and by statute law; a journalist's by his editor and his profession's code of conduct and his peers' review.

No such check exists (or should, in any statute law sense!) for Joe Blogger or Jane Usenet Poster, or Jeff Amazon Reviewer.

You may accuse me of exploiting the etymology of the word "amateur" to create a problem that isn't real. But the problem is even deeper than that: the distinction betweem amateur and professional has begun to disappear.

In the "Blogosphere", it's not entirely clear who is an amateur and who's a professional. With MoveableType, anyone with the money to get a site hosted can put up a professional (that word again!) looking web site. Anyone can pontificate. And everyone has an opinion.

How can the causual reader tell who is knowledgable and honest, and who is looking to cash in on a favorable review? During the recent war in Iraq, I got much of my news of the war from www.theagonist.org, a blog with the most current breaking news -- aand the most current breaking unsubstantiated rumors. Is Andrew Sullivan a professional pundit, a professional journalist, or an amateur blogger? Can I trust Amazon.com user reviews? Can Snopes serve as a reference in a paper on Urban Legends?

What web site can I go to to tell me who is professional, who is amateur, who is honest, who is out to make a quick buck as an affiliate?

And can I trust the web site that purports to make those distictions?

So I fall back on the easy distinction: if you stand to make a buck as an affiliate, your review may be tainted -- whether you realize it or not -- by your self interest. You are perhaps no longer objective, as you're a (poorly compensated) contractor to the company you're affiliated with.

bolwing for columbine is chock full of errors, fabrications, and lies. moore is an absolute idiot. if you choose to agree with his political perspective, fine, he is certainly "entertaining". but as a source of information, he is not. for example, stupid white men is also full of more lies, etc.

The BBC recently has been little more than a mouthpiece for pro-Saddam Hussein propeganda. For more info, check out Andrew Sullivan.

http://www.warblogging.com/
Breaking news, analysis, also covers related events in the US. Cynical slant.

http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
An Iraqi blogger. Hoax? It's well done

>> Wherever you go you see closed shops and it is not just doors-locked
>> closed but sheet-metal-welded-on-the-front closed,
>> windows-removed-and-built-with-bricks closed, doors were being welded shut


http://volokh.blogspot.com/
Excellent analysis of causes and outcomes. Breaking news, too.

http://www.sgtstryker.com/
Military / conservative perspective on Iraq and the news. Liberal and conservative views in the discussions.

http://www.defensetech.org/
It's all about the gear. The Slashdot of war technology.

http://timblair.blogspot.com/
Conservative and irreverant news analysis

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/

http://uswarblog.tripod.com/warblog/

http://www.nowarblog.org/
"Stand Down: The Left-Right Blog opposing an invasion of iraq"

http://www.back-to-iraq.com/
Back to Iraq 2.0

http://www.warblogs.cc/

--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu

I used to run a frequently updated humor website, and most of my traffic were people I knew from the Badassmofo.com forums and people they knew (this was a few years back, before "blogs" as such). This whole deal is really a word-of-mouth phenomenon based on people who trust the opinion of friends, a popular website, etc.

Some interesting exerpts

The only problem with this scenario is that Michael Moore is a serial dissembler. His book, "Stupid White Men," was laced with inaccuracies and falsehoods. His movie is just as bad. It's worth looking at just a few of these falsehoods to see exactly what his agenda is.

Perhaps the most gripping scene in the movie is one where Moore simply turns up at a bank, North Country Bank & Trust in Traverse City, Michigan, opens a bank account and gets a gun for his trouble. As he walks away, Moore chortles to the camera: "Here's my first question: do you think it's a little dangerous handing out guns at a bank?" It would be if true. But in fact the bank in question only gives you a gun if you open long-term CDs, and then you have to go to a gun store to get the gun after a background check. The scene, according to Lyons, was staged.

[end exerpts]

-v

Provide examples of Chomsky or Moore being selective in their facts. By American standards I'm fairly far to the right of both of them (I'm pro-gun, for example) but my differences with them are in their interpretation of the facts. To their credit I've found both of them to be quite reliable and unselective when it comes to the actual reporting.

Provide something more than your say-so.

Here's Andrew Sullivan's quick article debunking Bowling For Columbine. Note that this is not even a complete list of the distortions in just that particular "documentary".

For more details, consider Fact Checking a Polemicist which reviews many of the factual lapses in the movie.

Andrew Sullivan's Book Club discussion of the book

Bjorn Lomborg's responses to critics

Third-party response to Scientific American's attack on the book

.ad afgjk uba dooba doo DRUDGE REPORT 2002
Support The DrudgeReport; Visit Our Advertisers

WASH POST: Bush Admin Split over Iraq...

IRAQ 'CLOSE TO NUCLEAR BOMB GOAL'

Passive smoking can kill your cat... TIMEWARNER to charge flood victims for cable boxes... Archerd: Democrats seeking Hollywood money... Republicans will tie ANWR to Iraq; Say threat in Baghdad necessitates oil drilling in Alaska... Ventura Goofs On God... AP WORLD
AP NATIONAL
AP WASHINGTON
AP BUSINESS
AP ENTERTAINMENT
AP ON THE HOUR
AP HEADLINES
AP BREAKING
SEARCH
Headline:
Date Range:
Within 14 Days Within 13 Days Within 12 Days Within 11 Days Within 10 Days Within 9 Days Within 8 Days Within 7 Days Within 6 Days Within 5 Days Within 4 Days Within 3 Days Within 2 Days Within 1 Day
Any word(s) in article:


ANANOVA
DOW JONES
BLOOMBERG
PAKISTAN WIRE
PAKISTAN BROADCASTING
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC WIRE
ITAR-TASS
KYODO WIRE
PR NEWSWIRE
[SHOWBIZ] PR WIRE
SCRIPPS HOWARD
US INFO WIRE
U.S. NEWSWIRE
WORLDWIRES
XINHUA ABC NEWS
AD AGE DEADLINE
BBC
BBC AUDIO
BILLBOARD
BOSTON GLOBE
BROADCASTING & CABLE
CBS NEWS
C-SPAN SCHEDULE
CHICAGO TRIB
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
CNN
CNN TRANSCRIPTS
DAILY VARIETY
D.C. DAYBOOK
E!
ELECTRONIC MEDIA
EMERGENCY NET
ENT WEEKLY
FINANCIAL TIMES
FORBES MAG
FOX NEWS
INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIB
HILL
H'WOOD REPORTER
HUMAN EVENTS
INSIGHT MAG
INVEST BUS DAILY
JERUSALEM POST
JEWISH WORLD REVIEW
LA DAILY NEWS
LA TIMES
LUCIANNE.COM
MEDIA CHECK
MEDIA LIFE
MSNBC
MUCHMUSIC
NATION
NATIONAL ENQUIRER
NATIONAL REVIEW
NEW REPUBLIC
NY DAILY NEWS
NY OBSERVER
NY POST
NY TIMES
NEW YORKER
NEWSBYTES
NEWSWEEK
N. KOREAN NEWS
PEOPLE MAG
R & R
REASON MAG
ROLL CALL
SKY NEWS
SLATE: PAPERS
STAR
TIME MAG
TV SHOPTALK
[U.K.] DAILY MIRROR
DAILY RECORD
[U.K.] EVENING STANDARD
[U.K.] EXPRESS
[U.K.] GUARDIAN
[U.K.] INDEPENDENT
[U.K.] NEWS OF THE WORLD
[U.K.] PEOPLENEWS
[U.K.] STAR
[U.K.] SUN
U.K. TABLOIDS
[U.K.] TELEGRAPH
[U.K.] TIMES
US NEWS
USA TODAY
VILLAGE VOICE
WASH POST
WASH TIMES
WEEKLY STANDARD
WORLDNETDAILY
UPDATE: Mob Kills 2 in Ill. After Van Crash... US Senate Fails to Pass Medicare Drug Plan... Agents leaving Border Patrol in droves, union says... French spa to host next G8 summit... GLASSMAN/HASSETT: Dow 36000 Revisited... MATT DRUDGE
3 AM GIRLS
CINDY ADAMS
ARMY ARCHERD
DAVE BARRY
MICHAEL BARONE
PETER BART
BOB BARTLEY
STEPHEN BATTAGLIO
MARILYN BECK/SMITH
BLANKLEY
GLORIA BORGER
L. BRENT BOZELL
BRESLIN
DAVID BRODER
PAT BUCHANAN
BILL BUCKLEY
MONA CHAREN
ELEANOR CLIFT
RICHARD COHEN
PAUL COLFORD
JOE CONASON
ANN COULTER
STANLEY CROUCH
MICHAEL DALY
LOU DOBBS
MAUREEN DOWD
STEVE DUNLEAVY
ROGER EBERT
JOSEPH FARAH
SUZANNE FIELDS
ARI FLEISCHER
MICHAEL FLEMING
ROGER FRIEDMAN
JOHN FUND
LEAH GARCHIK
BILL GERTZ
GEORGIE GEYER
JONAH GOLDBERG
ELLEN GOODMAN
MARTIN GROVE
LLOYD GROVE
PETE HAMILL
CARL HIAASEN
NAT HENTOFF
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
H'WOOD REPORTER E-MAIL
ARIANNA HUFFINGTON
INSIDE BELTWAY
INSIDE POLITICS
INSIDE THE RING
MOLLY IVINS
AL KAMEN
MICKEY KAUS
KEITH J. KELLY
MICHAEL KELLY
MICHAEL KINSLEY
HARRY KNOWLES
MORT KONDRACKE
KRAUTHAMMER
LARRY KUDLOW
HOWIE KURTZ
JOHN LEO
DAVID LIMBAUGH
RUSH LIMBAUGH
HAL LINDSEY
RICH LOWRY
MICHELLE MALKIN
CHRIS MATTHEWS
MARY MCGRORY
MICHAEL MEDVED
DICK MORRIS
PEGGY NOONAN
BOB NOVAK
OFF THE RECORD
KATE O'BEIRNE
MARVIN OLASKY
BILL O'REILLY
PAGE SIX
ANDREA PEYSER
JIM PINKERTON
JOHN PODHORETZ
TV PROGRAMMING INSIDER
WES PRUDEN
ANNA QUINDLEN
WILLIAM RASPBERRY
REX REED
RICHARD REEVES
J. MAX ROBINS
RICHARD ROEPER
RUSH/MOLLOY
BILL SAFIRE
SCHLAFLY
TOM SHALES
GAIL SHISTER
LIZ SMITH
MICHAEL SNEED
JOE SOBRAN
THOMAS SOWELL
ANDREW SULLIVAN
HELEN THOMAS
CAL THOMAS
HUNTER S. THOMPSON
NEAL TRAVIS
TV COLUMN
DEB WEISS
JEFFREY WELLS
GEORGE WILL
WALTER WILLIAMS
WASHINGTON WHISPERS
BILL ZWECKER
GERTH ZEROS IN ON CHENEY... AIRLINES TO TRIM FLIGHTS ON SEPT 11... Accounting controls on EU budget 'unreliable'... Man Accused of Raping Nine Women He Met Through Internet... Pentagon: Hamas experimenting with chemical weapons... AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
AFP INTERNATIONAL
AFP NEWS WRAP
AFX
UPI WIRE
UPI NATIONAL
UPI WORLD
AP/REUTERS PHOTO WIRE
REUTERS ROUNDUP
REUTERS SPOTLIGHT
REUTERS WORLD
REUTERS POLITICS
REUTERS ODD
SEARCH






