Posts Tagged ‘double standards’

I don’t have much use for Terry Jones, his stunt to burn the Koran was nothing but a stunt to get publicity. He may have had a free speech point but I don’t think it’s something you do. I wouldn’t like it done to a bible so I wouldn’t do it to a Koran (I don’t like burning book as a basic principle anyway).

That being said this is MUCH more outrageous.

No sooner had Jones fired up his Bic than an Islamic “court” in Pakistan found him guilty of the crime of desecrating the religion’s most holy book. The court then issued a fatwa—loosely translated as “death order—against him, as is their wont.

But here is where the story gets interesting. Pakistan’s Jamaat-ud-Dawah, a banned Islamic organization and suspected terrorist group, announced a bounty of 10 crore rupees for anyone who fulfills the fatwa on Jones. In case you’re wondering, that amount is equivalent to around $2.2 million—not exactly chicken feed.

Jones is a pain but nevertheless he is an AMERICAN exercising his free speech rights. It is incumbent on Americans to condemn this and inform Pakistan that any attempt to harm an American citizen excerpting his free speech will mean trouble.

A fatwa on one American is a fatwa on all and like him or not we have to stand with him.

Unfortunately judging from the comments sections I’m seeing the left is angry for people mentioning the Fatwa and blaming Jones for promoting hate. If the Catholic Church was exciting those who desecrated the Eucharist I suspect we wouldn’t be seeing the same response.

The Huffington Post’s decision to ban Andrew Breitbart from its front page for…

Andrew Brietbart’s ad hominem attack on Van Jones in The Daily Caller — right down to calling him a “commie punk” and “a cop killer-supporting, racist, demagogic freak” — violates the tenets of debate and civil discourse we have strived for since the day we launched.

I trust you were not drinking when you read that, otherwise your computer would have shorted out from the water.

Lee Stranahan decided that this is the final straw and has quit the Huffington Post:

…as a writer, this latest move by The Huffington Post of banning Andrew Breitbart from their front page (because of comments he made to a different website) is both unprecedented, arbitrary and deeply offensive to the intellectual openness that Arianna Huffington has purported to believe in.

He also comments on the strategy

One very loathsome aspect of this story is something that Huffington Post editor Roy Sekoff told me in a long phone call about Andrew Breitbart several months ago. Roy knows and worked with Andrew and when the issue of Andrew Breitbart being a racist came up, Roy told me “No, of course Andrew isn’t a racist.”

Roy went on to say that while both he and Arianna Huffington knew that the charges of racism being hurled at Andrew weren’t true based on their years of personal dealings with him that they were in a ‘bad position’ to say anything about it.

…however it is a question of their base, evidence about Jones not withstanding they will not risk upsetting the liberals who follow them. As Stranahan has already found dissent from the liberal base carries costs.

Dave Weigel notes the absurdity of the statement:

He didn’t write or say any of that at HuffPo, a site he helped develop in 2005. Is the Huffington Post’s standard that contributors can be to some modified limited hang-out if they use ad hominems in other forums? Boy, good thing Breitbart doesn’t have an army of contributors who can comb HuffPo authors’ published and spoken work to see if they’ve done that.

He is exactly right. The number of examples of this kind of stuff that will be dug up this week will be interesting.

In fact Lee Stranahan has already started and the Daily Caller goes long on ad hominem actually at the huffpo:

It will not matter in the closed world of the left its conformity that matters.

Tricking NOW into defending Sarah Palin from Misogynistic remarks. After all as NOW’s rep pointed out:

The National Organization for Women (NOW) refused to comment on Maher’s use of the derogatory term. A rep told it is a “known fact” that NOW does not correspond with FOX News.

Yeah what a dirty trick of Fox to ask NOW to comment on a story, the next thing you know they might want an actual interview!

How horrible that they were compelled to say this:

“You’re trying to take up our time getting us to defend your friend Sarah Palin. If you keep us busy defending her, we have less time to defend women’s bodies from the onslaught of reproductive rights attacks and other threats to our freedom, safety, livelihood, etc,” wrote Bennett. “Sorry, but we can’t defend Palin or even Hillary Clinton from every sexist insult hurled at them in the media. That task would be impossible, and it would consume us. You know this would not be a productive way to fight for women’s equal rights, which is why you want us stuck in this morass.” …

Yes because we all know a public statement will so disrupt their schedule that they won’t be able to do anything else. Sister ToldJa gives the lie to this nonsense:

Personally, I couldn’t care less about any statement – or lack thereof – coming from so-called “women’s groups” denouncing the sexist treatment of female public figures, no matter their respective party affiliations. In fact, conservative women don’t need any defending by any duplicitous “progressive feminist groups.” But all the same it’s worth pointing out when they don’t. More importantly, it’s imperative to know why they don’t, which I explained above. Simply put: You’re not 100% woman unless you buy 100% into the radical liberal feminist dogma about “reproductive rights.”

Yeah NOW has been busy helping advance women unlike Sarah Palin:

When it comes to politics, who was the one who helped provide a boost to the election of the first female Governor of New Mexico, Susana Martinez, first female Governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, or first female governor of Oklahoma, Mary Fallin? It certainly wasn’t NOW. NOW has asserted that they won’t waste their time defending Secretary Clinton or Governor Palin, both of whom stated just last week that it’s time for a female president. Female candidates and women in general can officially say, “women need NOW like a fish needs a bicycle”.

In my opinion the real reason why NOW is so angry about defending Palin from Maher’s remarks is that they agree with Mahar and would love to be able to say it aloud, but that would give away the game.

I guarantee we will be talking about this on our April 2nd show.

The difference in Wisconsin coverage that is, why yes, Politico wrote about the double standard concerning “signs”:

“The mainstream media’s professed concern with uncivil engages only when it is practiced by conservatives,” asserted the Washington Post’s conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin.

And conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, who has made her blog something of a clearinghouse of alleged union misdeeds, boasts she is doing “the reporting the tea party-bashing national media won’t do on the rabid outbreak of progressive incivility and violence at Big Labor protests across the country.”

and Morning Joe is talking about the double standard in the Wisconsin coverage.

They are not touching on the PHYSICAL stuff, nor did they show any extended clip with the union folks actually saying what they are saying but they did do a whole segment on the double standard and objected loudly to it.

It’s interesting to note they Politico didn’t embed any of the actual video, and Morning Joe didn’t play any of the audio.

This is very revealing, this means that the video and audio can’t be hidden, it means that it has spread on social networking sites and blog and getting out there. It means that Politico, forced to cover the story has decided to make it one about the media double standard. (a very valid story) instead of what the Unions and their supports are actually doing.

Even funnier is their defense of the media pointing to a single blog post at the NYT online:

In fact, the New York Times’ Michael Shear did write a blog post about the Wisconsin GOP’s slickly produced video, calling it “striking” for its juxtaposition of incendiary rhetoric from union protestors with liberal accusations about angry conservative rhetoric.

As I mentioned before, look at the actions to see what is happening, this story and Morning Joe’s coverage of it tells you an awful lot about who is actually winning this debate.

Update: It’s worth noting that they only touched on this in the 6 a.m. hour then dropped it like a hot potato.