Calling Shenanigans

So much has happened since my last post, and so many people have spoken about it all more eloquently than I could. But I have to respond to this.

Via Time.com, a quote by Frank Schubert, campaign manager for Yes on 8:

"No matter what you think of Proposition 8, we ought to respect people's right to participate in the political process. It strikes me as quite ironic that a group of people who demand tolerance and who claim to be for civil rights are so willing to be intolerant and trample on other people's civil rights."

This is total bullshit, and somebody needs to say so to this douchebag's face. Intolerance of intolerance is a virtue.

Needlessly trampling the civil rights of others is not itself a civil right. If you want to treat people badly because you're insecure, fine, do it. But you'd better be willing to face the consequences when people point out that you're being an asshole and stop patronizing your business.

The Tears of a Clown

So, apparently CNN.com's Ruben Navarrette Jr. is trying out for a job at Town Hall or some similar bastion of right-wing pseudojournalism. It's the only explanation I can come up with to explain his latest column.

It's just poorly written from top to bottom, jumping between subjects and mixing metaphors so that keeping track of his train of thought becomes nearly impossible. But beyond an overall writing style reminiscent of a barely-passing high school sophomore, he also manages to throw out some nuggets of stunning ignorance.

As Palin herself pointed out in a recent CNN interview, imagine if she had been the one to imply that electing Obama would invite calamity. Biden does it, and the media shrug.

Yeah, imagine. Or don't bother, since trying to find video of Palin implying that Obama cavorts with terrorists is about as difficult as finding furniture in an Ikea showroom. And McCain himself, just the other day, said that foreign enemies would "test" Obama, but would not dare to test him. So, yeah, no real reason to stretch your imagination, is there? You can just look at the stories run by the news network you work for.

I also thought the Democratic Party was supposed to go to bat for the little guy, the everyday Joe the Plumber.

Tell that to Joe Wurzelbacher, the Ohio resident who got his 15 minutes -- and 40 lashes -- because he dared question Obama about his tax plan.

Because a plumber making more than $250,000 a year? Totally normal. Hell, all the other plumbers at the country club probably make fun of him for driving a standard Corvette instead of a custom Porche. It takes about 2 minutes of listening to Joe Wurzelbacher to figure out he's about as genuine as a e-mail penis enlargement offer. This is not a guy who was ever wavering on who to vote for in this election. He's just another selfish douchebag who makes more than I ever will but doesn't want to pay his fair share. Fulfilling the "American Dream"™, in the mind of people like ol' Joe, means one should be exempted from contributing back to the system that allowed them to succeed. Fuck Joe Wurzelbacher and fuck people like him who think that their success should mean everyone else pays to keep them afloat. I should want my tax policy determined by greedy, entitled assholes like Joe Wurzelbacher? Fuck that.

Obama supporters like to talk about how the Democratic presidential nominee has lived the American Dream. So why is it to so hard for them to conceive of a situation where someone dreams of earning more money a few years from now than they earn today. Has Barack Obama consumed all the social mobility this country has to offer, so there isn't any left for the rest of us?

There's nothing wrong with dreaming of earning more money, Ruben, you self-righteous ass. If money motivates you, by all means, set some goals and try to climb that ladder. Where I start having a problem is with the idea that earning more money should lessen a person's monetary obligations to the society that allowed him to succeed. Taxing the rich does not make the rich poor. It makes the rich slightly less rich. That's it. The concept that taxes dissuade financial success is ludicrous. Being wealthy offers privileges and opportunities unavailable to anyone else, whether they pay their share of taxes or not. If those privileges and opportunities are important to an individual, that individual will work toward them, whether they'll gain bonus tax advantages or not.

And, frankly, taxation is a zero-sum game. You can cut spending, but at the end of the day, there's a budget that has to be met. If the rich get tax breaks, one of two things happens. The vast majority of Americans pick up the slack, so that the middle class is paying for the excesses of the wealthy, or we borrow more money, driving up the national debt and letting our children pay for the excesses of the wealthy. I don't like those options. I don't begrudge the wealthy the excesses their success affords them. But I think they can pay for them on their own.