*FINDS ANY STORY LINKED ON DRUDGE WEATHER ACTION
QUAKE SHEET x x x x x VISITS TO DRUDGE
07/31/02

004,776,309 IN PAST 24 HOURS
107,519,403 IN PAST 31 DAYS
895,224,122 IN PAST YEAR DRUDGE ARCHIVES DRUDGE REFERENCE DESK EMAIL: DRUDGE@DRUDGEREPORT.COM SUPER-POWERED BY ALLEGIANCE TELECOM... DRUDGE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB SPEECH TRANSCRIPT

Indeed, after reading news reports over the last few years, I've grown weary of the much-overused "senior administration official" or other source-naming cop-outs. It seems like half of what we're supposed to take seriously in the news media is anonymously spoken. I hate it on several fronts, the two most important being the requisite level of trust we must have in order to believe these vindictive and lying bastards and the distressing conclusion that far too many people in positions of power would rather speak their mind from the shadows rather than be honest and open about it. Yeah, there are occasions when source secrecy is very important and essential to the story being reported...but it's gone way, way too far.

As for the opinons of some who believe weblogs don't create news, I totally disagree. See the current turmoil created by Eric Alterman's recent foray into blogging (after commenting on the phenomenon negatively for some time), the community of readers who disseminate and discuss what Mickey Kaus and Glenn Reynolds have to say, Andrew Sullivan's staunch stance on the Catholic scandals, the rise of the American Prospect's and National Review's reporting and commentary and other cases where the bloggers themselves created news by commenting on something else. And let's be honest here, just because the news they created wasn't reported on by the AP or UPI and didn't make Nightline or Good Morning America doesn't lessen its news status, for it is news to the community they are part of.

For those who think that only right-wing Christian anti-abortionists engage in such hate-mongering, you should read the following blogs by Andrew Sullivan, from the week of November 25, 2001, about an extreme gay group that had a web site similar to "The Nuremberg Files":


MORE HATE FROM THE GAY LEFT: The far gay left is one of the most virulent hate-groups in the country. Tolerated by much of the gay media and beyond, their hate-filled and near-violent tactics are often ignored or tolerated by other gay men and women and liberal straights who should know better. Here's a small taste of what some gay hate-groups are now up to. It's a list of leading individuals the authors of the website "usqueers.com" want to see dead. The headline: "Wanted: To Experience A Horrible Death By Any Means Soon. Well-Known Het-Supremacists Deserve It As Their Reward." Notice the phrase 'By Any Means." Are these people condoning murder? There then follows this statement:

"If a person on this list dies (preferably a horrible death), a line will be drawn through their name (and they will probably be added to our Good Riddance! list.) If a person on this list is merely wounded or debilitated in some way, we will change the color of their name to brown. NOTE: We're just getting started on this list, but the type of information we will be listing here as it comes in includes anything such as Home Address, Home Phone, Office Address, Office Phone, Studio Address, Church Address, Girlfriend's Address, Boyfriend's Address, Favorite Hangouts (restaurants, etc.), Family Members, details about automobiles, just about anything which could be useful in spotting these dangerous het supremacists when they are wandering around loose. Organization information is also helpful, but mainly when it can be linked to specific het supremacists."

They add a disingenuous disclaimer disavowing violence - but these are the very people who seize on even the slightest homophobic remark to argue that it leads to gay-bashing. Notice also their complete contempt for anyone's privacy or personal dignity - a good indicator of a totalitarian mindset. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for their free speech. And I'm no fan of many of the individuals they oppose. But this kind of extremist, personal rhetoric is simply disgusting. It's equivalent to the hate-filled pro-lifers who discredit their cause by advocating the murder of abortionists. I don't know where these people get their hatred from, but it is as real and as dangerous as any of the right-wing hate groups who also deserve censure. These people do as much damage to the cause of gay equality and civility as anyone on the far right. It's time we stopped ignoring their evil.

- 7:05:12 PM Monday, November 26, 2001


MONKEY-FISHING?: James Taranto of OpinionJournal.com thinks I've been snookered by a site, usQueers.com, that's supposed to be a parody. And USQueers.com does have its fair share of campy excess. But James is wrong. The site I'm worried about is serious, extensive, and the owner of it is real. He's one Allan Ross, who told CNSNews.com that he was indeed unironic: "In a phone interview, Ross said he stands behind the content of his web site. But he added: 'It's certainly open to legal change if somebody points out that you're crossing the line here and legally you're saying, go out and do this, because we don't want anybody to go out and do this. The whole idea here was to say that they deserve to die for what they've done. I'm not standing behind calling for the death or murder or anything like that of anybody on this list at all. Or anybody listed on our web site. We do not call to murder anybody or hurt them or even touch them,' Ross said." So why then, one wonders, is the early and horrible death of named individuals called for on the site "by any means"? Then see what you make of this. Earlier this year, the following incident occurred at First Southern Baptist Church in San Diego. One Allan Ross had to be subdued by San Diego police for attacking a Baptist minister, David Powell. According to the Baptist News, "Powell said Ross initially asked to speak with the pastor ... Powell agreed to contact [Pastor] Lewis from the church office in the adjacent main building. As they were walking toward the office, Powell recounted that Ross revealed a jagged bottom of a glass bottle. 'I will hurt you if I have to,' Powell quoted Ross as saying. Powell said Ross also threatened to cut the artery in his neck and take his own life." According to the Baptist Press, Ross then took Powell hostage until he called the media, wanting to broadcast an anti-Baptist message. Ross was eventually overpowered by police. This article from the Catholic World News identifies this criminal with the same Allan Ross of the usQueers.com site. And on the site itself is this statement: "B. Allan Ross, was arrested for three felony violations he allegedly committed at the First Southern Baptist Church of San Diego, including the two most likely to be pursued in court - kidnapping and holding the church's janitor hostage."


