Fortunately, I had finished my lunch when I came across this Seattle Times headline, which says that I should be eradicated.
Eradicate those who have put us in the Middle East
The headline was for a letter from a reader, Mark Lemmon. The last paragraph, which apparently inspired the headline, reads as follows:
Yes, we Americans have our own problems: We need to weed out these neocons and their globalist conspirators! It's wake-up time because the alternative is World War III.
For the benefit of the Seattle Times, I'll give the dictionary definition of eradicate from my American Heritage dictionary:
1. To tear up by the roots. 2. To get rid of as if by tearing up by the roots.
The Wicktionary definition has a similar first meaning, and an even harsher second meaning:
2. To completely destroy; to put an end to; to extirpate.
Luckily, as I said, I had finished lunch, so reading the letter didn't ruin my appetite. But it did put me off a little to learn that Mark Lemmon, whom I have, to the best of my knowledge, never even met, wants me weeded out and, perhaps, eradicated.
Some might think that the examples of those who followed eradication policies during the 20th century — most notably Stalin, Hitler, and Mao — had discredited those policies, but apparently not. (By the way, Mao was especially fond of comparing his opponents to weeds, who deserved to be eradicated.)
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(It is not entirely clear to me just what Lemmon means by "neocon". In this area, perhaps the simplest definition is that neoconservatives are followers of Henry M. Jackson, followers who left the Democratic party, when it moved to the left in foreign policy. Since Senator Jackson was very popular in this state, Lemmon wishes to "weed out" many of his neighbors. And the Seattle Times published a headline advocating the eradication of many of its readers. Both seem impractical, as well as immoral.)
Update: I sent a polite email to the editorial page editor, Jim Vesely, suggesting that he apologize for printing that letter, with that headline. Here's his complete reply:
No thanks, I'll stick with our earlier decision and with the headline, the dictionaries agree with our use of the words.
In a day or two, I may do a post comparing the rhetoric in the letter and in the headline to that used by some famous dictators.
Posted by Jim Miller at July 26, 2006 01:38 PM | Email ThisLet's eradicate liberal intolerance - hmmm.
Posted by: Jeffro on July 26, 2006 01:50 PMThat's fair and balanced opinion publication, I suppose--or is it a mere token gesture by the Times?
Posted by: pseudotsuga on July 26, 2006 03:07 PMStart DOING something about it, Mark, and I'll pay attention. In the meantime, keep pounding your keyboard tough guy.
Posted by: jimg on July 26, 2006 03:23 PMDiplomacy is reserved for rational men. We cannot expect to reach a diplomatic agreement with those who have expressly vowed to kill us. It makes no sense to negotiate when one side views the preferable outcome to be the eradication of the other. And thus, Mark Lemmon shows his true colors as ideologically aligned with the terrorists.
This is why humans have the concept of war. There are two moral imperatives for war. That it be quick and that it be decisive. In today's world, there is a false notion that war can be a measured affair. A notion that war is an absolute last resort, and that a defensive response can only be mounted after some extreme event forces one side to finally admit that it is at war with the other. This sense ignores the moral imperatives of war stated above, and it unnecessarily prolongs war and increases the human toll.
The proper and moral way for Israel to address those who believe she has no right to exist is to vigorously defend herself. And not just to the point of repelling the immediate agression, but to the point of breaking the will of the enemy such that it no longer considers eradication of Israel an end goal, or even a possibility. And, Israel must do so expediently. The sooner Israel develops the moral certitude to follow through with her fight, the sooner the conflict will finally reach a conclusion.
Those of us in the US would do well to study our own history and to support Israel with our own moral certitude. A good place to start is to read about General Sherman and how he broke the will of the south in the Civil War. Hint: he did not do it through diplomacy, as any Atlanta learned the hard way.
As Israel experiences today, we experience tomorrow. It's in our best interest to learn these lessons before we are faced with similar attacks on our own soil.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 26, 2006 03:44 PMhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205525,00.html
Posted by: TrueSoldier on July 26, 2006 04:20 PMThen I say "Molan Labe, Mofo" and they suddenly remember that they have somewhere else to be.