Seventy percent of the wealth in this country is owned by ten percent of the population. Think about that. So if we cut taxes for the top ten percent, as has been done by the current administration, we're losing revenue on seventy percent of the circulating wealth. This is not a system that punishes the rich. We are paying for the rich to become richer, and they're convincing us that they're doing us a favor. Anyone who earns more than $250,000 is in that top 10%. Pretending that they are middle-class is a lie that is meant to evoke sympathy from people who hope desperately that they may one day be part of that elite 10%. 90% of them never will, and their children will pay for their short-sightedness.

Still, we're told, this tempest in a Gucci bag has some Republicans worrying that shopping sprees at Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue might undermine Palin's everywoman image. To think, just last month, the criticism was that Sarah the Moose Hunter wasn't sufficiently sophisticated or glamorous. Now her wardrobe signals the hockey mom is high-maintenance.

No, you stupid, stupid fuck. You don't get to misrepresent what happened a month ago to make your idiotic point. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, was concerned that Sarah Palin wasn't "sophisticated or glamorous" enough to be vice-president. You're making that up out of whole cloth because it's the only way to lend any crumb of credibility to your argument. The argument was that she was too UNINTELLIGENT and INEXPERIENCED to be vice-president, and nothing has happened to change that. Now, frankly, if the Republicans want to spend $150,000 for their expensive wind-up talking Barbie doll, that's up to them. But they shouldn't be surprised when people who earn less than that in a year start to question the party's priorities.

I know I haven't been blogging a lot lately, and there are many reasons for that. But mostly, it's that this election has turned into a steaming pile of horseshit, and I can't wait for it to be over. Whiny bullshit like this commentary just mirror the whiny bullshit coming out of the Republican party. The McCain campaign is calling Obama a terrorist, and then crying foul over Liberals pointing out that Joe Wurzelbacher is a lying, rich douchebag. There's no sense of perspective anymore. Barak Obama is a good candidate, John McCain is a crappy candidate who has built a campaign designed solely for the purpose of convincing people not to vote for Barak Obama, and yet conservatives want me to believe that the discrepancy in the message is the fault of the media. The problem with the media is the same problem that allows someone like Sarah Palin to run on a major party presidential ticket: a dangerous percentage of Americans respect ignorance more than intelligence. And it looks like Ruben Navarette Jr. just figured out he can make money by pandering to them.

Semantics

Okay, this one is nuts.

Via Pharyngula, this wonderful story from the Sacramento Bee.

Last month, Rachel Bird exchanged vows with Gideon Codding in a church wedding in front of family and friends. As far as Bird is concerned, she is a bride.

To the state of California, however, she is either "Party A" or "Party B."

Those are the terms that have replaced "bride" and "groom" on the state's new gender-neutral marriage licenses. And to Bird and Codding, that is unacceptable.

"We are traditionalists – we just want to be called bride and groom," said Bird, 25, who works part time for her father's church. "Those words have been used for generations and now they just changed them."

In May, after the California State Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage legal, the courts mandated state officials to provide gender-neutral licenses and other marriage forms. "Bride" and "groom" became "Party A" and "Party B."

Bird and Codding have refused to complete the new forms, a stand that has already cost them. Because their marriage is not registered with the state, Bird cannot sign up for Codding's medical benefits or legally take his name. They are now exploring their options, she said.

You know what? You little dipshits have fun doing your little dipshit protest over a couple of words on a piece of paper that will be tossed in a drawer somewhere and forgotten until a few years from now, when Gideon panics about forgetting the date of your anniversary and scrambles wildly to find it. You had your church wedding. That's where you can inject all the meaning you want into your marriage. A marriage license isn't about making you feel special. It's a legal document meant to afford you the status of married couple, with all the rights and responsibilities that go with it. The wording changes nothing, except for tweaking your confused notion of what is sacred and what is legal, and giving your privileged, pompous pseudo-Christian pride a big, raw purple nurple.

Where you cross the line from being jackasses to raging assholes, though, is when you and your little pals try to equate your invented persecution with denying other people the right you're getting to opt out of.

"We just feel that our rights have been violated," [Bird] said.

To some, the couple's stand may seem frivolous. But others believe "bride" and "groom" are terms that are too important for the state to set aside.

"Those who support (same-sex marriage) say it has no impact on heterosexuals," said Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute. "This debunks that argument."