LAVENDAR FASCISM: So am I over-reacting? Sure, Ross represents a minuscule portion of gay culture. Sure, his site is fringe and obscure. And sure, Ross may well be a bit unhinged. But none of this makes his specific threats against named individuals any less real. In fact, it makes them more real. I guess it's having been subjected to death-threats from far left gay activists myself that makes me realize these people are for real. (Last summer, a legit gay website, Datalounge.com, having fomented a vicious witch-hunt against me last spring, broadcast a specific threat to have my own "skull cracked open" in Provincetown. It took a week to get the owners to take the threat off the site, and they refused to apologize. They still won't disown the death-threat.) The truth is these extremists are not parodists. And they're not monkey-fishers. They're dangerous cranks, who get a pass from the liberal gay establishment, so long as they keep terrorizing straights or non-p.c. gays. Again, I support their right to free speech. I don't believe their site should be censored or shut down. But they are the gay equivalent of the anti-abortion murderers and the Klan. It's time we said so - don't you think, Mr Taranto? Or do we have to wait for the unthinkable to happen before we speak up?
- 11:40:44 PM, Tuesday November 27, 2001


MORE GAY EXTREMISM: James Taranto conceded yesterday he'd been too hasty in dismissing my worry about usQueers.com. In fact, the problem of some gay extremists violating basic norms of propriety in civil discourse is finally getting some attention. Two such activists were arrested today in San Francisco for "allegedly stalking and threatening newspaper reporters and Public Health Department workers." I feel bad because one of them, Michael Petrelis, has done good work in the past, but appears to have gone completely off the edge in the past couple of months. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "Newspaper employees said the men made dozens of obscene and threatening phone calls earlier this month to their homes and at work. A bomb threat also was made to the San Francisco Chronicle's offices." This isn't new. Until you've been targeted by these extremists, you don't know how vicious they can be: phone calls at all hours of the day and night, threats of violence, intimidating relatives and ex-boyfriends. They have no sense of decency. ACT-UP did many good things, but it also tolerated and fomented a fascistic approach to civil politics that has metastasized since. I'm glad this has come to a head. And I hope the mainstream gay groups like the Human Rights Campaign will finally denounce the tactics of violating privacy, threatening violence and general puerility that sadly infects much gay extreme left activism. So far, such mainstream groups have simply been silent or craven, terrified that they might be next on the list. It's time for them to speak up in defense of privacy, decency and civility in the gay rights movement, and condemn thuggery in all its forms.
- 12:57:11 AM Thursay November 29, 2001

THREE CHEERS FOR HRC: The Human Rights Campaign, the country's biggest gay rights group, condemned the usQueers.com site today. Congrats to them. Here's the quote: "'Calling for the death of people is reprehensible and in no way, shape or form should be condoned by anybody,' David Smith, an HRC spokesman, said after viewing the contents of usQueers.com. 'These types of sites, on either side of any debate, should be condemned in the strongest possible way,' Smith said." Amen, David. And thanks.
- 12:04:25 PM Thursday November 29, 2001


GAY FASCISM WATCH: "'We're watching you,' said one [activist] voicemail message saved by Jeff Sheehy, a press officer for the AIDS Research Institute at UC San Francisco. 'Your name is on the list of enemies of the homosexual community. We're out here on the streets and we're going to make sure that you don't open your mouth again to demonize us.' 'I don't know what to do,' Sheehy said. 'I'm afraid to go to work.'" - from the Los Angeles Times today.
- 6:47:31 PM Thursday November 29, 2001

For those who think that only right-wing Christian anti-abortionists engage in such hate-mongering, you should read the following blogs by Andrew Sullivan, from the week of November 25, 2001, about an extreme gay group that had a web site similar to "The Nuremberg Files":


MORE HATE FROM THE GAY LEFT: The far gay left is one of the most virulent hate-groups in the country. Tolerated by much of the gay media and beyond, their hate-filled and near-violent tactics are often ignored or tolerated by other gay men and women and liberal straights who should know better. Here's a small taste of what some gay hate-groups are now up to. It's a list of leading individuals the authors of the website "usqueers.com" want to see dead. The headline: "Wanted: To Experience A Horrible Death By Any Means Soon. Well-Known Het-Supremacists Deserve It As Their Reward." Notice the phrase 'By Any Means." Are these people condoning murder? There then follows this statement:

"If a person on this list dies (preferably a horrible death), a line will be drawn through their name (and they will probably be added to our Good Riddance! list.) If a person on this list is merely wounded or debilitated in some way, we will change the color of their name to brown. NOTE: We're just getting started on this list, but the type of information we will be listing here as it comes in includes anything such as Home Address, Home Phone, Office Address, Office Phone, Studio Address, Church Address, Girlfriend's Address, Boyfriend's Address, Favorite Hangouts (restaurants, etc.), Family Members, details about automobiles, just about anything which could be useful in spotting these dangerous het supremacists when they are wandering around loose. Organization information is also helpful, but mainly when it can be linked to specific het supremacists."

They add a disingenuous disclaimer disavowing violence - but these are the very people who seize on even the slightest homophobic remark to argue that it leads to gay-bashing. Notice also their complete contempt for anyone's privacy or personal dignity - a good indicator of a totalitarian mindset. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for their free speech. And I'm no fan of many of the individuals they oppose. But this kind of extremist, personal rhetoric is simply disgusting. It's equivalent to the hate-filled pro-lifers who discredit their cause by advocating the murder of abortionists. I don't know where these people get their hatred from, but it is as real and as dangerous as any of the right-wing hate groups who also deserve censure. These people do as much damage to the cause of gay equality and civility as anyone on the far right. It's time we stopped ignoring their evil.

- 7:05:12 PM Monday, November 26, 2001


MONKEY-FISHING?: James Taranto of OpinionJournal.com thinks I've been snookered by a site, usQueers.com, that's supposed to be a parody. And USQueers.com does have its fair share of campy excess. But James is wrong. The site I'm worried about is serious, extensive, and the owner of it is real. He's one Allan Ross, who told CNSNews.com that he was indeed unironic: "In a phone interview, Ross said he stands behind the content of his web site. But he added: 'It's certainly open to legal change if somebody points out that you're crossing the line here and legally you're saying, go out and do this, because we don't want anybody to go out and do this. The whole idea here was to say that they deserve to die for what they've done. I'm not standing behind calling for the death or murder or anything like that of anybody on this list at all. Or anybody listed on our web site. We do not call to murder anybody or hurt them or even touch them,' Ross said." So why then, one wonders, is the early and horrible death of named individuals called for on the site "by any means"? Then see what you make of this. Earlier this year, the following incident occurred at First Southern Baptist Church in San Diego. One Allan Ross had to be subdued by San Diego police for attacking a Baptist minister, David Powell. According to the Baptist News, "Powell said Ross initially asked to speak with the pastor ... Powell agreed to contact [Pastor] Lewis from the church office in the adjacent main building. As they were walking toward the office, Powell recounted that Ross revealed a jagged bottom of a glass bottle. 'I will hurt you if I have to,' Powell quoted Ross as saying. Powell said Ross also threatened to cut the artery in his neck and take his own life." According to the Baptist Press, Ross then took Powell hostage until he called the media, wanting to broadcast an anti-Baptist message. Ross was eventually overpowered by police. This article from the Catholic World News identifies this criminal with the same Allan Ross of the usQueers.com site. And on the site itself is this statement: "B. Allan Ross, was arrested for three felony violations he allegedly committed at the First Southern Baptist Church of San Diego, including the two most likely to be pursued in court - kidnapping and holding the church's janitor hostage."


