Thursday, May 29, 2008


Let me say this straight: I don't know who Rachel Ray is, and I don't like her. I see her smiling face on cereal boxes and everywhere, those teeth are too white, eyes too shiny, those dimples are too wholesome for this boy. Sorry, it's not a political thing, she just isn't my type. Trust me, she wouldn't like me, either.

OK, I just looked her up in Wikipedia, and maybe she's okay. She said, "I'm completely unqualified for any job I've ever had." So maybe she's not so bad.

Whatever, you can imagine that when Rachel Ray appeared in a Dunkin' Donuts ad, I did not pay any attention. But apparently rightwing nut-blogger Michelle Malkin did. She decided that the scarf Ms. Ray was wearing around her shoulders looked like an Arab headdress called a kaffiyeh.

My question would be: so what? I might wear a Mexican sombrero, or Italian shoes (if I could afford them), I used to wear Indian water-buffalo sandals back in college ...

Ms. Malkin decided that the scarf meant that Miss Sunshine Dimples, Rachel Ray, and by implication the entire Dunkin' Donuts corporation, was supporting Arab terrorists.

Dunkin' Donuts pointed out that it was a paisley scarf, not an Arab headdress. Still, they ended up pulling the ad.
BOSTON (AP) — Dunkin' Donuts has pulled an online advertisement featuring Rachael Ray after complaints that a fringed black-and-white scarf that the celebrity chef wore in the ad offers symbolic support for Muslim extremism and terrorism.

The coffee and baked goods chain said the ad that began appearing online May 7 was pulled over the past weekend because "the possibility of misperception detracted from its original intention to promote our iced coffee."

In the spot, Ray holds an iced coffee while standing in front of trees with pink blossoms.

Critics, including conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, complained that the scarf wrapped around her looked like a kaffiyeh, the traditional Arab headdress. Critics who fueled online complaints about the ad in blogs say such scarves have come to symbolize Muslim extremism and terrorism.

The kaffiyeh, Malkin wrote in a column posted online last Friday, "has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad. Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant (and not-so-ignorant) fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons." Dunkin' Donuts pulls Rachael Ray ad after complaints

The reasoning is this:
  • Members of a culture that includes some bad people wear traditional clothing item X.
  • Therefore anyone wearing clothing that vaguely resembles item X is encouraging bad people.

And what does it say about Dunkin' Donuts that they didn't have the chutzpah to stand up for themselves? It couldn't be that hard to come out and say, look, it's just a scarf, and besides we paid for our airtime, we just want to sell doughnuts and coffee, leave us alone. It's just inconceivable to me that somebody would be so gutless that they would be intimidated by fools like this.

Montgomery County came under attack in just this way a couple of years ago, some nuts started accusing the school district of promoting homosexuality, encouraging kids to be promiscuous, and other stupid stuff, just as stupid as this. When we jumped into the fray, there was a real chance that the district would be hounded until they gave up their new sex-ed curriculum, just to keep the noise level down.

You can't do that, you have to stand up to them.

Skipping ...
Amahl Bishara, an anthropology lecturer at the University of Chicago who specializes in media matters relating to the Middle East, said complaints about the scarf's use in the ad demonstrate misunderstandings of Arab culture and the multiple meanings that symbols can take on depending on someone's perspective.

"I think that a right-wing blogger making an association between a kaffiyeh and terrorism is just an example of how so much of the complexity of Arab culture has been reduced to a very narrow vision of the Arab world on the part of some people in the U.S.," Bishara said in a phone interview. "Kaffiyehs are worn every day on the street by Palestinians and other people in the Middle East — by people going to work, going to school, taking care of their families, and just trying to keep warm."

There is a phenomenon here that thinking people need to identify, we need to have a straightforward way to identify it and deal with it when it comes up. In my mind, I call this "dog-packing."

It used to be, in the days before leash laws, that packs of dogs would run around the streets, knocking over garbage cans, pooping in the street, and otherwise behaving in a doglike fashion. Occasionally something would happen, and a cat or a smaller dog or a kid, especially a little kid, would somehow attract the pack's attention, and an ordinarily-peaceful pack of dogs would attack, often lethally. There are still occasional news stories of this sort of thing.

Dogs are social, and emotion is contagious. A dog by itself is unlikely to do this. The occasional pit bull will get out of hand, but generally it takes two or more of them. I don't know what triggers it, maybe one growls and the others hear that and they growl, they start showing their teeth and convincing themselves that they want to kill something, and violence erupts. I don't know how it starts or what amplifies the aggressiveness, but it can get wild and out of control.