Thank God for the servicemen & women who fight to keep us safe! Pray that we never fall prey to liberals who would sell us down the river for a moments personal gratification (remember slick?).
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 26, 2006 06:06 PMOh, by the way - Mark the Islamofascists want to kill you, unless you submit to Islam and pray to Allah five times/day.
Posted by: KS on July 26, 2006 09:09 PMFirst They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemoller
Posted by: john425 on July 27, 2006 08:04 AMThe editor at the Seattle Times is the villain here.
Posted by: noah on July 29, 2006 07:47 AMOur military and economic dominance in WW4 is enormous. But we lag terribly in the propaganda and information facets, by our own fault.
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot on July 29, 2006 09:10 AMI've written a three-part post that documents many cases of liberal intolerance, and the methodology and psychology of the liberal left that explains their soft bigotry of low expectations and their hatred of any socio-political dissent. You can access it by clicking on my Name/URL below:
Do you have to be nuts to be a terrorist? Frankly, I think the answer to that is "duh."
On the other hand, if there are policies and statements from people closely assoiciated with the current administration that would lead a moderately unstable person to belive that there might be a conspiracy against those sharing his religion, it might just happen that a few might be nutty enough to do something appallingly stupid.
It's even more likely if there happens to be a dead cousin, brother, sister or nephew involved - and the odds of that exact thing happening increase with every instance of "collateral damage."
And yes, I do blame neo-con philosophy in part, for it's hopeless naievte' and it's belief that trying to dicksize the entire world could possibly have a GOOD outcome. I'm also bemused that anyone thinks - especially the "good christians" amoung the warhawks - that their views and expressed distain for "jihadists" and "ragheads" would be ignored by the US islamic community.
As freakin' if.
And yes, McVeigh is an example of what happens when good christian jehadists get their panties in a knot.
The best way to deal with terrorism is to not stampede the foolish. That means not adding to the general level of terror to start with.
At this point in time, if you are dusky of hue, islamic by persuasion or heritage and have even a rational level of paranoia - you probably do think that the US is out to get you, and given all the current events in the news, it might not be entirely unreasonable to assume the US is the proxy of Israel.
I mean, were you an unsophisticated person with no deep appreciation for the nuances of realpolitic.
Like 99.9% of the people of the world. And while I consider myself a partial exception, that would change if my house blew up or a relative disappeared into Gitmo or Abu Grabass.
So stop spinning and whining, fingerpointing and blaming 'liberals' for this situation, or for charactorizing it as being your fault. If you identify as neocon, it is, in part. This situation is the result of sheer, childish hubris, and while liberals are as suceptable to that as anyone, they didn't have a say in it.
The extreme right-wing spent twenty years or more maneuvering, gladhanding, misrepresenting, lying, cheating, bribing and sleazing their way into power. Oh, Newt would put it differently, I'm sure, but he wouldnt argue that there was a Plan.
Well, it worked. Congraulations. Here you are. Y'all were DELIGHTED to finally be in the situation to cure all the ills that decend from tenderhearted liberal concerns about coddling the undersrving and refraining from "firm and direct responses."
So, how's that been working out for you so far?
IT would be working even better if not for cowardly, head~in~the~sand (if not up their arses) pieces of shiite liberals like you working so hard to sell out our country.
And no McVeigh was not an "example of what happens when good christian (sic) jehadists (sic) get their panties in a knot". McVeigh wasn't even a practicing Christian, much less one working within an organized group with a pre-existing agenda.
Whatta (sic) dumbass!
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 29, 2006 10:20 AMI love it when a "liberal" tries to argue that you can't trust the government and then parrots the "official line" about OKC.
Wake me up when he gets to the part about John Doe #2.
That Oklahoma FBI. What a laugh riot. Next, Bob, you'll be telling me that Joel Hinrichs was just depressed and his bomb packed with shrapnel was meant only for him... because that's what the government said!
