Introducing the Keith Kloor Action Figure!  We have incorporated the latest AI techniques to allow you to have a realistic conversation with the Keith Kloor Action Figure.  Just say your piece, pull the string in the back of the KKAF, and the KKAF AI will do the rest! For example:

You: A madman attacked the Discovery Channel.

KKAF: Joe Romm is a demagogue!

You: Did you read the squirrely stuff James Lee had on his website?

KKAF: Joe Romm is a slimer!

You: Lee even talks about saving the Squirrels

KKAF: Joe Romm is a tribalist enforcer!

You: and poor old Daniel Quinn having his book cited by Lee as some sort of manifesto

KKAF: Joe Romm is like Sarah Palin!

You: And did you notice that while Lee is against babies, he is particularly against anchor babies?

KKAF: Joe Romm exploits his daughter!

You: What do you think of the weather this season?

KKAF: Joe Romm is shrill!!
The Keith Kloor Action Figure will be available in stores soon.  Batteries not included.

I guess it’s a question of humour.  I thought Watts’s headline was quite funny, referential.  I don’t expect he was suggesting a serious correlation between this man’s madness and ‘belief’ set, any more than he would some right-wing anti government crazed redneck with 73 rifles.  Some of his commenters, as with TaV, and as with RC and CP, one just has to glaze over and drift past.  C’est la vie.
Romm doesn’t have humour, and it’s almost funny that he thinks he does.
I always measure these things on the old test – would you be happy if this man married your sister.
A sensayuma bypass is the last straw for me.  It’s counterproductive too.
What’s Gavin’s rating on the sensayuma index?

KK
Your take on this is incomplete, and possibly quite wrong. Later.

I was surprised by Anthony’s headline. The opportunity to take a retrospective shot at Hansen’s support of civil disobedience was seemingly too hard to resist, but I think Anthony should have tried harder.
�
Lee might just as easily have been incited by the plight of the earthworm as the parasitic nature of earthly human existence.
�
All said, though, Terry Gilliam’s The Fisher King would be a good place to start, if Hansen ever wished to consider the potential ramifications of his prominence in relation to his own irresponsible incitements to civil action.

John (10), sounds like you’re giving him a pass.

The other thing I want to reiterate–to all those who think I’m being unfair to Joe Romm in this particular post–Tim, you listening?. (Others obviously think I’m being unfair to Anthony.)
I think Joe got it exactly right…up until the point he took that gratuitous swipe at some generalized “anti-science, pro-pollution” blogosphere. He needs to know when to stop talking into that voice recorder, or he should get an editor.
Shub (7), I’m looking forward to reading your defense of Anthony’s headline and post.

I disagree with Watts’ headline and first sentence but the rest of the rather large article were literally just the facts (much more complete than the post that started this thread).  I don’t understand the use of the word warmista.  Many (most?) skeptics are luke warmists.  A more accurate title than warmista might be CAGW nut (i.e. a nut who is obsessed by CAGW) or green nut.   Lee’s belief system is relevant, he picked the Discovery Channel because he felt they betrayed the green cause.  To ignore this smacks of  “move along, nothing to see here” (i.e. a form of cover up).  Of course there are going to be some opponents of CAGW who will exploit Lee’s actions to discredit CAGW.  That is how politics is played in the USA today.
If you believe that CO2 produced by man is literally destroying mother earth, it is so insane to act out?  Lee took hostages but did not necessarily intend to hurt them, it might just have been a publicity stunt gone horribly wrong.   Recently in England, some green activists smeared oil on a road near a site where they where demonstrating.  This could have turned out disastrously.  If you watch “Whale Wars”, you will routinely see green activists do stuff that could turn out disastrously, to attempt to provoke an over reaction by the whalers.
�
It is not unusual for greens to be extreme in their rhetoric and actions.  Sooner or later there was bound to be a tragedy.  Lee had a very specific agenda (which at least Watts printed), it should be discussed, his actions should be put in context.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
 

Gee, I’ve been quoted!  Thanks, Keith.  I stand behind that statement 100%.  Al Gore calls for civil disobedience.  James Hansen calls for civil disobedience and calls coal trains “death trains.”  Of course, we know Romm brings the Haterade by the truckload.  These people have been telling the masses that we face extinction.  Hell on Earth.  Floods!  Droughts!  Super storms!! Higher humidity!!!
�
Lee’s actions are a perfectly rational in light of such an indoctrination.  He ‘s been told again and again:  We Must Act Now!  It’s doubtful Lee had any intentions of actually killing anyone, BTW.  He just wanted to make the Big Statement.  So, in effect, this is the civil disobedience called for by the leaders of the Movement.
I have little hope that Lee’s actions will be applauded by the Alarmists.  There is no courage in their convictions.  Its just another reason why you can’t take them seriously.
 