They smell fear, or so people say -- the very worst thing their victim can do it to show that they are afraid. If you get dog-packed the only thing you can do is counterattack, even if you're bluffing -- run at them, wave your arms, yell. You can scare away a pack of dogs, but if you try to run or defend yourself they can chew you up.

Dunkin' Donuts could have turned this around. They could have seen the opportunity for free publicity, and made some public display of patriotism or whatever, auctioned off that scarf for supplies for the troops, made a joke out of it. I really wish they had. Instead they tucked tail and took a whoopin'.

Nobody really thought Dunkin' Donuts or the Lovely Miss Dimples Rachel Ray was pro-terrorist, any more than a pack of dogs thinks that the cat they're killing is going to be good to eat. There is no sense to this kind of thing, nothing is better because of this. There are real problems in the world, and people have to salivate and go into a frenzy over the fact that a scarf on a doughnut ad is going to encourage terrorists.

In our county, we have learned this lesson. You don't turn and run from these nuts when they try to make something out of nothing. They were making insane allegations about the school district, now they're making even more insane allegations about the new antidiscrimination law, saying it means that pedophiles and perverts will be hanging around in the ladies rooms of our county. You can't let them do it, you can't let them get you on the defensive, you have to run at them, wave your arms, yell.


Anonymous ROFL said...

You know, it's funny.

Virtually every story that comes out reminds Jim of his very valiant struggle to make sure all high school students know as much as possible about every variation of sexual activity.

You'd almost say the guy was obsessed!

May 29, 2008 10:56 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Right. Jim is just so obsessed. And Michelle Malkin deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

May 29, 2008 11:06 PM  
Anonymous ROFL said...

Well, for what it's worth, I like the scarf.

I also like Rachel Ray. She's a lot of fun. I've watched her show where she goes to different cities and tries to eat for some budgeted amount.

I've heard they discovered her demonstrating kitchen products at a department store in Chicago.

Ain't that America just sumpthin' to see!

May 29, 2008 11:37 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

I heard about this from my 18-year-old...she is a huge fan of Rachel Ray. She asked how anyone could think that RR was shilling for terrorists. It reminded me of a comment that my 14-year-old made in the car on the way back to Fort Collins from Severance. I asked everyone in the car the question: who is happier, LIBERALS or CONSERVATIVES, and why?

My wife chimed in that she thought that conservatives are happier because they are not always doom and gloom, the sky is falling sort. My 18-year-old daughter countered that liberals are more in touch with what is going on around them, and that is why they are happier (and her fiance, an easygoing sort of guy agreed). And then my 4.0 GPA average, 9th grade, 14-year-old daughter chimed in that since there are fun "suckers" in both camps, a liberal or a conservative are equally happy or unhappy, it just depends on them. Hummm, I thought...where am I in this, and I was going to say something...and then my 9th grader asked me why we had to discuss this - I said I was curious what other people think and why. Nay, that could not be me...after all I am conservative, and my motto is suppose to be "ignorance is bliss".

You know, now that I think about I am inclined to agree that a liberal or a conservative are just as likely to be as happy as the other. I just left a cushy, do nothing job for a job where I work my tail off, make 40% less, have no vacation/sick time and I get no paid holidays. Wow, and I am happier than I have been in a long, long time at work...I still cannot get over my happiness.

To be perfectly honest, I am not sure how much good it does trying to show that conservatives are happier than liberals...does it make this world a better place?

Oh, and btw, I can't stand Rachel Ray...I find her annoying, and I agree with Travel Channel personality Anthony Bourdain, who called her a "bubblehead".

May 30, 2008 1:05 AM  
Blogger David S. Fishback said...

Jim correctly observes that the Rachel Ray/Dunkin Donuts story is emblemmatic of a problem we face. And his take on the problem is very inciteful. Thanks, again, for bringing focus to "the news."

May 30, 2008 6:33 AM  
Anonymous ROFL said...

Oh yeah, thanks alot, Jim. Where else could we find out that people who don't like Rachel Ray's clothes are the exact same people who believe that educators should exercise responsibility about how they teach on subjects that have implications for social mores.

Rachel Ray was serving as a commercial spokesman. Image is key. If some didn't like the image she was presenting and complained and her employers, who are perfectly free to act as they wish, decided she wasn't the right image, based on the complaints, so what? Nothing to be outraged about. No applicability to governmental action.

May 30, 2008 7:46 AM  
Anonymous kraut-hammer hits the nail said...

I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I'm a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can't be very good to pump lots of CO2into the atmosphere but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats.

Predictions of catastrophe depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems -- from ocean currents to cloud formation -- that no one fully understands. Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing. The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative.