What fucking right has been violated? What difference, other than hurting your tender little feelings, do the terms "Party A" and "Party B" make? What is this important civil liberty that will be denied to you as "Party B" that you would have enjoyed as "Bride"? You're just being brats. And as bad as a couple of twenty-something brats are, what makes your petty tantrum a hundred times worse is that you're arrogant enough to use your pretend persecution in justifying your desire to continue persecuting people who actually have had their rights denied.

Bird and Codding say they are trying to figure out what to do next. Bird said she does not know what she will do if she should become ill and need insurance. "I really don't know," she said.

Fuck you. I don't feel sorry for you. Do you know why? Because you are choosing to stay legally unmarried. That's a choice you don't only want to make for yourself... you want to make it for thousands of same-sex couples as well. Gay people aren't keeping you unmarried. You are. But in almost every state in this country except yours, people like you most certainly are keeping gay people from getting married. They don't enjoy the right to make the choice you are making. You want to risk your health over some ridiculous argument about semantics on a legal document? Go nuts. But don't pretend your right to choose is being infringed upon. It isn't.

Of course, maybe I'd be more willing to accept your argument if you actually represented the incredible sanctity of heterosexual marriage.

For now, they are busy with their family (she has two children from a previous marriage and he has three) and starting their new life.

Fantastic.

The Democratic nominee for president just said that he opposes gay marriage because it violates the tenets of Christianity.

Why should I bother to fucking vote this year?

The Audacity of Doing One's Job

Sorry it's been slow here. Other projects going on, vacations, etc. So yeah. Kinda slow for a bit.

This cracked me up, though. Apparently, the Republican National Committee and the McCain campaign thinks that some comments Barack Obama made to a meeting of Democratic congressional leaders was an obscene display of arrogance. Obama said that his campaign had "become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions." The RNC circulated this comment under the heading "Barack Obama Audacity Watch."

So, according to the RNC and McCain campaigns, a politician actually trying to improve America and not being afraid to lay claim to that goal is just arrogant. Not, you know, doing what he was elected to do.

Republican Umbrage Resurfaces

General Wesley Clark: He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, "I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not, do you want to take the risk, what about your reputation, how do we handle this publicly?" He hasn't made those calls, Bob.

Bob Schieffer: Can I just interrupt you? I have to say, Barack Obama hasn't had any of these experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.

Clark: I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.

So there's that. The McCain campaign's response:

Campaign Manager Rick Davis: Sending Wesley Clark out as a surrogate for your campaign and attacking John McCain and his war record and his military experience and his service is, I think, just the lowest form of politics.

I would love to hear, from Davis, McCain, or anyone else on the campaign team, exactly which part of Clark's statement was untrue, unfair, or an attack. Pointing out that spending time in a POW camp does not equate to executive experience is like saying that going to kindergarten isn't the same as playing wide receiver on a professional football team; it is offensive only in that it is so blatantly obvious, it should never need to be said.

Urgent Briefing From Syracuse

Ah, Syracuse Post-Standard Reader's Page! Have you brought with you a letter to the editor that strains the credulity of its audience regarding the possibility that the author could conceivably be so bleach-drinkingly stupid?

You have? Excellent!

To the Editor:

To Congressman James Walsh:

You made the correct decision for oil drilling in ANWR. I am grateful that the special interest groups no longer can pressure you. There are alternative sources for energy and this is only one. Oil is important for manufacturing of golf balls and a lot of other neat stuff. It is obvious Sen. Charles Schumer and Sen. Hillary Clinton don't play golf!

Peter Salit

Well, there you have it. We need a new energy policy, and that energy policy should be carefully crafted around the dimpled surface of a golf ball.

Glenn Beck: Flat Earther

According to Glenn Beck, the "vast majority" of Americans do not believe that global warming is caused by humans.

The other villain of the moment is the global warming "denier." Anyone who disagrees, even in the slightest, must be ridiculed. On "60 Minutes" last weekend, Al Gore said: "They're almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the Earth is flat. That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off."
...So, who are those people Gore was demeaning "a little bit" by these comparisons? There's a good chance it's you. That's because the vast majority of Americans believe something that categorizes them as a flat earther to environmentalists like Gore.