LAVENDAR FASCISM: So am I over-reacting? Sure, Ross represents a minuscule portion of gay culture. Sure, his site is fringe and obscure. And sure, Ross may well be a bit unhinged. But none of this makes his specific threats against named individuals any less real. In fact, it makes them more real. I guess it's having been subjected to death-threats from far left gay activists myself that makes me realize these people are for real. (Last summer, a legit gay website, Datalounge.com, having fomented a vicious witch-hunt against me last spring, broadcast a specific threat to have my own "skull cracked open" in Provincetown. It took a week to get the owners to take the threat off the site, and they refused to apologize. They still won't disown the death-threat.) The truth is these extremists are not parodists. And they're not monkey-fishers. They're dangerous cranks, who get a pass from the liberal gay establishment, so long as they keep terrorizing straights or non-p.c. gays. Again, I support their right to free speech. I don't believe their site should be censored or shut down. But they are the gay equivalent of the anti-abortion murderers and the Klan. It's time we said so - don't you think, Mr Taranto? Or do we have to wait for the unthinkable to happen before we speak up?
- 11:40:44 PM, Tuesday November 27, 2001


MORE GAY EXTREMISM: James Taranto conceded yesterday he'd been too hasty in dismissing my worry about usQueers.com. In fact, the problem of some gay extremists violating basic norms of propriety in civil discourse is finally getting some attention. Two such activists were arrested today in San Francisco for "allegedly stalking and threatening newspaper reporters and Public Health Department workers." I feel bad because one of them, Michael Petrelis, has done good work in the past, but appears to have gone completely off the edge in the past couple of months. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "Newspaper employees said the men made dozens of obscene and threatening phone calls earlier this month to their homes and at work. A bomb threat also was made to the San Francisco Chronicle's offices." This isn't new. Until you've been targeted by these extremists, you don't know how vicious they can be: phone calls at all hours of the day and night, threats of violence, intimidating relatives and ex-boyfriends. They have no sense of decency. ACT-UP did many good things, but it also tolerated and fomented a fascistic approach to civil politics that has metastasized since. I'm glad this has come to a head. And I hope the mainstream gay groups like the Human Rights Campaign will finally denounce the tactics of violating privacy, threatening violence and general puerility that sadly infects much gay extreme left activism. So far, such mainstream groups have simply been silent or craven, terrified that they might be next on the list. It's time for them to speak up in defense of privacy, decency and civility in the gay rights movement, and condemn thuggery in all its forms.
- 12:57:11 AM Thursay November 29, 2001

THREE CHEERS FOR HRC: The Human Rights Campaign, the country's biggest gay rights group, condemned the usQueers.com site today. Congrats to them. Here's the quote: "'Calling for the death of people is reprehensible and in no way, shape or form should be condoned by anybody,' David Smith, an HRC spokesman, said after viewing the contents of usQueers.com. 'These types of sites, on either side of any debate, should be condemned in the strongest possible way,' Smith said." Amen, David. And thanks.
- 12:04:25 PM Thursday November 29, 2001


GAY FASCISM WATCH: "'We're watching you,' said one [activist] voicemail message saved by Jeff Sheehy, a press officer for the AIDS Research Institute at UC San Francisco. 'Your name is on the list of enemies of the homosexual community. We're out here on the streets and we're going to make sure that you don't open your mouth again to demonize us.' 'I don't know what to do,' Sheehy said. 'I'm afraid to go to work.'" - from the Los Angeles Times today.
- 6:47:31 PM Thursday November 29, 2001

For those who think that only right-wing Christian anti-abortionists engage in such hate-mongering, you should read the following blogs by Andrew Sullivan, from the week of November 25, 2001, about an extreme gay group that had a web site similar to "The Nuremberg Files":


MORE HATE FROM THE GAY LEFT: The far gay left is one of the most virulent hate-groups in the country. Tolerated by much of the gay media and beyond, their hate-filled and near-violent tactics are often ignored or tolerated by other gay men and women and liberal straights who should know better. Here's a small taste of what some gay hate-groups are now up to. It's a list of leading individuals the authors of the website "usqueers.com" want to see dead. The headline: "Wanted: To Experience A Horrible Death By Any Means Soon. Well-Known Het-Supremacists Deserve It As Their Reward." Notice the phrase 'By Any Means." Are these people condoning murder? There then follows this statement:

"If a person on this list dies (preferably a horrible death), a line will be drawn through their name (and they will probably be added to our Good Riddance! list.) If a person on this list is merely wounded or debilitated in some way, we will change the color of their name to brown. NOTE: We're just getting started on this list, but the type of information we will be listing here as it comes in includes anything such as Home Address, Home Phone, Office Address, Office Phone, Studio Address, Church Address, Girlfriend's Address, Boyfriend's Address, Favorite Hangouts (restaurants, etc.), Family Members, details about automobiles, just about anything which could be useful in spotting these dangerous het supremacists when they are wandering around loose. Organization information is also helpful, but mainly when it can be linked to specific het supremacists."

They add a disingenuous disclaimer disavowing violence - but these are the very people who seize on even the slightest homophobic remark to argue that it leads to gay-bashing. Notice also their complete contempt for anyone's privacy or personal dignity - a good indicator of a totalitarian mindset. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for their free speech. And I'm no fan of many of the individuals they oppose. But this kind of extremist, personal rhetoric is simply disgusting. It's equivalent to the hate-filled pro-lifers who discredit their cause by advocating the murder of abortionists. I don't know where these people get their hatred from, but it is as real and as dangerous as any of the right-wing hate groups who also deserve censure. These people do as much damage to the cause of gay equality and civility as anyone on the far right. It's time we stopped ignoring their evil.

- 7:05:12 PM Monday, November 26, 2001


MONKEY-FISHING?: James Taranto of OpinionJournal.com thinks I've been snookered by a site, usQueers.com, that's supposed to be a parody. And USQueers.com does have its fair share of campy excess. But James is wrong. The site I'm worried about is serious, extensive, and the owner of it is real. He's one Allan Ross, who told CNSNews.com that he was indeed unironic: "In a phone interview, Ross said he stands behind the content of his web site. But he added: 'It's certainly open to legal change if somebody points out that you're crossing the line here and legally you're saying, go out and do this, because we don't want anybody to go out and do this. The whole idea here was to say that they deserve to die for what they've done. I'm not standing behind calling for the death or murder or anything like that of anybody on this list at all. Or anybody listed on our web site. We do not call to murder anybody or hurt them or even touch them,' Ross said." So why then, one wonders, is the early and horrible death of named individuals called for on the site "by any means"? Then see what you make of this. Earlier this year, the following incident occurred at First Southern Baptist Church in San Diego. One Allan Ross had to be subdued by San Diego police for attacking a Baptist minister, David Powell. According to the Baptist News, "Powell said Ross initially asked to speak with the pastor ... Powell agreed to contact [Pastor] Lewis from the church office in the adjacent main building. As they were walking toward the office, Powell recounted that Ross revealed a jagged bottom of a glass bottle. 'I will hurt you if I have to,' Powell quoted Ross as saying. Powell said Ross also threatened to cut the artery in his neck and take his own life." According to the Baptist Press, Ross then took Powell hostage until he called the media, wanting to broadcast an anti-Baptist message. Ross was eventually overpowered by police. This article from the Catholic World News identifies this criminal with the same Allan Ross of the usQueers.com site. And on the site itself is this statement: "B. Allan Ross, was arrested for three felony violations he allegedly committed at the First Southern Baptist Church of San Diego, including the two most likely to be pursued in court - kidnapping and holding the church's janitor hostage."


LAVENDAR FASCISM: So am I over-reacting? Sure, Ross represents a minuscule portion of gay culture. Sure, his site is fringe and obscure. And sure, Ross may well be a bit unhinged. But none of this makes his specific threats against named individuals any less real. In fact, it makes them more real. I guess it's having been subjected to death-threats from far left gay activists myself that makes me realize these people are for real. (Last summer, a legit gay website, Datalounge.com, having fomented a vicious witch-hunt against me last spring, broadcast a specific threat to have my own "skull cracked open" in Provincetown. It took a week to get the owners to take the threat off the site, and they refused to apologize. They still won't disown the death-threat.) The truth is these extremists are not parodists. And they're not monkey-fishers. They're dangerous cranks, who get a pass from the liberal gay establishment, so long as they keep terrorizing straights or non-p.c. gays. Again, I support their right to free speech. I don't believe their site should be censored or shut down. But they are the gay equivalent of the anti-abortion murderers and the Klan. It's time we said so - don't you think, Mr Taranto? Or do we have to wait for the unthinkable to happen before we speak up?
- 11:40:44 PM, Tuesday November 27, 2001


MORE GAY EXTREMISM: James Taranto conceded yesterday he'd been too hasty in dismissing my worry about usQueers.com. In fact, the problem of some gay extremists violating basic norms of propriety in civil discourse is finally getting some attention. Two such activists were arrested today in San Francisco for "allegedly stalking and threatening newspaper reporters and Public Health Department workers." I feel bad because one of them, Michael Petrelis, has done good work in the past, but appears to have gone completely off the edge in the past couple of months. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "Newspaper employees said the men made dozens of obscene and threatening phone calls earlier this month to their homes and at work. A bomb threat also was made to the San Francisco Chronicle's offices." This isn't new. Until you've been targeted by these extremists, you don't know how vicious they can be: phone calls at all hours of the day and night, threats of violence, intimidating relatives and ex-boyfriends. They have no sense of decency. ACT-UP did many good things, but it also tolerated and fomented a fascistic approach to civil politics that has metastasized since. I'm glad this has come to a head. And I hope the mainstream gay groups like the Human Rights Campaign will finally denounce the tactics of violating privacy, threatening violence and general puerility that sadly infects much gay extreme left activism. So far, such mainstream groups have simply been silent or craven, terrified that they might be next on the list. It's time for them to speak up in defense of privacy, decency and civility in the gay rights movement, and condemn thuggery in all its forms.
- 12:57:11 AM Thursay November 29, 2001