Yet on the basis of this speculation, environmental activists, attended by compliant scientists and opportunistic politicians, are advocating radical economic and social regulation. "The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity," warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, "is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."

If you doubt the arrogance, you haven't seen that Newsweek cover story that declared the global warming debate over. Consider: If Newton's laws of motion could, after 200 years of unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation, be overthrown, it requires religious fervor to believe that global warming -- infinitely more untested, complex and speculative -- is a closed issue.

But declaring it closed has its rewards. It not only dismisses skeptics as the running dogs of reaction, i.e., of Exxon, Cheney and now Klaus. By fiat, it also hugely re-empowers the intellectual left.

For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class -- social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts and their left-wing political allies -- arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism).

Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher's England to Deng's China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history.

Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but -- even better -- in the name of Earth itself.

Environmentalists are Gaia's priests, instructing us in her proper service and casting out those who refuse to genuflect. (See Newsweek above.) And having proclaimed the ultimate commandment -- carbon chastity -- they are preparing the supporting canonical legislation that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat.

Only Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe.

There's no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.

So what does the global warming agnostic propose as an alternative? First, more research -- untainted and reliable -- to determine (a) whether the carbon footprint of man is or is not lost among the massive natural forces (from sunspot activity to ocean currents) that affect climate, and (b) if the human effect is indeed significant, whether the planetary climate system has the homeostatic mechanisms (like the feedback loops in the human body, for example) with which to compensate.

Second, reduce our carbon footprint in the interim by doing the doable, rather than the economically ruinous and socially destructive. The most obvious step is a major move to nuclear power, which to the atmosphere is the cleanest of the clean.

But your would-be masters have foreseen this contingency. The Church of the Environment promulgates secondary dogmas as well. One of these is a strict nuclear taboo.

Rather convenient, is it not? Take this major coal-substituting fix off the table, and we will be rationing all the more. Guess who does the rationing.

May 30, 2008 7:59 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Now we have Charlie Krauthammer blogging here as well?

How "inciteful" of him!

Orin, if you';re in Ft. Collins, I just spoke with Betsy Markey who is opposing the lunatic Marilyn Musgrave this fall. You'll finally be able to exit the Bush era in your own locality along with the rest of us.

May 30, 2008 8:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

White House issues climate report 4 years late

The Associated Press
Thursday, May 29, 2008; 3:07 PM

WASHINGTON -- Under a court order and four years late, the White House Thursday produced what it called a science-based "one-stop shop" of specific threats to the United States from man-made global warming.

While the report has no new science in it, it pulls together different U.S. studies and localizes international reports into one comprehensive document required by law. The 271-page report is notable because it is something the Bush administration has fought in the past.

Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist who was not involved in the effort, called it "a litany of bad news in store for the U.S."

And biologist Thomas Lovejoy, one of the scientists who reviewed the report for the federal government, said: "It basically says the America we've known we can no longer count on. It's a pretty dramatic picture of all kinds of change rippling through natural systems across the country. And all of that has implications for people."

White House associate science director Sharon Hays, in a teleconference with reporters, declined to characterize the findings as bad, but said it is an issue the administration takes seriously. She said the report was comprehensive and "communicates what the scientists are telling us."

That includes:

_ Increased heat deaths and deaths from climate-worsened smog. In Los Angeles alone yearly heat fatalities could increase by more than 1,000 by 2080, and the Midwest and Northeast are most vulnerable to increased heat deaths.

_ Worsening water shortages for agriculture and urban users. From California to New York, lack of water will be an issue.

_ A need for billions of dollars in more power plants (one major cause of global warming gases) to cool a hotter country. The report says summer cooling will mean Seattle's energy consumption would increase by 146 percent with the warming that could come by the end of the century.

_ More death and damage from wildfires, hurricanes and other natural disasters and extreme weather. In the last three decades, wildfire season in the West has increased by 78 days.

_ Increased insect infestations and food- and waterborne microbes and diseases. Insect and pathogen outbreaks to the forests are causing $1.5 billion in annual losses.

"Finally, climate change is very likely to accentuate the disparities already evident in the American health care system," the report said. "Many of the expected health effects are likely to fall disproportionately on the poor, the elderly, the disabled and the uninsured."

The report was required by a 1990 law which says that every four years the government must produce a comprehensive science assessment of global warming. It had not been done since 2000.

Environmental groups got a court order last summer to force the Bush administration to produce the document by the end of this month. Hays said the White House has preferred issuing studies on individual global warming issues, such as an agricultural effects report that was released on Tuesday.

"It's totally begrudging," said Rick Piltz, director of Climate Science Watch at the nonprofit Government Accountability Project, a whistleblowers' organization. "It's important the government go on record honestly acknowledging this stuff."