This does not jive with my experience at all. Glenn Beck states it as inarguable fact, though. So one of the following must be true:
1) Americans, across the board, hate facts.
2) Glenn Beck socializes solely with the ignorant, clouding his perspective.
3) Glenn Beck just makes shit up out of whole cloth.

Because, let me tell you, when it comes to theories about global climate change, you can take all of those peer-reviewed research articles by noted scientists and shove them up your ass. I'll get my information from an attention-starved Mormon recovering alcoholic.

This Freeper Blogger Has Had Enough!

I just stumbled over this while doing a search for something unrelated over at FreeRepublic.com, and it made me laugh out loud.

An honest disagreement is one thing, but there is a phenomenon going around the internet, mostly at the expense of conservative bloggers like me, known as baiting.

These are liberals who get some kind of perverse pleasure by visiting conservative blogs and trying to harass them or tie them in knots. Their favorite technique is to seize on some trivial point or side issue and argue with it, completely disregarding the main point of the article. Another technique is to hunt for some reference that disputes something you have said – easy to do in a world where the liberal press is publishing lies daily and where situations change rapidly.

-PurpleMountains

Oh, yes. Those dirty, dirty liberal trolls. Always pulling some underhanded trick, like holding you accountable for arguments you've written and presenting researched data that disputes your claims. It's madness, I tell you. There you Freepers are, trying to create a nice, insular world, free from dissenting opinions and the rigid boundaries of reality, and some jerk has to come in and spoil it by pointing out all of their factual errors. Have you no sense of decency, Liberals? At long last, have you no sense of decency?

Bush Lost His +2 Sword of Vocabulary Slaying

From Georgie's stirring speech marking the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the mess he got us into in Iraq:

"No one would argue that this war has not come at a high cost in lives and treasure, but those costs are necessary when we consider the cost of a strategic victory for our enemies in Iraq."

Treasure? Lives and treasure? I realize the man lives in a fantasy world, but I didn't realize he thought he was playing some sort of global-scale game of Dungeons and Dragons. Doesn't he have a staff to proofread this shit?

"Uh, yeah, Mr. President? We might not want to refer to the money spent in Iraq as 'mad lootz'."

"Oh, really? Well, howzabout 'pirate booty.' I like pirates."

"Hmmmm... I don't think that conveys quite the message we're looking for..."

"Yeah, yeah... okay, I'll call it treasure. Ya' know, like plunder. Cause we went in there and blew up all them evildoers and plundered their treasure. It's heroical and stuff."

"I don't kn... Yeah. Okay. Whatever. That sounds fine, Mr. President."

Fucking treasure.

Aw Hell...

Not that it's a shocker at this point, but for the first time, McCain is running even with both Clinton and Obama in national polls. This should surprise absolutely nobody. While Clinton and Obama do everything in their power to ensure that the other is unelectable, McCain gets to make photo-op trips to Iraq, looking oh-so-presidential and carefree. The media loves him, and the Democrats are too busy infighting to do anything about him.

The Democrats are blowing this election. It has been handed to them on a gilded platter, and they're blowing it. Go ahead and read the comments section under just about any CNN Ticker post about either Democratic candidate. I hate to base anything on web commenting, but I think it's relevant that there are very, very few Republicans taking part in the argument. It's just line after line of Obama supporters calling Clinton a liar, or Clinton supporters calling the Obama campaign a cult. A frequently expressed sentiment goes along the lines of "If [Clinton/Obama] is the Democratic nominee, I'll vote for McCain." Really? Then you're an idiot. But since you're already doing the work of his campaign staff, why not toss him your vote too?

From Syracuse, With Anti-Intellectualism

Aw, hell, it's a slow morning. Let's make it a twofer.

To the Editor:

I was very concerned to see on the editorial page in your Sunday paper that a high school student who aspires to be a young journalist was so closed-minded. Mr. Cal Thomas did not accuse schools of teaching students to be "gay."

The schools do teach theories that cannot be proven, one of which is evolution; and apparently (from the letter cited) another is that people are born "gay." Both of these are theories that are not provable.

Mr. Cal Thomas and many others believe that the "gay" lifestyle is not acceptable. With a little research, Dani Walters should be able to understand the other side.

