But the crazy we saw in 2008 was disgusting. As he attacked Hillary with any and every lie, people scratched their heads. He's not a Democrat. Why the hell was he doing attacks for the Obama campaign? And the answer came back. Barack, Dave Lindorff wrote, was "a Black candidate who has risked jail by doing drugs, and who has relatives TODAY living in the Third World (Kenya)."
First, Dave, you little White ass, Barack's not "Black." He's bi-racial. I have a Black father, I have a Black mother. I am Black. Barack has a Black father and a White mother, he's bi-racial, he's mixed and he's yellow. White Dave don't know what his mouth is running off about.
Second, those relatives in Kenya live in poverty. Barack's never 'rescued' them even though he had a mansion (thanks Tony Rezko!) long before he was president.
Third, when anyone else notes Barack's drug use, the Cult of St. Barack tends to go nuts. But Dave, you're calling him a drug user. And what a stupid reason that was. It's not like Barack went to jail. It's not as if he showed any sympathy to drug addicts.
Dave Lindorff's 'Black . . . did drugs" nonsense really comes off racist.
But even more so at CounterPunch, where Whitey Lindorff thinks he can use the N-word.
White Lindorff, you can use that word as much as you want, but it just makes you a racist.
Dave Lindorff is insisting "Kill the" n-word was yelled in 2008 at a Palin rally. This is Bob Somerby taking on the drama:
PART 2—A KING’S HEIGHTENED DRAMA: It was the first thing we read in this morning’s Post—and it illustrates the problem. Yes, Thomas Boswell was writing about sports—about a subject we pursue for pure fun. But quickly, he heightened the sense of the drama surrounding the Rays and the Red Sox:
BOSWELL (10/18/08): Now, we can't lose. This weekend, we may watch as Boston runs its streak to an incredible 10 straight wins in ALCS elimination games. Bend the laws of probability? The Red Sox would mangle them. The odds of winning 10 straight games against roughly equal foes are about 1,000-to-1. The Sox have now pulled off eight such win-or-go-home LCS games in the span of just three Octobers.
Well, OK. But in fact, the odds against what the Sox have done (eight straight wins of this type) stand at 256-to-1. But why say that, when you can cite odds of “ about 1,000-to-1”—thereby letting you say “incredible,” thereby making your story more thrilling? We only talk about baseball for fun. But Boswell heightened the drama as he imagined what might yet occur.
But uh-oh! Colbert King also heightened the drama in today’s Post—but he was discussing the most serious topic in all of American politics. King was discussing race and race hatred. But even as he started his piece, the gent was embellishing wildly:
KING (10/18/08): "Kill him": the battle cry of a lynch mob and words yelled out by a man at a Sarah Palin rally in Clearwater, Fla., this month, according to my Post colleague Dana Milbank.
With this rhetorical sleight of hand, an unfortunate shout by one single person slid into “the battle cry of a lynch mob.” Having granted himself that advantage, King soon rendered a judgment which was, on its face, just absurd:
KING (continuing directly): Some observers claim that the proposed killing was directed not toward Barack Obama but at Bill Ayers, the co-founder of the radical Weather Underground that bombed public buildings during the turbulent Vietnam era. Ayers, now a college professor who has served with Obama and other noted Chicagoans in civic enterprises—and hosted a campaign event for Obama's initial run for the state legislature—is being portrayed by John McCain’s campaign as Barack's bosom buddy, the facts notwithstanding.
Whether the call for assassination was aimed at Obama or Ayers is immaterial. It represents a dangerous new low in American politics.
Surely, King can’t really believe that. He can’t believe that an unfortunate call by one nameless person “represents a dangerous new low in American politics.” King had massively heightened his drama in these first three paragraphs—but he wasn’t talking about baseball (where “kill the umpire” is a famous old cry). He was talking about our most serious subject—and doing so quite irresponsibly. Quickly, more sleight of hand:
KING (continuing directly): Tell a rabid audience that Barack Obama is "palling around with terrorists" (as Palin has done), imply that Obama is friendly with people out to destroy America (as she also has done) and what do you expect?
The ugliness is stunning.
In our view, Palin’s conduct has been inexcusable—as has that of McCain’s campaign. But King glided past the misconduct of the principals, instead inventing “a rabid audience,” one whose “ugliness is stunning.” In fact, this is an ugly, inept brand of journalism. And it’s bad for progressive interests.
Why is this bad for progressive interests? First, because you simply can’t build a progressive politics from the desire of people like King to overstate, mislead and inflame. King makes no factual misstatements here, as liberal leaders have frequently done in the excited march toward November (new examples on Monday). Everything he says can be defended as technically accurate—or as a statement of opinion, however baldly absurd. But King’s rhetoric encourages, almost demands, leaps of logic—encourages readers to think that one man’s cry makes everyone around him “rabid” (and perhaps “ugly”). We were specifically taught not to write or think this way in the ninth grade (by Peter Drobac). But people like King never stop.