The May 2008 White House Report "Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States"

May 30, 2008 9:47 AM  
Anonymous anti-rayism gets the big mo said...

October 11, 2007 -- RACHAEL Ray is getting a royal dunkin' from Anthony Bourdain for her big-bucks endorsement deal with Dunkin' Donuts. The prickly chef and "Kitchen Confidential" author says of the Food Network cutie in next month's Outside magazine: "She's got a magazine, a TV empire, all these best-selling books - I'm guessing she's not hurting for money. She's hugely influential, particularly with children. And she's endorsing Dunkin' Donuts. It's like endorsing crack for kids." Bourdain adds: "I'm not a very ethical guy. I don't have a lot of principles. But somehow that seems to me over the line. Juvenile diabetes has exploded. Half of Americans don't have necks. And she's up there saying, 'Eat some [bleeping] Dunkin' Donuts. You look great in that swimsuit - eat another doughnut!' That's evil."

May 30, 2008 9:47 AM  
Anonymous when will they ever learn said...

"White House issues climate report 4years late"

Which means the information is outdated. Scientists have noted an unpredicted cooling in global temperatures in 0the last nine months.

Oh, that crazy weather!

May 30, 2008 9:50 AM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

Very nice post, Jim.

Rachel Ray, just like the rest of us, is a human being. I actually think the scarf is quite fashionabe (even though she annoys me when she is on television-- I don't watch cooking shows, anyway).

I have a hand-made bag from Guatemala with Mayan Gods on it, my hair is done in Euro-style and I listen to music from the Middle East, Latin America and Asia. What's wrong with being a cultured individual?

If you ask me, a lot of people in the USA could stand a better dose of culture.

May 30, 2008 9:51 AM  
Anonymous when will they ever learn said...

Oh, yeah. More on the outdated report. Here's one of the dire consequences predicted, as reported by anon above:

"More death and damage from wildfires, hurricanes and other natural disasters and extreme weather."

After being embarassed by non-existent hurricane activity on the U.S. eastern seaboard contradicting predictions of horrendous seasons the last two years, scientists are now conceding that global warming will reduce the incidence of hurricanes. Read all about it here:

May 30, 2008 10:05 AM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

So, you would rather people die than be safe?

I mean, isn't that what the Bush Administration has been doing for there past eight years? Making people fear their lives for political gain?

Better safe than sorry. Especially since a hurricane is much more likely than a terrorist attack.

May 30, 2008 10:33 AM  
Anonymous when will they ever learn said...

Wake up, Derrick.

Today's lesson is that scientists are now saying that global warming will tend to reduce the level of hurricane activity. Furthermore, they also say global temperatures are showing signs that a reversal is beginning.

Assume they're wrong, however, and let's wonder how far you would go to save lives losts to hurricanes. The main threat for higher carbon output right now is the upward mobility of the citizens in the two most populous countries in the world, China and India. If these countries refuse to go back to the Middle Ages to prevent these imaginary hurricanes produced by a suddenly more dubious global warming phenomenom, would you favor military action against them?

May 30, 2008 10:56 AM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

I'm awake, thanks. I had a big cup of coffee this morning.

God gave us this planet to live on and take care of. I don't think God would be too happy to see us killing the very gift he gave us.

May 30, 2008 12:15 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Environmentalism = communist conspiracy.

Civil rights = communist conspiracy

Universal Health Care = communist conspiracy

Pacifism = communist conspiracy

Democrat party = communist conspiracy

Public Education = communist conspiracy

Regulation of industry = communist conspiracy

Atheism = communist conspiracy

Allergies = communist conspiracy

I've been listening to WMAL too.


May 30, 2008 12:17 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Since Dinesh has been quoted here much recently, I went and read some of his blog.

Today's post is in opposition to what he terms "islamophobia" and, in general, touts the benefits of wider experience in combatting xenophobia. It seemed fairly enlightened (even, shall we say, liberal).

But I read some posts about the California decision on gay marriage. His homophobia seems not based on religion but on something else.

He even says that those behavior characteristics which some LGBT people have, which are the object of much imitation on the part of middle school kids, are adopted by gay people to signal other gay people that they are gay.

Something so inimical, in fact "phobic", can have little basis in religious belief, and must come from a deeper dislike for queer people.

I remember when his newspaper, the Dartmouth Review, sent to one of the early gay alliance meeting, secretly wrote down the names of attendees, and published them.

As much as he claims to be a spokesman for Christianity, his intellectual background and musings smack of the deepest dislike for at least some people who are different than he (i.e. queer people). I wonder what the source of this dislike is.