Posted by: w3 on July 29, 2006 12:11 PMHow does it feel to know that the tide might be turning and the rhetoric of yesterday is coming back to haunt you today?
If you find that question a little disturbing, how do you feel about the idea of a Democratically controlled congress starting up a series of investigations into this lunacy we have been experiencing for the last five years? How about the excitement of having a Democrat elected President in 2008 who will have all the powers this administration subverted for the executive branch? I'm guessing you are hoping those liberals will be tolerant. Maybe, just maybe, we have learned something significant from you all.
How's your appetite now?
Posted by: Ken on July 29, 2006 02:08 PMPart of it comes from the satisfaction found in the secure knowledge that the Dhimmicrat party has so fractured itself, has so radicalized itself, that I will likely never see another one elected to POTUS in my lifetime.
Rhetoric is rhetoric. BS is BS. BFD. Both parties indulge in each from time to time. What matters is when the rubber meets the road. In the WOT the Dhimmicrats are AWOL (which is fine because I hate to see so many weasels with crappy-pants scurrying around!).
BTW: How do you torture the recent events into a tide turning against anyone except appeasers and apologists like you?
Are you new...or just really really dense?!
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 29, 2006 02:23 PMPity you guys turned out to be a bunch of pusillanimous ninnies.
Oh yes, the tide will turn. I was in a Southern Evangelican mega-church last Sunday--the message? "Are you tired of being told to hate your neighbor?"
There he was, on the enormous screen, telling 50,000 worshippers (who vote) that he was tired of being pandered to by the corrupt.
How secure is your knowledge now?
Chesley Dean Patrick
Posted by: Bilge Prophet on July 29, 2006 02:32 PMPerhaps you've noticed that Republicans are leaving your party in droves even though it isn't the numbers that are all that significant, it is knowing that this administration has only won the last two elections by the slimmest or margins and a desertion rate of perhaps 1/2 of one percent will send you all down the tubes.
Speaking of dense, how about telling us how this war in Iraq will only cost us a maximum of a billion and a half? I love that one. Did you forget the line "They will welcome us as liberators with flowers and candy" when you were watching the "weasels with crappy-pants scurrying around" or something?
I will agree with you that both parties have their share of outright lunatics and for the life of me how John Kerry was ever picked to run against George Bush I will never understand. I believe we can both agree that this last election was more of a "Hollywood Squares" election with people taking one or another candidate (almost evenly divided) to block the other.
Is this the best we can do? Has America really turned into a group of weasels with crappy-pants scurrying around? I guess we'll just have to wait until November to find out, won't we? After the choices are, we can stay the same (great plan!) or try anything else.
I'll go with the latter.
Thanks you for the intelligent and well articulated discourse.
And, yes, I am new here - thanks for asking.
Posted by: Ken on July 29, 2006 02:37 PMWelcome to the real world. Pull up your big-boy pants and join it! If you can't keep up, I would suggest that you not try to set the tone only to complain later.
Show me where "...Republicans are leaving your party in droves...". Dissatisfaction and squabbling in the parties is normal and outside the election cycle totally expected. We'll see how it shakes out in November.
As to your other crap, it shows that you can drink the liberal kool-aid, but nothing beyond that (other than a complete lack of originallity ;'}
"Has America really turned into a group of weasels with crappy-pants scurrying around?" No, America hasn't, but Dhimmicrats certainly have!
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 29, 2006 04:06 PM"Gosh golly ken, you are new!" Oh, you're a smart one, I can tell already.
Then AS said,
"You are welcome...oh wait...you're trying to be sarcastic! Nice attempt there!" Very AStute of you. :-)
Following up on that last witticism AS said,
"Welcome to the real world." This is the real world - Wow, it's not muck like what was advertised but you all never were into "Truth in Advertising" were you?
"Pull up your big-boy pants and join it!" Why, thank you, I don't mind if I do.
"If you can't keep up, I would suggest that you not try to set the tone only to complain later." Well there's a challenge, but judging from the fact you ignored every point about Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh that I brought up I don't foresee too much difficulty. Surprise me, though, will you?