Why is this bad for progressive politics? First, because you simply can’t build a progressive politics from the desire of people like King to make average people dumber. It’s dumb to think that one man’s cry turns thousand of others into “a lynch mob”—into “a rabid audience” whose “ugliness is stunning.” But beyond that, writing like this keeps a “culture war” going. The pseudo-right invented this culture war, because it can win no other way.
Why is work like this bad for progressive politics? Because many people will see the unfairness of King’s loud cries—and their hearts will harden accordingly. They will harden in their sense that there is no harbor for them on “the left”—in their sense that there is no reason to listen to liberal or mainstream complaints about the conduct of McCain and Palin. Some of those people would have seen what is wrong in the conduct of McCain and Palin—if King had bothered to dirty his hands explaining the misconduct to them. But they will recoil at the sheer absurdity of this column’s rhetoric—even as pseudo-liberal hearts are warmed. This leaves us caught in that “culture war”—the war the other side wants.
As a general matter, nothing is dumber than fighting on turf the other side has chosen. And that’s what pseudo-liberals do when they keep this “culture war” going—along with its familiar handmaiden, the journalism of perfect dumbness.
Why did the pseudo-right invent this war—invent the politics and journalism of dumbness? Because it can’t win on more traditional grounds, in which you stick to facts and logic, to saner types of assessment. The main thing wrong with what King writes today is its dumbness—its blatant lack of fair assessment. Beyond that, it keeps us from a saner discussion—a discussion in which, all polling shows, the more progressive side would most often win.Dana Milbank's report has "Kill him!" shouted by one person. It's the only reported time this took place at a Palin rally -- reported in 2008. Some would argue crazy Gordon Duff 'reported' it. No, he repeated it -- including the n-word; however, he linked to an October story by Radar. That story no longer exists. Is it because it was false to begin with? I have no idea but I know Radar doesn't report, it gathers the reportingof others. It had no political staff. So since it published it's item at the same time the Washington Post's Dana Milbank posted the "kill him!" story, Radar most likely was re-reporting. Did they use the n-word? I would hope they didn't and Gordon Duff is so damn crazy that you can't trust him.
Just like Lindorff. So we've dismissed with the n-word issue. We'll now note that Palin may or may not have heard it -- which I believe Somerby did in some post. (The only other on this issue I can find right now is this one -- about yelling at a camera person, not at Barack.)
Language warning, click here for The New Agenda post about the Barack Campaign site's featuring of a t-shirt calling Palin the c-word. Barack didn't call it out nor did Dave Lindorff.
Dave Lindorff is just a liar and a racist.
He's also stupid. Here he is from the CounterPunch garbage:
There are times, I would agree, when violent rhetoric can be akin to the proverbial shout of "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and such speech--the kind of speech that used to be used to rouse a crowd to become a lynch mob--should rightly be viewed as a criminal act. But riling up a crowd to kill somebody is different from riling up a crowd to, say, damage construction equipment that is about to destroy a poor neighborhood to make way for a casino development, riling up a crowd of workers to break into a plant and engage in a sit-down strike to prevent the shipping of the machinery overseas, or riling up a crowd to resist a forcible eviction in a foreclosure.
I'd argue that Lindorff's lies are attempts to work a crowd up to a criminal act. I'd further point out that only a dumb ass would bring up "Fire!" There was no case before the Supreme Court pondering whether or not you could yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. As we explained at Third in September of last year:It was humorous to hear some on the left toss around, "Burning the Koran is like yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater." Though people know the "fire in a crowded theater" reference, most have no idea what they're talking about. We started asking people to explain to us what that meant. Repeatedly, we were told that someone had yelled "fire" in a crowded theater and the case had gone before the US Supreme Court at which point someone (some knew it was Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.) wrote the opinion. (Holmes actually wrote "falsely shouting fire in a theatre".) The case had nothing to do with a theater. It had nothing to do with someone yelling fire. That case is actually an embarrassment for the left.
During World War I, did people have the right to speak out against the draft, to encourage people (men only back then) to refuse to serve even if drafted? Charles Schenk of the Socialist Party was among those who thought people had that right (Emma Goldman and Eugene V. Debs are among the many others who agreed -- for the record, all writing this piece agree that the right exists). But the Court decided otherwise. And instead of truly addressing the issues, Holmes attempted to confuse it with his ridiculous comparison of "fire in a crowded theater." When the brief's tangental argument is better known than the issues at stake, that's your first sign that the Court decided wrongly.
Poor Whitey Lindorff. Stupid and a racist. But then, being a racist probably doomed him to stupidity from the start.
Whitey Lindorff, kiss my Black ass.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):