May 30, 2008 12:56 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

The latest from the website of hate (it's on their main page):

"Equality Maryland is supporting and funding a legal action against an agency of Mont. County and it is improper for elected representatives of MC Govt. and State Govt. to be receiving an award from this group."

What do I have to say about it?

Ohh, poor little adorable bigots, did you fall down, go boom and get an owie (concussion)?

May 30, 2008 2:49 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Dana writes,

Orin, if you';re in Ft. Collins, I just spoke with Betsy Markey who is opposing the lunatic Marilyn Musgrave this fall. You'll finally be able to exit the Bush era in your own locality along with the rest of us.

As a matter of fact, I do live in Fort Collins...though I always thought I was fairly clear about that fact.

So, you did you talk to her in person?

As for Betsy Markey being able to defeat Musgrave...well, that is a very real possibility. However she has to overcome a couple of hurdles first. First, she has absolutely no experience running and getting elected to public office, and that does matter in winning an election. Yes, she has worked in appointed positions, but that is not the same. Second, my sense of her is that her appeal is somewhat more limited than Musgrave's in that MM knows the 4th CD is not only Fort Collins, Loveland and, it is also a vast rural area to the east; in fact, it takes up approximately 1/3 of the State of Colorado. Yes, I know Markey will have the independent support of Stryker, Gill and Company in their quest to remake Colorado from a RED state into a BLUE state, however most people here (as in most other places) do not like being told who they have to vote for in an election.

OTOH, Musgrave, for better and for worse, has staked her political fortunes with Bush, and that is what Markey's campaign will likely focus on. Though, here again, there is one small problem: Bush will not be on the ballot. So, while pathological Bush-hatred is by now a staple of the Angry Left, in a general election I suspect the economic law of Diminishing returns will kick in.

I could be wrong on all of this, but every day that Ms. Rodham stays in the race, Obama and any coattails he may have get shorter and shorter.

Sorry, but I probably will not have time to reply any later today or tomorrow because I am in my final push to get in shape for the 2008 Ride the Rockies tour, starting in a little over two weeks. But who knows, maybe if Priya Lynn ventures out from her little corner of cyberspace...

May 30, 2008 3:01 PM  
Anonymous this guy should go work for MCPS said...

WASHINGTON (May 29) - Senate candidate Al Franken 's satirical and explicit take on virtual sex and other topics, published in Playboy magazine eight years ago, is drawing concern instead of laughter from some Minnesota Democrats.

Rep. Betty McCollum, who supported the comedian's rival Mike Ciresi until he dropped out of the race for the party's nomination for the Senate, complained Thursday that she and other Minnesota Democrats will be on the same November ballot as a candidate "who has pornographic writings that are indefensible."

"Do they spend all of their time defending him, or do they spend their time talking about issues that are important to this election?" McCollum told The Associated Press in an interview. "The whole story was a shocking surprise."

Franken, a former "Saturday Night Live" writer and performer and a best-selling author, is the Democratic front-runner to take on Republican Sen. Norm Coleman. Minnesota Democrats hold an endorsing convention next week and a primary Sept. 9.

"Al understands, and the people of Minnesota understand, the difference between what a satirist does and what a senator does," Franken campaign spokesman Andy Barr said. "It's unfortunate that she's trying to create divisions in our party rather than working with other DFLers (Minnesota Democrats) to take on the special-interest senator."

Two other Minnesota Democrats in the House, Keith Ellison and Tim Walz, also expressed concerns about the 2000 satirical article that Republicans began circulating last week. None of the critical House members called on Franken to step aside.

At one point in the Playboy piece titled "Porn-O-Rama!" Franken called the Internet a "terrific learning tool," writing that his 12-year-old son was able to use it for a sixth-grade report on bestiality.

"As a parent and an aunt, and talking to other parents, people are very concerned about the type of Internet use that's out there, and how it has a potentially harmful effect on children," McCollum said. "Sexually explicit material is one of the things that parents are very concerned about, and want to make sure that they're steering their children away from."

Ellison said that and other parts of the article about sexual activities "made me feel a little uncomfortable."

"I have to ask myself, can I explain it to my 11-year-old daughter? I'd have considerable difficulty," Ellison said, adding that voters who have talked with him about it are "just sort of appalled."

Nonetheless, Ellison said he will support Franken if he receives the state party's endorsement. McCollum was making no such promises. "I'll have to see," she said.

Franken is the heavy favorite to take on Coleman, although he faces a challenge from college professor Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in Washington remained firmly behind Franken. "We believe he'll beat Norm Coleman in the fall," said DSCC spokesman Matthew Miller.

McCollum said she spoke briefly with Franken on Thursday and that the candidate wanted to speak again.