THREE CHEERS FOR HRC: The Human Rights Campaign, the country's biggest gay rights group, condemned the usQueers.com site today. Congrats to them. Here's the quote: "'Calling for the death of people is reprehensible and in no way, shape or form should be condoned by anybody,' David Smith, an HRC spokesman, said after viewing the contents of usQueers.com. 'These types of sites, on either side of any debate, should be condemned in the strongest possible way,' Smith said." Amen, David. And thanks.
- 12:04:25 PM Thursday November 29, 2001


GAY FASCISM WATCH: "'We're watching you,' said one [activist] voicemail message saved by Jeff Sheehy, a press officer for the AIDS Research Institute at UC San Francisco. 'Your name is on the list of enemies of the homosexual community. We're out here on the streets and we're going to make sure that you don't open your mouth again to demonize us.' 'I don't know what to do,' Sheehy said. 'I'm afraid to go to work.'" - from the Los Angeles Times today.
- 6:47:31 PM Thursday November 29, 2001

For those who think that only right-wing Christian anti-abortionists engage in such hate-mongering, you should read the following blogs by Andrew Sullivan, from the week of November 25, 2001, about an extreme gay group that had a web site similar to "The Nuremberg Files":


MORE HATE FROM THE GAY LEFT: The far gay left is one of the most virulent hate-groups in the country. Tolerated by much of the gay media and beyond, their hate-filled and near-violent tactics are often ignored or tolerated by other gay men and women and liberal straights who should know better. Here's a small taste of what some gay hate-groups are now up to. It's a list of leading individuals the authors of the website "usqueers.com" want to see dead. The headline: "Wanted: To Experience A Horrible Death By Any Means Soon. Well-Known Het-Supremacists Deserve It As Their Reward." Notice the phrase 'By Any Means." Are these people condoning murder? There then follows this statement:

"If a person on this list dies (preferably a horrible death), a line will be drawn through their name (and they will probably be added to our Good Riddance! list.) If a person on this list is merely wounded or debilitated in some way, we will change the color of their name to brown. NOTE: We're just getting started on this list, but the type of information we will be listing here as it comes in includes anything such as Home Address, Home Phone, Office Address, Office Phone, Studio Address, Church Address, Girlfriend's Address, Boyfriend's Address, Favorite Hangouts (restaurants, etc.), Family Members, details about automobiles, just about anything which could be useful in spotting these dangerous het supremacists when they are wandering around loose. Organization information is also helpful, but mainly when it can be linked to specific het supremacists."

They add a disingenuous disclaimer disavowing violence - but these are the very people who seize on even the slightest homophobic remark to argue that it leads to gay-bashing. Notice also their complete contempt for anyone's privacy or personal dignity - a good indicator of a totalitarian mindset. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for their free speech. And I'm no fan of many of the individuals they oppose. But this kind of extremist, personal rhetoric is simply disgusting. It's equivalent to the hate-filled pro-lifers who discredit their cause by advocating the murder of abortionists. I don't know where these people get their hatred from, but it is as real and as dangerous as any of the right-wing hate groups who also deserve censure. These people do as much damage to the cause of gay equality and civility as anyone on the far right. It's time we stopped ignoring their evil.

- 7:05:12 PM Monday, November 26, 2001


MONKEY-FISHING?: James Taranto of OpinionJournal.com thinks I've been snookered by a site, usQueers.com, that's supposed to be a parody. And USQueers.com does have its fair share of campy excess. But James is wrong. The site I'm worried about is serious, extensive, and the owner of it is real. He's one Allan Ross, who told CNSNews.com that he was indeed unironic: "In a phone interview, Ross said he stands behind the content of his web site. But he added: 'It's certainly open to legal change if somebody points out that you're crossing the line here and legally you're saying, go out and do this, because we don't want anybody to go out and do this. The whole idea here was to say that they deserve to die for what they've done. I'm not standing behind calling for the death or murder or anything like that of anybody on this list at all. Or anybody listed on our web site. We do not call to murder anybody or hurt them or even touch them,' Ross said." So why then, one wonders, is the early and horrible death of named individuals called for on the site "by any means"? Then see what you make of this. Earlier this year, the following incident occurred at First Southern Baptist Church in San Diego. One Allan Ross had to be subdued by San Diego police for attacking a Baptist minister, David Powell. According to the Baptist News, "Powell said Ross initially asked to speak with the pastor ... Powell agreed to contact [Pastor] Lewis from the church office in the adjacent main building. As they were walking toward the office, Powell recounted that Ross revealed a jagged bottom of a glass bottle. 'I will hurt you if I have to,' Powell quoted Ross as saying. Powell said Ross also threatened to cut the artery in his neck and take his own life." According to the Baptist Press, Ross then took Powell hostage until he called the media, wanting to broadcast an anti-Baptist message. Ross was eventually overpowered by police. This article from the Catholic World News identifies this criminal with the same Allan Ross of the usQueers.com site. And on the site itself is this statement: "B. Allan Ross, was arrested for three felony violations he allegedly committed at the First Southern Baptist Church of San Diego, including the two most likely to be pursued in court - kidnapping and holding the church's janitor hostage."


LAVENDAR FASCISM: So am I over-reacting? Sure, Ross represents a minuscule portion of gay culture. Sure, his site is fringe and obscure. And sure, Ross may well be a bit unhinged. But none of this makes his specific threats against named individuals any less real. In fact, it makes them more real. I guess it's having been subjected to death-threats from far left gay activists myself that makes me realize these people are for real. (Last summer, a legit gay website, Datalounge.com, having fomented a vicious witch-hunt against me last spring, broadcast a specific threat to have my own "skull cracked open" in Provincetown. It took a week to get the owners to take the threat off the site, and they refused to apologize. They still won't disown the death-threat.) The truth is these extremists are not parodists. And they're not monkey-fishers. They're dangerous cranks, who get a pass from the liberal gay establishment, so long as they keep terrorizing straights or non-p.c. gays. Again, I support their right to free speech. I don't believe their site should be censored or shut down. But they are the gay equivalent of the anti-abortion murderers and the Klan. It's time we said so - don't you think, Mr Taranto? Or do we have to wait for the unthinkable to happen before we speak up?
- 11:40:44 PM, Tuesday November 27, 2001


MORE GAY EXTREMISM: James Taranto conceded yesterday he'd been too hasty in dismissing my worry about usQueers.com. In fact, the problem of some gay extremists violating basic norms of propriety in civil discourse is finally getting some attention. Two such activists were arrested today in San Francisco for "allegedly stalking and threatening newspaper reporters and Public Health Department workers." I feel bad because one of them, Michael Petrelis, has done good work in the past, but appears to have gone completely off the edge in the past couple of months. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "Newspaper employees said the men made dozens of obscene and threatening phone calls earlier this month to their homes and at work. A bomb threat also was made to the San Francisco Chronicle's offices." This isn't new. Until you've been targeted by these extremists, you don't know how vicious they can be: phone calls at all hours of the day and night, threats of violence, intimidating relatives and ex-boyfriends. They have no sense of decency. ACT-UP did many good things, but it also tolerated and fomented a fascistic approach to civil politics that has metastasized since. I'm glad this has come to a head. And I hope the mainstream gay groups like the Human Rights Campaign will finally denounce the tactics of violating privacy, threatening violence and general puerility that sadly infects much gay extreme left activism. So far, such mainstream groups have simply been silent or craven, terrified that they might be next on the list. It's time for them to speak up in defense of privacy, decency and civility in the gay rights movement, and condemn thuggery in all its forms.
- 12:57:11 AM Thursay November 29, 2001

THREE CHEERS FOR HRC: The Human Rights Campaign, the country's biggest gay rights group, condemned the usQueers.com site today. Congrats to them. Here's the quote: "'Calling for the death of people is reprehensible and in no way, shape or form should be condoned by anybody,' David Smith, an HRC spokesman, said after viewing the contents of usQueers.com. 'These types of sites, on either side of any debate, should be condemned in the strongest possible way,' Smith said." Amen, David. And thanks.
- 12:04:25 PM Thursday November 29, 2001


GAY FASCISM WATCH: "'We're watching you,' said one [activist] voicemail message saved by Jeff Sheehy, a press officer for the AIDS Research Institute at UC San Francisco. 'Your name is on the list of enemies of the homosexual community. We're out here on the streets and we're going to make sure that you don't open your mouth again to demonize us.' 'I don't know what to do,' Sheehy said. 'I'm afraid to go to work.'" - from the Los Angeles Times today.
- 6:47:31 PM Thursday November 29, 2001

For those who think that only right-wing Christian anti-abortionists engage in such hate-mongering, you should read the following blogs by Andrew Sullivan, from the week of November 25, 2001, about an extreme gay group that had a web site similar to "The Nuremberg Files":