I am sorry that our young adults do not research the things that they encounter before they are willing to "spike" the opinions of those that they do not agree with. Dani, to be a good journalist, you will need to look at "both sides of the story." This is the reason many taxpayers are upset with the public schools. We feel our tax dollars are being wasted on a low-standard education for our upcoming leaders.

William Bellows

There's nothing better than an ignorant anti-intellectual lecturing a budding young mind about the dangers of accepting scientific data. With a little research, Dani Walters should be able to understand the other side. With a little more research, Dani Walters should be able to point out that the other side is deluding itself with propagandized fiction.

One of the most prevalent symptoms of anti-intellectualism and unreason in America is the constant misuse of the term theory. If one does not understand the distinction between a scientific theory and a colloquial theory, one should not construct an argument around it. Certainly you shouldn't expect journalists, or even young students of journalism, to take you seriously.

Oh, and of course, I'm certain that Mr. Bellows has a valid point about the state of our educational system. If only we followed the lead of the rest of the world, which has collectively abandoned scientific psychology and evolutionary theory in favor of religious dogma and pseudoscientific nonsense.

Spitzer

Don't try to defend him or his actions. Seriously. And don't tell me it's not important, either.

It's unfortunate that this happened to a high-profile Democrat right now, especially one with even indirect ties to a possible Presidential candidate. That does not mean I want to hear about how this shouldn't matter. It matters.

If you cheat on your spouse with a prostitute, you're an asshole. Personal opinion there, but I stand by it. If you cheat on your spouse with a prostitute, knowing that if you get caught your wife will be humiliated on national television in front of reporters and your children's friends will find out about it on CNN before your child has even had a chance to parse the situation, you are an utter douchebag and you should resign. If you're willing to risk public humiliation of your own fucking family for a quick lay, I don't want you in charge of anything.

I realize politicians are human beings. I realize they're not perfect. But if you're too stupid to realize you maybe shouldn't order a hooker from a website while holding an office of national scrutiny, I don't have an ounce of sympathy. For four years, you make do with a Hustler and a bottle of hand lotion. If you can't manage that, you can't manage my state.

Picket Me, Please

Those crazy kooks at the Westboro Baptist Church are up to their wacky hijinks again! They're going to picket Heath Ledger's funeral, of course. He did play a gay man in a movie, after all. And it was such a stirring, haunting performance that he very nearly managed to portray a homosexual as an actual human being. This obviously cannot be forgiven.

There's a lot of outcry over this, and I understand that. But you know what? If Fred Phelps wants to picket my funeral, let him. Seriously. Don't get upset about it. Don't yell back. Wave, say hi, and maybe bring them some coffee. I can think of no clearer an indication that I've done something valuable with my life than to piss off Fred Phelps and company. If I've made the kind of impact that gets Fred to assure his l'il legion that hell ripped open when I died, I'm grateful for the recognition.

More Selwyn Duke

Oh, what pretentiously verbose but intellectually shallow wisdom will you inflict upon us today, Master Selwyn?

Paulistas aren't crazy, but they do live in an echo chamber. I understand this well. If I, who mainly preaches to the choir, believed my email, I'd think my coronation nigh. That's why I won't drink anyone's Kool-Aid — not even my own.

The subject of widely-imbibed, sweet-but-deadly concoctions brings us to perhaps the worst election-year nonsense of all, the idea that low turnout is bad for "democracy."

Poppycock.

Poppycock? Did you just type the word 'Poppycock' and expect to be taken seriously? Honestly, man, this thing reads like a seventeen-year-old got hold of a thesaurus and refused to let go.

This crap goes on for ages, putting even some of my most indulgent posts to absolute shame. To make what point?

If only people who agree with Selwyn Duke vote, then the elected candidate will likely be acceptable to Selwyn Duke.

Fuckin' brilliant.

Reenoo Ameraka

Quick Picks from the brilliant folks at Renew America.

Paul Craft:

We will not see it reported on the national or local news, but abortion on demand is the main issue of are time.

Evidently, education is not the main issue of are time.

The next GOP candidate has to be a proven supporter of the unborn. The outcome could be catastrophic.

Can't argue with that.

Mr. Romney has stated on a number occasions that he is now pro-life. My feeling is that you have a heart for the unborn or you do not.