Show me where "...Republicans are leaving your party in droves...".
Absolutely! Please pardon the links to the Godless Liberal Media, but let's see...
Web traffic down for Drudge, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. but that's probably just more lies, right?
And nothing says party loyalty like making sure you don't publicly mention the Republican Party name, right?
Of course, you specifically asked about Republicans abandoning their party in droves, right? MSM to the rescue - again.
Perhaps, if you didn't get your news from a company that admitted in court that they had no obligation to tell the truth because they provide entertainment. No worries there, right?
"Dissatisfaction and squabbling in the parties is normal and outside the election cycle totally expected. We'll see how it shakes out in November." This, we can agree on. And to be quite frank with you I think the Republicans just might retain control of both house of Congress - but it will be a narrower margin and many will shift back toward the center. I could be wrong though.
"As to your other crap, it shows that you can drink the liberal kool-aid, but nothing beyond that (other than a complete lack of originallity ;'}"
Let me see if I understand you. My originality is being criticized by a child that makes up names like Dhimmicrats? What do you really think anyone respects that level of discourse? You are kidding right? RIGHT?
Has America really turned into a group of weasels with crappy-pants scurrying around? No, America hasn't, but Dhimmicrats certainly have!"
If you are trying to tell us we have you to save us we are all in a pile of bullhockey and I would bet if we caught you in an honest moment (rare, I know but still possible) you'd be the first one to admit it too!
By the way, when can we expect that Iraq plan that was so skillfully executed to start turning the corner? We've turned so many corners I feel like this is a NASCAR race.
Oh, and have a marginally tepid day. :-)
Posted by: Ken on July 29, 2006 05:41 PM"No thanks, I'll stick with our earlier decision and with the headline, the dictionaries agree with our use of the words." -- Editor at the Seattle Times, as cited by Jim Miller
Seems like the Seattle Times is 'all for' genocide, if I'm reading your blog entry properly.
Interesting. I guess there is genocide and then there is justifiable eradication.
Jim Veseley sounds like a reincarnation of Herman Goebbels. Either that or he graduated suma cum lauda at the Goebbels School of Journalism.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Posted by: Chuck Pelto on July 29, 2006 06:02 PM"Dhimmicrats" -- Ken
I LIKE it! Veeeery cle[a]ver.
Thanks,
Chuck(le)
Posted by: Chuck Pelto on July 29, 2006 06:21 PMken, you dumba$$, you failed miserably at your feeble attempt to prove your assertion about "...Republicans are leaving your party in droves..." (no surprise there) so you wisely changed subjects to what you hoped would me more fertile ground. Alas, you crash & burn again!
"If you are trying to tell us we have you to save us we are all in a pile of bullhockey and I would bet if we caught you in an honest moment (rare, I know but still possible) you'd be the first one to admit it too!"
No kenny-boy. Truth is I wouldn't cross the street to p!ss on you if you were on fire. Quite to the contrary, I look forward to seeing simpering idiots like you reap the rewards you so richly deserve. How's that for truth?
Plain fact is, you were best served to quit at your answer that yes, you're new (a rather obvious acknowledgement of #2 as well as #1).
Thanks for the chuckle...
"No kenny-boy, it's not muck (sic) like what was advertised (in your mind). It's muck muck worse."
OH NOES! I had a spelling mistake - like I couldn't find any errors - grammatical or otherwise in your beautifully written prose.
"ken, you dumba$$, you failed miserably at your feeble attempt to prove your assertion about "...Republicans are leaving your party in droves..." (no surprise there) so you wisely changed subjects to what you hoped would me more fertile ground. Alas, you crash & burn again!"
You should keep believing that. In fact, I would like you to consider something I know will be near and ear to your heart - Faith Based Voting. In an effort to prove to us liberals that God is on your I understand the conservative movement (strange you spend, spend, spend, bigger government and more government intrusion in Americans lives would try to call yourself "Conservatives") have decided to stay home on election day and vote by prayer. I look forward to being thoroughly rebuked at the polls by this method and also know that, as God is my witness, I will never have to think about politics in the same manner again.