MORE HATE FROM THE GAY LEFT: The far gay left is one of the most virulent hate-groups in the country. Tolerated by much of the gay media and beyond, their hate-filled and near-violent tactics are often ignored or tolerated by other gay men and women and liberal straights who should know better. Here's a small taste of what some gay hate-groups are now up to. It's a list of leading individuals the authors of the website "usqueers.com" want to see dead. The headline: "Wanted: To Experience A Horrible Death By Any Means Soon. Well-Known Het-Supremacists Deserve It As Their Reward." Notice the phrase 'By Any Means." Are these people condoning murder? There then follows this statement:

"If a person on this list dies (preferably a horrible death), a line will be drawn through their name (and they will probably be added to our Good Riddance! list.) If a person on this list is merely wounded or debilitated in some way, we will change the color of their name to brown. NOTE: We're just getting started on this list, but the type of information we will be listing here as it comes in includes anything such as Home Address, Home Phone, Office Address, Office Phone, Studio Address, Church Address, Girlfriend's Address, Boyfriend's Address, Favorite Hangouts (restaurants, etc.), Family Members, details about automobiles, just about anything which could be useful in spotting these dangerous het supremacists when they are wandering around loose. Organization information is also helpful, but mainly when it can be linked to specific het supremacists."

They add a disingenuous disclaimer disavowing violence - but these are the very people who seize on even the slightest homophobic remark to argue that it leads to gay-bashing. Notice also their complete contempt for anyone's privacy or personal dignity - a good indicator of a totalitarian mindset. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for their free speech. And I'm no fan of many of the individuals they oppose. But this kind of extremist, personal rhetoric is simply disgusting. It's equivalent to the hate-filled pro-lifers who discredit their cause by advocating the murder of abortionists. I don't know where these people get their hatred from, but it is as real and as dangerous as any of the right-wing hate groups who also deserve censure. These people do as much damage to the cause of gay equality and civility as anyone on the far right. It's time we stopped ignoring their evil.

- 7:05:12 PM Monday, November 26, 2001


MONKEY-FISHING?: James Taranto of OpinionJournal.com thinks I've been snookered by a site, usQueers.com, that's supposed to be a parody. And USQueers.com does have its fair share of campy excess. But James is wrong. The site I'm worried about is serious, extensive, and the owner of it is real. He's one Allan Ross, who told CNSNews.com that he was indeed unironic: "In a phone interview, Ross said he stands behind the content of his web site. But he added: 'It's certainly open to legal change if somebody points out that you're crossing the line here and legally you're saying, go out and do this, because we don't want anybody to go out and do this. The whole idea here was to say that they deserve to die for what they've done. I'm not standing behind calling for the death or murder or anything like that of anybody on this list at all. Or anybody listed on our web site. We do not call to murder anybody or hurt them or even touch them,' Ross said." So why then, one wonders, is the early and horrible death of named individuals called for on the site "by any means"? Then see what you make of this. Earlier this year, the following incident occurred at First Southern Baptist Church in San Diego. One Allan Ross had to be subdued by San Diego police for attacking a Baptist minister, David Powell. According to the Baptist News, "Powell said Ross initially asked to speak with the pastor ... Powell agreed to contact [Pastor] Lewis from the church office in the adjacent main building. As they were walking toward the office, Powell recounted that Ross revealed a jagged bottom of a glass bottle. 'I will hurt you if I have to,' Powell quoted Ross as saying. Powell said Ross also threatened to cut the artery in his neck and take his own life." According to the Baptist Press, Ross then took Powell hostage until he called the media, wanting to broadcast an anti-Baptist message. Ross was eventually overpowered by police. This article from the Catholic World News identifies this criminal with the same Allan Ross of the usQueers.com site. And on the site itself is this statement: "B. Allan Ross, was arrested for three felony violations he allegedly committed at the First Southern Baptist Church of San Diego, including the two most likely to be pursued in court - kidnapping and holding the church's janitor hostage."


LAVENDAR FASCISM: So am I over-reacting? Sure, Ross represents a minuscule portion of gay culture. Sure, his site is fringe and obscure. And sure, Ross may well be a bit unhinged. But none of this makes his specific threats against named individuals any less real. In fact, it makes them more real. I guess it's having been subjected to death-threats from far left gay activists myself that makes me realize these people are for real. (Last summer, a legit gay website, Datalounge.com, having fomented a vicious witch-hunt against me last spring, broadcast a specific threat to have my own "skull cracked open" in Provincetown. It took a week to get the owners to take the threat off the site, and they refused to apologize. They still won't disown the death-threat.) The truth is these extremists are not parodists. And they're not monkey-fishers. They're dangerous cranks, who get a pass from the liberal gay establishment, so long as they keep terrorizing straights or non-p.c. gays. Again, I support their right to free speech. I don't believe their site should be censored or shut down. But they are the gay equivalent of the anti-abortion murderers and the Klan. It's time we said so - don't you think, Mr Taranto? Or do we have to wait for the unthinkable to happen before we speak up?
- 11:40:44 PM, Tuesday November 27, 2001


MORE GAY EXTREMISM: James Taranto conceded yesterday he'd been too hasty in dismissing my worry about usQueers.com. In fact, the problem of some gay extremists violating basic norms of propriety in civil discourse is finally getting some attention. Two such activists were arrested today in San Francisco for "allegedly stalking and threatening newspaper reporters and Public Health Department workers." I feel bad because one of them, Michael Petrelis, has done good work in the past, but appears to have gone completely off the edge in the past couple of months. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "Newspaper employees said the men made dozens of obscene and threatening phone calls earlier this month to their homes and at work. A bomb threat also was made to the San Francisco Chronicle's offices." This isn't new. Until you've been targeted by these extremists, you don't know how vicious they can be: phone calls at all hours of the day and night, threats of violence, intimidating relatives and ex-boyfriends. They have no sense of decency. ACT-UP did many good things, but it also tolerated and fomented a fascistic approach to civil politics that has metastasized since. I'm glad this has come to a head. And I hope the mainstream gay groups like the Human Rights Campaign will finally denounce the tactics of violating privacy, threatening violence and general puerility that sadly infects much gay extreme left activism. So far, such mainstream groups have simply been silent or craven, terrified that they might be next on the list. It's time for them to speak up in defense of privacy, decency and civility in the gay rights movement, and condemn thuggery in all its forms.
- 12:57:11 AM Thursay November 29, 2001

THREE CHEERS FOR HRC: The Human Rights Campaign, the country's biggest gay rights group, condemned the usQueers.com site today. Congrats to them. Here's the quote: "'Calling for the death of people is reprehensible and in no way, shape or form should be condoned by anybody,' David Smith, an HRC spokesman, said after viewing the contents of usQueers.com. 'These types of sites, on either side of any debate, should be condemned in the strongest possible way,' Smith said." Amen, David. And thanks.
- 12:04:25 PM Thursday November 29, 2001


GAY FASCISM WATCH: "'We're watching you,' said one [activist] voicemail message saved by Jeff Sheehy, a press officer for the AIDS Research Institute at UC San Francisco. 'Your name is on the list of enemies of the homosexual community. We're out here on the streets and we're going to make sure that you don't open your mouth again to demonize us.' 'I don't know what to do,' Sheehy said. 'I'm afraid to go to work.'" - from the Los Angeles Times today.
- 6:47:31 PM Thursday November 29, 2001

For those who think that only right-wing Christian anti-abortionists engage in such hate-mongering, you should read the following blogs by Andrew Sullivan, from the week of November 25, 2001, about an extreme gay group that had a web site similar to "The Nuremberg Files":


MORE HATE FROM THE GAY LEFT: The far gay left is one of the most virulent hate-groups in the country. Tolerated by much of the gay media and beyond, their hate-filled and near-violent tactics are often ignored or tolerated by other gay men and women and liberal straights who should know better. Here's a small taste of what some gay hate-groups are now up to. It's a list of leading individuals the authors of the website "usqueers.com" want to see dead. The headline: "Wanted: To Experience A Horrible Death By Any Means Soon. Well-Known Het-Supremacists Deserve It As Their Reward." Notice the phrase 'By Any Means." Are these people condoning murder? There then follows this statement:

"If a person on this list dies (preferably a horrible death), a line will be drawn through their name (and they will probably be added to our Good Riddance! list.) If a person on this list is merely wounded or debilitated in some way, we will change the color of their name to brown. NOTE: We're just getting started on this list, but the type of information we will be listing here as it comes in includes anything such as Home Address, Home Phone, Office Address, Office Phone, Studio Address, Church Address, Girlfriend's Address, Boyfriend's Address, Favorite Hangouts (restaurants, etc.), Family Members, details about automobiles, just about anything which could be useful in spotting these dangerous het supremacists when they are wandering around loose. Organization information is also helpful, but mainly when it can be linked to specific het supremacists."