When you can't be effectively persuasive, it's always best to assume that each human being is simply born with a position on the abortion issue that can never be swayed. Bonus: this supports the notion of slaughtering the nonbelievers!

Selwyn Duke:

So why is [John Edwards] almost just an asterisk in this campaign? It's because his resume lacks a prerequisite: Sufficient melanin content or an XX chromosome configuration.

Yeah. I've noticed that being a white man has always been a real detriment when seeking the presidency of the United States of America. Makes sense to me. And here I was blaming Edward's performance on unapologetic socialist populism.

Adam Graham:

John McCain would fund Embryonic Stem Cell Research. The McCain Administration, by doing so, would not relieve suffering, as recent advances have been able to develop embyronic [sic] stem cells without destroying human life, but would rather lead to ennobling abortion as a way for women to take an unwanted pregnancy, get an abortion, and use the stem cells to help those suffering from various diseases. McCain would turn abortion into a noble choice.

Because apparently John McCain is the most liberal person in the world. He may pretend to be anti-choice, but really he's plotting to make abortions the sole source of stem cells for research. This will be a monumental task, as currently an estimated 0.0000% of stem cells come from aborted fetuses. This is obviously a rational argument.

[McCain] will rightly strain the gnat of pork barrel spending, only to swallow the camel of overly excessive environmental regulation. Even now, Americans are suffering with higher gas prices, and consequently higher prices on everything, in part because of John McCain's refusal to support drilling in ANWR.

Worst use of a biblical analogy ever. Not only inappropriate, but unintentionally ironic. The strain gnats/swallow camels analogy comes from Matthew 23:23-24, stressing the importance of not ignoring social justice in pursuit of economic gain.

Plenty more fun to be had at Renew America. Be sure to catch the current top story: Martin Luther King, Jr. was a conservative!

Conservative bloggers aren't just wrong. They're embarrassingly poor writers.

Michelle Malkin: Relying on Stupidity

Michelle Malkin (also Michelle Malkin) has evidently been getting some traction out of grousing about the fact that the American media never reports good news from Iraq. As irrefutable evidence, she presents an edited story, culled from an article in The Australian (brought to you by... and be ready for a shock... Rupert Murdoch). The story is meant to illustrate that violence has slowed to nearly a trickle in Iraq.

During a five-day stretch between October 19 and 23, there were no deaths among coalition forces. Although three US servicemen died from “non-hostile causes”, this was the longest period without combat deaths for almost four years. And, between October 27 and 29, there were more days without coalition deaths...

...It is beyond dispute, though, that the tide of violence in Iraq has been stemmed.

Now, I shouldn't even have to point out how stupid it is to believe that a five-day casualty free stretch is more newsworthy than, say, the continued failure of the Iraqi government to maintain order, the widespread corruption among US contractors in Iraq, or an impending destabilizing Turkish invasion into the most stable region of Iraq. That's just Michelle's usual idiocy. But what I love even more is that she assumes her readers won't go on to read the full article from the Australian. I assume she's right, of course, but then, I don't have much more faith in the intelligence of her readership than she does. Even the Murdoch-owned paper had to admit, later in the story (and edited from Michelle's version):

The civilian death toll may also have receded because of the success of ethnic cleansing in Sunni and Shia neighbourhoods, while other Iraqis have fled the country and many rarely venture out of their homes.

In a dramatic turnaround, more than 3000 Iraqi families, driven out of their Baghdad neighbourhoods, returned to their homes in the past three months as sectarian violence dropped, the Government said yesterday.

Michael White, who compiles statistics on violence in Iraq for the independent website icasualties.org, said there had been a substantial change in parts of Iraq "but I also think that this is a lull". In Baghdad, for instance, he fears that Sadr is "keeping his powder dry for when the Americans pull out".

Asked if there would be a day soon when nobody died in Iraq, he replied: "We've had low death-toll days before and then a huge pile of bodies is discovered somewhere.

"I honestly don't think violence will subside just yet."

Oh. So you mean the opinions reflected in Michelle's cropped story aren't the only ones presented, even in a paper run by a shamelessly right-wing, pro-American-imperialist corporation?

Impossible. Nobody embodies integrity like Michelle Malkin.