"No kenny-boy. Truth is I wouldn't cross the street to p!ss on you if you were on fire. Quite to the contrary, I look forward to seeing simpering idiots like you reap the rewards you so richly deserve. How's that for truth?"
I love truth. Absolutely! By the way, I wouldn't ask you to cross the street to do anything for me, I tend to believe in Personal Responsibility - something I would have to guess is a foreign concept to you. And I also look forward to "seeing simpering idiots like you reap the rewards you so richly deserve" even though Mr. Lemmon seems to think we should weed you all out, you interpret that to mean eradicate I think we should hold you up to the world in all your shining glory and let you stand on your own two feet for once. That should be funny.
By the way, equating "weed out' to "eradicate" (to someone who actually understands the English language) is comparable to using word "incinerating someone" when what you were trying to say was that the boss was "firing someone" but don't let your grasp of those big words we elite educated liberals use scare you off. After all, nothing says qualified like a third grade education and the command of our native language to match, right ASS?
"Plain fact is, you were best served to quit at your answer that yes, you're new (a rather obvious acknowledgement[sic] of #2 as well as #1)."
Hey, thanks for the advice! Of course, my parents (Good Reagan Conservatives, the both of them) always taught me to not take advice from strangers and that the best people to get advice from were the once I had respect for. You are a stranger (and seem exponentially stranger with every post) and I certainly do not respect you - you are a hateful, blithering idiot with no real expectation of ever improving.
On the good side, with the way technology is increasing at an ever-increasing rate, you will be virtually worthless and begging us liberals to up your welfare benefits so you can eat in a few years. Maybe then we can decide that the welfare experiment was a failure and delegate you to those faith based charities I am sure you believe so much in answering the needs of the poor.
"Thanks for the chuckle..."
Wish I could say the same but kindergarten humor is so boring. I'll bet you get that a lot from your friends. Ah, who am I kidding, you have no friends, just people that agree with you to your face and snicker as they stab you behind the back.
Here's a little something for you to ponder over.
I remember when Richard Nixon won the Presidential Election way back when. There were the NIXON - Now More Than Ever bumper stickers plastered all over the back bumpers of his supporters' cars.
Strangely, I couldn't find very many of them in 1975, I wonder why? Could it be that this is the same reason that the very same thing is happening to all those Bush/Cheney bumper stickers that are now rarer than a William F. Buckley conservative at a Republican rally?
Everything comes in cycles there Sparky, the hippies came and went, the Reagan conservatives came and went and now it is your turn.
Bye Bye.
Posted by: Ken on July 30, 2006 04:55 AMYour "Web traffic decreasing" alarm is a press release, dear, not a news report. Press releases will say whatever the author wants it to say. In this case, your press release comes from a group promoting two websites: a politics site and a data mining site.
Now, I went to alexa myself to see about this trend you think is occurring in 'right wing' media versus the 'left wing' and I have some bad news for you. I had an idea that maybe there was some spin involved, but I did not think this press release had provable lies in it. I was wrong.
The press release says that traffic at moveon.org "is up 13 percent in the same period [as foxnews.com shows a decline of 13 percent]." Ehhhh no, not really. http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=3m&size=medium&compare_sites=&y=r&url=moveon.org#top
Acutally, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, moveon is looking at something close to a 50% decline.
Fox news for the same period? Comparatively steady: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=foxnews.com
Townhall? Very steady. They have almost the same traffic they had 6 months ago:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=townhall.com
Now I don't want to worry you, Ken, but you ought to take a little gander at this graph, since we're being all factual. DailyKos is in big trouble, and you're the one that says traffic to political sites spells big trouble for the wing they claim to be under:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=dailykos.com
Ouch!
50% decline in 6 months? Wait a minute. Is that another liberal site that has seen a 50% decline in 6 months? Goodness me.