They add a disingenuous disclaimer disavowing violence - but these are the very people who seize on even the slightest homophobic remark to argue that it leads to gay-bashing. Notice also their complete contempt for anyone's privacy or personal dignity - a good indicator of a totalitarian mindset. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for their free speech. And I'm no fan of many of the individuals they oppose. But this kind of extremist, personal rhetoric is simply disgusting. It's equivalent to the hate-filled pro-lifers who discredit their cause by advocating the murder of abortionists. I don't know where these people get their hatred from, but it is as real and as dangerous as any of the right-wing hate groups who also deserve censure. These people do as much damage to the cause of gay equality and civility as anyone on the far right. It's time we stopped ignoring their evil.

- 7:05:12 PM Monday, November 26, 2001


MONKEY-FISHING?: James Taranto of OpinionJournal.com thinks I've been snookered by a site, usQueers.com, that's supposed to be a parody. And USQueers.com does have its fair share of campy excess. But James is wrong. The site I'm worried about is serious, extensive, and the owner of it is real. He's one Allan Ross, who told CNSNews.com that he was indeed unironic: "In a phone interview, Ross said he stands behind the content of his web site. But he added: 'It's certainly open to legal change if somebody points out that you're crossing the line here and legally you're saying, go out and do this, because we don't want anybody to go out and do this. The whole idea here was to say that they deserve to die for what they've done. I'm not standing behind calling for the death or murder or anything like that of anybody on this list at all. Or anybody listed on our web site. We do not call to murder anybody or hurt them or even touch them,' Ross said." So why then, one wonders, is the early and horrible death of named individuals called for on the site "by any means"? Then see what you make of this. Earlier this year, the following incident occurred at First Southern Baptist Church in San Diego. One Allan Ross had to be subdued by San Diego police for attacking a Baptist minister, David Powell. According to the Baptist News, "Powell said Ross initially asked to speak with the pastor ... Powell agreed to contact [Pastor] Lewis from the church office in the adjacent main building. As they were walking toward the office, Powell recounted that Ross revealed a jagged bottom of a glass bottle. 'I will hurt you if I have to,' Powell quoted Ross as saying. Powell said Ross also threatened to cut the artery in his neck and take his own life." According to the Baptist Press, Ross then took Powell hostage until he called the media, wanting to broadcast an anti-Baptist message. Ross was eventually overpowered by police. This article from the Catholic World News identifies this criminal with the same Allan Ross of the usQueers.com site. And on the site itself is this statement: "B. Allan Ross, was arrested for three felony violations he allegedly committed at the First Southern Baptist Church of San Diego, including the two most likely to be pursued in court - kidnapping and holding the church's janitor hostage."


LAVENDAR FASCISM: So am I over-reacting? Sure, Ross represents a minuscule portion of gay culture. Sure, his site is fringe and obscure. And sure, Ross may well be a bit unhinged. But none of this makes his specific threats against named individuals any less real. In fact, it makes them more real. I guess it's having been subjected to death-threats from far left gay activists myself that makes me realize these people are for real. (Last summer, a legit gay website, Datalounge.com, having fomented a vicious witch-hunt against me last spring, broadcast a specific threat to have my own "skull cracked open" in Provincetown. It took a week to get the owners to take the threat off the site, and they refused to apologize. They still won't disown the death-threat.) The truth is these extremists are not parodists. And they're not monkey-fishers. They're dangerous cranks, who get a pass from the liberal gay establishment, so long as they keep terrorizing straights or non-p.c. gays. Again, I support their right to free speech. I don't believe their site should be censored or shut down. But they are the gay equivalent of the anti-abortion murderers and the Klan. It's time we said so - don't you think, Mr Taranto? Or do we have to wait for the unthinkable to happen before we speak up?
- 11:40:44 PM, Tuesday November 27, 2001


MORE GAY EXTREMISM: James Taranto conceded yesterday he'd been too hasty in dismissing my worry about usQueers.com. In fact, the problem of some gay extremists violating basic norms of propriety in civil discourse is finally getting some attention. Two such activists were arrested today in San Francisco for "allegedly stalking and threatening newspaper reporters and Public Health Department workers." I feel bad because one of them, Michael Petrelis, has done good work in the past, but appears to have gone completely off the edge in the past couple of months. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "Newspaper employees said the men made dozens of obscene and threatening phone calls earlier this month to their homes and at work. A bomb threat also was made to the San Francisco Chronicle's offices." This isn't new. Until you've been targeted by these extremists, you don't know how vicious they can be: phone calls at all hours of the day and night, threats of violence, intimidating relatives and ex-boyfriends. They have no sense of decency. ACT-UP did many good things, but it also tolerated and fomented a fascistic approach to civil politics that has metastasized since. I'm glad this has come to a head. And I hope the mainstream gay groups like the Human Rights Campaign will finally denounce the tactics of violating privacy, threatening violence and general puerility that sadly infects much gay extreme left activism. So far, such mainstream groups have simply been silent or craven, terrified that they might be next on the list. It's time for them to speak up in defense of privacy, decency and civility in the gay rights movement, and condemn thuggery in all its forms.
- 12:57:11 AM Thursay November 29, 2001

THREE CHEERS FOR HRC: The Human Rights Campaign, the country's biggest gay rights group, condemned the usQueers.com site today. Congrats to them. Here's the quote: "'Calling for the death of people is reprehensible and in no way, shape or form should be condoned by anybody,' David Smith, an HRC spokesman, said after viewing the contents of usQueers.com. 'These types of sites, on either side of any debate, should be condemned in the strongest possible way,' Smith said." Amen, David. And thanks.
- 12:04:25 PM Thursday November 29, 2001


GAY FASCISM WATCH: "'We're watching you,' said one [activist] voicemail message saved by Jeff Sheehy, a press officer for the AIDS Research Institute at UC San Francisco. 'Your name is on the list of enemies of the homosexual community. We're out here on the streets and we're going to make sure that you don't open your mouth again to demonize us.' 'I don't know what to do,' Sheehy said. 'I'm afraid to go to work.'" - from the Los Angeles Times today.
- 6:47:31 PM Thursday November 29, 2001

For those who think that only right-wing Christian anti-abortionists engage in such hate-mongering, you should read the following blogs by Andrew Sullivan, from the week of November 25, 2001, about an extreme gay group that had a web site similar to "The Nuremberg Files":


MORE HATE FROM THE GAY LEFT: The far gay left is one of the most virulent hate-groups in the country. Tolerated by much of the gay media and beyond, their hate-filled and near-violent tactics are often ignored or tolerated by other gay men and women and liberal straights who should know better. Here's a small taste of what some gay hate-groups are now up to. It's a list of leading individuals the authors of the website "usqueers.com" want to see dead. The headline: "Wanted: To Experience A Horrible Death By Any Means Soon. Well-Known Het-Supremacists Deserve It As Their Reward." Notice the phrase 'By Any Means." Are these people condoning murder? There then follows this statement:

"If a person on this list dies (preferably a horrible death), a line will be drawn through their name (and they will probably be added to our Good Riddance! list.) If a person on this list is merely wounded or debilitated in some way, we will change the color of their name to brown. NOTE: We're just getting started on this list, but the type of information we will be listing here as it comes in includes anything such as Home Address, Home Phone, Office Address, Office Phone, Studio Address, Church Address, Girlfriend's Address, Boyfriend's Address, Favorite Hangouts (restaurants, etc.), Family Members, details about automobiles, just about anything which could be useful in spotting these dangerous het supremacists when they are wandering around loose. Organization information is also helpful, but mainly when it can be linked to specific het supremacists."

They add a disingenuous disclaimer disavowing violence - but these are the very people who seize on even the slightest homophobic remark to argue that it leads to gay-bashing. Notice also their complete contempt for anyone's privacy or personal dignity - a good indicator of a totalitarian mindset. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for their free speech. And I'm no fan of many of the individuals they oppose. But this kind of extremist, personal rhetoric is simply disgusting. It's equivalent to the hate-filled pro-lifers who discredit their cause by advocating the murder of abortionists. I don't know where these people get their hatred from, but it is as real and as dangerous as any of the right-wing hate groups who also deserve censure. These people do as much damage to the cause of gay equality and civility as anyone on the far right. It's time we stopped ignoring their evil.