"I told him this is a serious problem," she said. "I told him my cell phone's ringing off the hook. Union leaders call me, state House members are calling, I've had people in the coffee shop approach me, very concerned about this. They really feel this article is politically radioactive."

May 30, 2008 5:19 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Orin said Yes, I know Markey will have the independent support of Stryker, Gill and Company in their quest to remake Colorado from a RED state into a BLUE state, however most people here (as in most other places) do not like being told who they have to vote for in an election.

Since when did advertising one's independent support for a candidate become "being told who they have to vote for?" Besides, there's only "a gang of four" working to turn Colorado blue, and they are working against the entire Dobson empire machine (and more), which has worked for decades to turn and keep Colorado red.

It's obvious to everybody (well, almost everybody, except maybe Orin) that people don't necessarily vote the way the think tanks, megachurches (isn't that illegal per the IRS?), 527 groups, and political PACs tell them to. Dobson's "independent" support of Huckabee didn't make enough people feel they "had to vote" for him.

Colorado, like the 82% of the entire country, believes Bush's GOP leadership has lead the country far astray. Voters everywhere, including Colorado, will be voting for change we can believe in.

May 31, 2008 8:19 AM  
Anonymous election elf said...

"the entire Dobson empire machine (and more), which has worked for decades to turn and keep Colorado red"

Dobson hasn't been in Colorado for decades. He was based in San Diego for years.

"Colorado, like the 82% of the entire country, believes Bush's GOP leadership has lead the country far astray. Voters everywhere, including Colorado, will be voting for change we can believe in."

You're in for a third straight bitter election night, Beatrice. You forget that the media had coronated Gore and Kerry in the last two elections. George Steph was on ABC as late as 8 on election night, crowing about the incoming Kerry administration. Bush had strong negatives the last two times. He's not a good speaker and doesn't appear very intelligent. As Ralph Nader said in 2000, if Al Gore can't beat the bumbling governor from Texas, he doesn't deserve to win. He was elected because no one believes in the causes the Democratic Party espouses.

This fall, the candidates will debate and the nation will consider, as always happens. We will discover that Americans don't like the Bush execution but they believe in a strong and democratic and free America with traditional mores and a commitment to life. McCain is a change they can believe in. They already don't believe in Obama. Despite the unpopularity of the Bush administration, McCain is running even in most polls.

Poor Beatrice! She's in for such disappointment.

May 31, 2008 9:52 AM  
Anonymous food freak said...

What exactly is Jim proposing in this post? Discrimination laws against hiring bias for commercial spokesmen? Then, what's next? Perhaps we'll require consumers to have a quota they have to buy from all ethnic groups. Is that where you're going with this, Jim?

May 31, 2008 11:31 AM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

I love how all these "anonymous" types are posting on here. Very interesting. Don't you people have names?

GET SOME CULTURE! Travel the world, eat something besides hamburgers and hot dogs. IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS!

May 31, 2008 11:37 AM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Ok, I am fairly sure that the faithful of this site will both enjoy and appreciate this little ditty from the Wall Street Journal's online op-ed Monday thru Friday feature called Best of the Web (the boldface part is BOTW editor James Taranto editorializing to great comic effect, at least I think so, your mileage may vary),

To Be Titled, 'Nothing Happened. No, Really!'
"Craig to Pen Book Detailing Bathroom Incident at Airport"--headline,, May 29

I am thinking that they are not taking Sen. Craig seriously...imagine that! LOL!

May 31, 2008 12:51 PM  
Anonymous Derr-a lict said...

"will be voting for change we can believe in."

This change is obviously not Obama. Even after he has been acknowledged as the winner of the Democratic nomination, voters in every key and large state, save his home state, have preferred his opponent, a woman with more baggage than Samsonite. In the latest primary, Obama lost by thirty percetage points... Among Democrats...when everyone knows he's already won...

Don't really see a mass outpouring of excitement here.

Did you know that Obama's first fundraiser when he ran for the Senate was put on by a former Weather Underground member from the sixties who said recently that the only thing they did wrong back then was to not bomb enough banks? This guy has been a paid member of Obama's staff this year.

Did you know that Obama's wife never felt proud to be an American until Obama started winning a few primaries? That's what she's says. Doesn't sound like first lady material.

Not surprising when you consider that, for the last twenty years, she and Obama have attended and tithed to a church where the preacher was known to say God damn America instead of God bless America and accuses the U S government of inventing AIDS to kill black people.

Will Americans really like Obama much when they get to know him?

Is this the change they believe in?

May 31, 2008 1:09 PM  
Anonymous cujo lite said...

"GET SOME CULTURE! Travel the world, eat something besides hamburgers and hot dogs. IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS!"