Now to address Drudge. Drudge is a news site, not a right wing politics site. Additionally, Drudge rarely provides commentary. Sometimes he will break stories ahead of the cycle, but mostly he acts as an aggregator or portal. Well I don't know if you've noticed, but over the last year, Drudge has started to get competition. Plus, I don't know why he'd be considered "right wing." Just because he broke the Monica story? Sheesh. If you insist on lumping him with the conservatives, he's like in the top 100 sites, though. Who's the Drudge of the left?
Now I could get into Fox News "entertaining" us by lying but then that would gloss over CBS Memogate and the manufacture of documents that don't exist. And I really don't want to go there because I know that whole ordeal is very embarassing for the Bush haters. I don't need a court case to tell me CBS lies to its viewers. I have this:
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12551_One_More_CBS_Document_Example
Your "abandoning GOP" story doesn't say what you claim. It's just another report on opinon polls, which, have changed since the story you posted was written.
I refute you because you're wrong and I don't want you to go into some form of BDS after November doesn't get you what you want. This is for your own good.
Oh no, it just gets worse for Ken:
Bill O'Reilly up for the year:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=1y&size=medium&compare_sites=&y=r&url=billoreilly.com#top
Ann Coulter?
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=1y&size=medium&compare_sites=&y=r&url=anncoulter.com#top
Curious Ken, which of these graphs would you say better describes the trend of readership at Huffington Post? This?
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=3m&size=medium&compare_sites=&y=r&url=huffingtonpost.com#top
Or this?
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=1y&size=medium&compare_sites=&y=r&url=huffingtonpost.com#top
Make refuting you a little more challenging next time. Thanks.
Posted by: w3 on July 30, 2006 05:41 AMIIRC the party membership of Fortuyn's murderer was never shown to be anything but ancillary to his deed, but his death was nonetheless described as a political assassination.
A former Communist and Social-Democrat (this alone probably makes ken all warm and squishy inside!) Fortuyn formed his own political party when ousted from his duties as Lijsttrekker (top party official) for his statements about islam and moslem immigrants. He was assassinated on May 6, 2002 by Volkert van der Graaf, a leftist nutburger. His crime? He decried moslems for refusing to assimilate into Dutch society. He deplored the crime that moslems brought to Holland. he advocated suspension of moslem immigration unless & until they could be persuaded to act like civilized adults.
It's interesting to note that this guy was a hard-leftist and was murdered by.....a hard-leftist! It is also notable that van der Graaf chose to shoot Fortuyn in the back - I'm sure that kenny-boy can identify with that. He received a sentence of 18 years for his crime.
I'll use wackypedia as a source so that bed-wetters like kenny-boy won't feeeeeeeeeel left out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn
"Fortuyn proposed that all people who already resided in the Netherlands would be able to stay, but he emphasized the need of the immigrants to adopt the Dutch society's consensus on human rights as their own. He said "If it were legally possible, I'd say no more Muslims will get in here", claiming that the influx of Muslims would threaten freedoms in the liberal Dutch society. He thought Muslim culture had never undergone a process of modernization and therefore still lacked acceptance of democracy and women's, gays', lesbians' and minorities' rights, and feared it would dismiss the Dutch legal system in favour of the shari'a law.
One of Fortuyn's fears was of pervasive intolerance in the Muslim community. In a televised debate in 2002, "Fortuyn baited the Muslim cleric by flaunting his homosexuality. Finally the imam exploded, denouncing Fortuyn in strongly anti-homosexual terms. Fortuyn calmly turned to the camera and, addressing viewers directly, told them that this is the kind of Trojan horse of intolerance the Dutch are inviting into their society in the name of multiculturalism".
The nation of islam is unhinged and imbeciles like ken are too stupid to realize that they are prime targets. Events in recent history including the tragic shootings in Seattle last week should be a call~to~arms to all of us. Unfortunately we conservatives are going to have to drag cowardly morons like kenny-boy out of the fire once again because they are just too damn dim to protect themselves...
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 30, 2006 10:51 AMWell, I disagree that it was intemperate [reckless] speech, but rather a conscious and deliberate effort to demonize him. And therefore those who demonized him should be regarded as complicit in his murder.
Posted by: pst314 on July 31, 2006 07:52 PM