- 7:05:12 PM Monday, November 26, 2001


MONKEY-FISHING?: James Taranto of OpinionJournal.com thinks I've been snookered by a site, usQueers.com, that's supposed to be a parody. And USQueers.com does have its fair share of campy excess. But James is wrong. The site I'm worried about is serious, extensive, and the owner of it is real. He's one Allan Ross, who told CNSNews.com that he was indeed unironic: "In a phone interview, Ross said he stands behind the content of his web site. But he added: 'It's certainly open to legal change if somebody points out that you're crossing the line here and legally you're saying, go out and do this, because we don't want anybody to go out and do this. The whole idea here was to say that they deserve to die for what they've done. I'm not standing behind calling for the death or murder or anything like that of anybody on this list at all. Or anybody listed on our web site. We do not call to murder anybody or hurt them or even touch them,' Ross said." So why then, one wonders, is the early and horrible death of named individuals called for on the site "by any means"? Then see what you make of this. Earlier this year, the following incident occurred at First Southern Baptist Church in San Diego. One Allan Ross had to be subdued by San Diego police for attacking a Baptist minister, David Powell. According to the Baptist News, "Powell said Ross initially asked to speak with the pastor ... Powell agreed to contact [Pastor] Lewis from the church office in the adjacent main building. As they were walking toward the office, Powell recounted that Ross revealed a jagged bottom of a glass bottle. 'I will hurt you if I have to,' Powell quoted Ross as saying. Powell said Ross also threatened to cut the artery in his neck and take his own life." According to the Baptist Press, Ross then took Powell hostage until he called the media, wanting to broadcast an anti-Baptist message. Ross was eventually overpowered by police. This article from the Catholic World News identifies this criminal with the same Allan Ross of the usQueers.com site. And on the site itself is this statement: "B. Allan Ross, was arrested for three felony violations he allegedly committed at the First Southern Baptist Church of San Diego, including the two most likely to be pursued in court - kidnapping and holding the church's janitor hostage."


LAVENDAR FASCISM: So am I over-reacting? Sure, Ross represents a minuscule portion of gay culture. Sure, his site is fringe and obscure. And sure, Ross may well be a bit unhinged. But none of this makes his specific threats against named individuals any less real. In fact, it makes them more real. I guess it's having been subjected to death-threats from far left gay activists myself that makes me realize these people are for real. (Last summer, a legit gay website, Datalounge.com, having fomented a vicious witch-hunt against me last spring, broadcast a specific threat to have my own "skull cracked open" in Provincetown. It took a week to get the owners to take the threat off the site, and they refused to apologize. They still won't disown the death-threat.) The truth is these extremists are not parodists. And they're not monkey-fishers. They're dangerous cranks, who get a pass from the liberal gay establishment, so long as they keep terrorizing straights or non-p.c. gays. Again, I support their right to free speech. I don't believe their site should be censored or shut down. But they are the gay equivalent of the anti-abortion murderers and the Klan. It's time we said so - don't you think, Mr Taranto? Or do we have to wait for the unthinkable to happen before we speak up?
- 11:40:44 PM, Tuesday November 27, 2001


MORE GAY EXTREMISM: James Taranto conceded yesterday he'd been too hasty in dismissing my worry about usQueers.com. In fact, the problem of some gay extremists violating basic norms of propriety in civil discourse is finally getting some attention. Two such activists were arrested today in San Francisco for "allegedly stalking and threatening newspaper reporters and Public Health Department workers." I feel bad because one of them, Michael Petrelis, has done good work in the past, but appears to have gone completely off the edge in the past couple of months. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "Newspaper employees said the men made dozens of obscene and threatening phone calls earlier this month to their homes and at work. A bomb threat also was made to the San Francisco Chronicle's offices." This isn't new. Until you've been targeted by these extremists, you don't know how vicious they can be: phone calls at all hours of the day and night, threats of violence, intimidating relatives and ex-boyfriends. They have no sense of decency. ACT-UP did many good things, but it also tolerated and fomented a fascistic approach to civil politics that has metastasized since. I'm glad this has come to a head. And I hope the mainstream gay groups like the Human Rights Campaign will finally denounce the tactics of violating privacy, threatening violence and general puerility that sadly infects much gay extreme left activism. So far, such mainstream groups have simply been silent or craven, terrified that they might be next on the list. It's time for them to speak up in defense of privacy, decency and civility in the gay rights movement, and condemn thuggery in all its forms.
- 12:57:11 AM Thursay November 29, 2001

THREE CHEERS FOR HRC: The Human Rights Campaign, the country's biggest gay rights group, condemned the usQueers.com site today. Congrats to them. Here's the quote: "'Calling for the death of people is reprehensible and in no way, shape or form should be condoned by anybody,' David Smith, an HRC spokesman, said after viewing the contents of usQueers.com. 'These types of sites, on either side of any debate, should be condemned in the strongest possible way,' Smith said." Amen, David. And thanks.
- 12:04:25 PM Thursday November 29, 2001


GAY FASCISM WATCH: "'We're watching you,' said one [activist] voicemail message saved by Jeff Sheehy, a press officer for the AIDS Research Institute at UC San Francisco. 'Your name is on the list of enemies of the homosexual community. We're out here on the streets and we're going to make sure that you don't open your mouth again to demonize us.' 'I don't know what to do,' Sheehy said. 'I'm afraid to go to work.'" - from the Los Angeles Times today.
- 6:47:31 PM Thursday November 29, 2001

Let's see "insightful", that would be a profound or well considered expression. I think that Abraham Lincoln shouldn't have wasted all that verbage at Gettysburg. He could have just screamed out "Way to fucking Go!!!", and learned the economy of expression which can be heard at a frat boy's porno party.

I see another posts with some well-articulated, perfectly valid points who was labeled as a "troll".

As for all those who would encourage Africa to do the same as Brazil, why don't you read up on how the South African government has refused to distribute the drugs they were GIVEN by American Pharmaceutical companies who were intimidated by the international version of white guilt. You can find out all about it at www.andrewsullivan.com

This is bad for R&D. Opposing it merely because it is patented and you think some patents are stupid is just criminal ignorance. Michael seems to be a communist with the political sophistication of a 5 year old in Sunday school who knows that Jesus loves him because the bible told him so. As to what crack these other would-be Chairman Mao's are smoking, Please try some smack, it will kill you quicker.

Guess what people: AIDS is not spread by a lack of federal funding. It is spread by fucking and shooting up. The African president who decreed that his people stop fucking is not totally wrong, except in his expectation that his ignorant populace will actually listen to him.

How exactly does this translate into value for the end user of such a network of affiliated sites? I'm not trying to be contrary, I just don't think I understand what meaningful advantages are derived at the end-user perspective? Convenience of some sort?

The one area where I something like this at work in my own day-to-day, to my displeasure, is in the Amazon Tip-Jar system.

I don't like going to Andrew Sullivan's site or Modern Humorist's site and seeing, at the top of the page, "Hi there, Smirkleton (insert my real name here)". It bugs me to see my identity is immediately known to these sites by-way-of their using Amazon's TipJar system.

I understand how it benefits affiliated sites, but not how it benefits end-users. Anyone got any insights here?

Here's the scoop, beetsie.

It is called a merchant account.

These individuals could get their own merchant accounts from a PROVIDER and use open-source ecommerce software to automatically receive and process their own credit card payments. Paying only standard card commission fees. What if they don't own their own hardware, bandwidth, staff and capital pixies?If they didn't have their own server, they could use someone virtual server outfit with merchant services support built in, there are hundreds out there, including one from Yahoo Store.

My criticism isn't of the struggling content provider. I recognize their plights. You can bet that what Amazon current charges 15% for, someone else is going to offer for a lot less, and steal away whatever business Amazon does have by telling the various content players that they will process online donations for a fraction of the 15% that Amazon charges. Leaving Amazon yet again to search for a model that makes actual fiscal sense, before they run out of money.

My own business ran credit cards inhouse on a $900 PC running IC Verify with a dialup account ($19.95/a month). It could be run on a $400 PC today.

Amazon has made enough in commissions on Andrew Sullivan alone to pay for that PC and software and the dialup account. for a year. So the rest is gravy.

Amazon, for those who don't know, has offered to function like a crooked church elder, passing the offering plate around for various content sites like Andrew Sullivan's, ModernHumorist and other content sites. If you want to make a credit card based donation to these sites, you can do so using Amazon's "Tip Jar" system.

Why is it a scam, why are they crooked for doing so?

Amazon charges a 15% fee to give YOUR MONEY to a site you want to support financially. So while passing the plate around to the Internet community, they are taking 15% of your offerings as a fee. In the spirit of, uh, supporting independent content sites? Sorry, that is much too high a fee to be anything but a scam.

If you want to support these sites, like Andrew Sullivan or Modern Humorist, do yourself a favor and mail them a check or money order. Don't enrich Amazon and some credit card companies in the process of supporting content you enjoy, it just ain't right.

Amazon.com- The Relentless Pursuit of a Business Model.