Sure, Derrick.

You think you can tell what people eat from their comments on a blog and we're the ignorant ones.

Sure, Derrick.

Go have a quiche!

May 31, 2008 1:53 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

Quiche is a great source of protein.

On, all you AnonFreaks. You're such adorable little conquistadors of the extreme (un)Christian (wrong) Right.

Oh, btw, it looks like science won out again! The hurricane season is off to an early start (therefore, being more active than normal). Looks like my friends with Ph.D.'s at NOAA know what their talking about (must more than some AnonFreak who gets their weather forecast from the Bible).

Better to be safe than sorry!

Check it out here:

May 31, 2008 3:11 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Derrick, there aren't several anon-freaks posting here, its all the same one (the one who promised to stop posting) posting under different names to give the false impression of wider support for his opinion.

May 31, 2008 3:38 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

Priya- That is what I was thinking as well. But I am not one to discriminate against someone with schizophrenia (and I am not saying that you are either :-)). We'll just have to understand that AnonFreak has a mental illness (which helps us understand a lot more about him, actually).

I wonder which personality will respond to this post... I hope it's Maggie! Haha.

May 31, 2008 5:09 PM  
Anonymous world's finest said...

"Priya- ....I was thinking as well."

Take this with a grain of salt, everybody.

I guess relative to each other, though, these two could be said to be doing something like "thinking".

May 31, 2008 5:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. James Dobson statement of support for Huckabee:

"I am endorsing Gov. Mike Huckabee for President of the United States today. My decision comes in the wake of my statement on Super Tuesday that I could not vote for Sen. John McCain, even if he goes on to win the Republican nomination. His record on the institution of the family and other conservative issues makes his candidacy a matter of conscience and concern for me..."

May 31, 2008 5:56 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

Wow, AnonFreak.

It's interesting that your mental illness continues to grow so out of control. We're also taking everything you say with not a grain of salt, but the entire salt shaker due to your inability, mentally, to truly think for yourself.

Get well soon.

May 31, 2008 6:45 PM  
Anonymous I pity the fool said...

"your inability, mentally, to truly think for yourself"

Ah, Derrick. Apes along on a blog supporting everything the moderator says and then tells dissenters they don't seem to have the ability to think for themselves.

Consider the admonition of Socrates, you poor fool:

Know thyself.

May 31, 2008 7:59 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

I know myself quite well. How well do you know yourself?

May 31, 2008 9:04 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...


I am done mooting with you for the weekend. I have an early flight to Minnesota in the morning for a family member's funeral. See, I love others...unlike hating them because they are different (and, in you case, hoping that they are put to death--for being gay, for example).

¡Hasta pronto!

May 31, 2008 9:36 PM  
Anonymous tut-tut said...

"I know myself quite well."

Apparently not. You don't seem to realize that, while urging independent thought on others, you are quite captive to the thoughts of others. You appear to not have expressed any thought here that wasn't already stated by some other poster. Try some actual critical thinking.

Furthermore, if your incessant and puerile name-calling and leaps of illogic trying to draw false associations isn't hatred for others, what is?

May 31, 2008 9:55 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Anon-freak, you started the name calling with your attacks on gays, its pretty ironic that you should then whine about it. Pot, kettle, black. You're hated because you attack others indiscriminately, that's justified whereas your blind hatred of a group of people is despicable and unjustified.

Why don't you go away now like you promised you were going to do.

June 01, 2008 3:58 PM  
Anonymous al hugg said...

"you started the name calling"

not true

June 01, 2008 8:12 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Of course its true. You started long long ago with your "gays are sick, disgusting, mentally ill, etc." talk. Derrick only started referring to you as anon-freak long, long after you started your indiscriminate attacks on gays as a group.

June 01, 2008 8:51 PM  
Anonymous canadians are kooky said...

Wrong, Priya. No one called Derrick a name.

You think his name-calling is justified because someone said gays were "sick, disgusting, mentally ill"?

Actually, few have said that. Sometimes, they have presented the opposite viewpoint when TTFers claimed scientific validity for debunking these characterizations. In fact, science can't prove whether any of these are true unless it accepts a value judgment about what is normal and acceptable. That isn't science.

June 02, 2008 12:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
I rarely go to Dunkin Donuts anymore(sometimes, if it has a drive through like in Philly- I get coffee)- my kids remember seeing a mouse going into the DD kitchen on Georgia Avenue in Wheaton. For a wild donut experience, try the Fractured Prune- coming to Silver Spring soon. Otherwise- I suggest Kristin's or Woodmoor pastry- shop non-chain locally(Sorry, I didn't read the story or the comments- something about the commercial being pulled)

June 02, 2008 10:41 AM  
Anonymous i'll have an orange one said...

Andrea gets it right!

We've been going to Fractured Prune since they had one place, an old wooden clapboard place in OC. They tore that down years ago, but it's nice they've expanded inland.

Watch 'em being made hot in every conceivable flavor and buy a T-shirt.

I know they have a place way out New Hampshire Ave and one in the new Rockville Center. Where's the new Silver Spring store?

June 02, 2008 11:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon

Like the fancy pizza place that is supposed to be on GA. Avenue near the Beltway- this is slow in coming.

June 02, 2008 12:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon

Like the fancy pizza place that is supposed to be on GA. Avenue near the Beltway- this is slow in coming.

June 02, 2008 12:21 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Red Baron said "You think his name-calling is justified because someone said gays were "sick, disgusting, mentally ill"?"

You said that, along with such niceties as pervert.

Red Baron said "science can't prove whether any of these are true unless it accepts a value judgment about what is normal and acceptable.".

It has already proven they are false and that gays are normal. What typically occurs is normal, it typically occurs that a minority of the population is gay therefore gays are normal. What is acceptable is whatever hurts no one, gays hurt no one and thus are acceptable. Diseases and mental illness aren't determined by value judgements, they're determined by interfererence in one's ability to carry out their daily life. Being gay does not interfere in carrying out the activities of one's daily live, it is not a mental or physical illness. By your insane "logic" one can value herpes and then it is not a disease.

June 02, 2008 5:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MODERATOR: It is time to ban this "Anonymous" troll who uses a variety of pseudonyms. Just on this posting alone he/she has used: "I play the fool", "world's finest", "cujo lite", "Derr-alict", "food freak", "election elf", "when will they ever learn". In another posting, he/she promised not to post here anymore (under "anonymous") but, lo and behold, he/she is back again...being just as vitriolic, bigoted, offensive, fact-twisting, personally insulting, lying as usual. He/She adds nothing of substance to the discussion that takes place here...instead seems to get pleasure out of demeaning and attacking just about everybody else. He/she is a TROLL. He besmirches the substance and class of this blog site and his presence here is offensive...even to one like myself who believes in free and open discourse conducted on a polite, rational, and intellectual level. While I have accepted your rationale for continuing to allow him/her to dominate the discussion here, I have to admit that I may have reached my limit. Ban him/her!

June 03, 2008 10:12 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

It wouldn't break my heart either if this troll was banned. At the very least it would be nice to require him to use the same pseudonym and prevent him from posting anonymously to avoid accountability for his posts. We've seen that he lies frequently claiming he didn't post things he did.

June 03, 2008 3:00 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

New Anon, whoever you are, if you would like to come here and express your opinion it's fine with me, but please be a little civil about your identity. The rest of us will discuss these topics with you if you will simply pick a name and stay with it. We do get comments by a lot of people, and though you think it's funny to use different names it makes it impossible for someone to know who they're talking to.

It is very easy for me to ban a user by their IP number. I'd rather not do that, I think it's fine to have a diversity of opinions here, but you need to maintain one identity.

Please pick a name and keep it.


June 03, 2008 3:21 PM  
Anonymous rolling thunder said...

Oh, alright. From henceforth, I'm Rolling Thunder.

Jeez, you try and entertain everybody and this is the thanks you get!

June 03, 2008 7:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Verbal abuse is not entertaining and it's certainly not intelligent discourse. It's moronic.

I thought Morons' Comment Will Be Deleted. When did the rule change?

June 04, 2008 7:44 AM  
Anonymous rolling thunder said...

The discussion about using different names. No one was verbally abused except the anon.

BTW, Jim has above asked all participants to use an identifying name when posting. Why are you violating blog rules?

June 04, 2008 8:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BTW, Jim has above asked all participants to use an identifying name when posting. Why are you violating blog rules?

No he didn't. Jim told you to "pick a name and keep it."

June 04, 2008 2:28 PM  
Anonymous rolling THUNDER said...

No, he didn't:

We do get comments by a lot of people, and though you think it's funny to use different names it makes it impossible for someone to know who they're talking to.

That applies to you. Please pick a name and go with it.

June 04, 2008 3:41 PM  
Anonymous Merle said...

"Anonymous" is a name.

June 04, 2008 4:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim told you to "pick a name and keep it."
June 04, 2008 2:28 PM

rolling THUNDER said...
No, he didn't...
June 04, 2008 3:41 PM

Yes, he did.

New Anon, whoever you are...Please pick a name and keep it.


June 03, 2008 3:21 PM

Merle's right. "Anonymous" is a name. A list of "different names" is not.

June 05, 2008 6:32 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home