MikeM (17):
I don’t equate hostage taking with civil disobedience.

Keith (11) – I really don’t know what you are saying in “sounds like you’re giving him (Anthony) a pass”.

I do not always agree with Anthony and, in fact, there isn’t anyone in the world so far with whom I always agree.  I post things at Anthony’s that I am confident he doesn’t agree with.  Yet, never a rebuke from him or a snip or etc.

I am not sure I agree with your “sounds like you’re giving him (Anthony) a pass” statement because I really have no idea what you are trying to say.  Please just say it, whatever it is.

John

Neither do I, Keith.  You and I are normal people.  Most normal people do not even believe in man made warming.  Its the rhetoric of the extreme minority aimed at the weakest of their group that resulted in yesterday’s tragedy.  Words have consequences.  If you keep screaming that the world is about to end some nut will take you seriously.

“Most normal people do not even believe in man made warming.”
�
and tinfoil hats really do work right?

MikeM said at #17:
> So, in effect, this [Lee's hostage-taking]  is the civil disobedience called for by the leaders of the Movement.
MikeM, it would help if you would clarify.  Do you mean:
(1) “Movement leaders” have called for hostage taking?
(2) You have evidence that “Movement leaders” incited hostage taking by conflating it with civil disobedience?
(3) Those sly “Movement leaders” wouldn’t go on the record to incite violence, but you know, just know it is so?
(4) Food fight!
ISTM that your claim is without merit.  You should withdraw it.

There is a larger issue here than Anthony’s and Romm’s write-ups. There has been a concentrated media campaign to push an extreme agenda, cataloguing disastrous consequences. It’s in the papers, it’s on TV, it’s in children’s educational material, it’s in the movies.
�
A lot of people are vulnerable to the messages that are communicated to them, especially when they are dramatic and repeated with slight variations for 20 years.
�
If you grew up on Waterworld, maybe saw it three or four times, then did the same with The Day After Tomorrow, 2012, The Book of Eli, etc., watched ABC’s special last year, and were consuming the other media so filled with messages of despair, if you were already vulnerable, you could succumb to the impulses that drove this man to do what he did.
�
That’s not the same as saying that one or all of those pushing this meme are responsible for what happened yesterday, or the murder suicide in March in Argentina. Or on a much lower level, Anthony Watts getting a hostile woman marching into his office demanding to speak with him. They are not. Joe Romm didn’t cause what happened yesterday, and neither did Al Gore.
�
But they could have done a lot more to prevent it, and they know it, which is why they are immediately seizing on Anthony’s misguided blog header to deflect attention away from what happened.
�
This isn’t about what Anthony put at the top of his blog post.  This is about realizing that people communicate a campaign of messages through various media because they know it will work. It worked.
�
But you cannot always predict the consequences of an effective media campaign.
�
Again–the people Anthony called ‘warmistas’ are not responsible for what happened Wednesday, any more than Paul Ehrlich, whose ideas were also tapped. However, the people who crafted the messages they wanted disseminated wanted to scare the general public to death.
�
And messaging in the mass media works.

“But they could have done a lot more to prevent it, and they know it”
�
care to elaborate Tom?

Personally, I didn’t like Anthony’s post and I think he sometimes  acts to quickly.  As has been pointed out however, he will post points of view or studies from both sides of the aisle (not 1 to 1 admittedly), and he will allow comments from just about anybody whether they agree or disagree.  His pov is clear in his writings and he’s impetuous, hence the post.

Did anybody notice that Lee was also rabidly against immigration to the USA?  I find it interesting that he was influenced heavily on the AGW / Environmental side that would most likely be attributed to a liberal point of view, yet on immigration he seems to me to have been influenced more by a conservative point of view.
Maybe for him, the loudest angriest voices resonated best?

I agree that Joe Romm is a demagogue where he writes…
�
“The right wing couldn’t be happier that this nutjob has expressed environmental views.”

Keith,
You had posted in WUWT asking where Hansen incited violence. There is a reply from a poster pointing out two specific incidents, about his comparing coal trains to box cars headed to crematoria, an allusion even Joe Romm found unpleasant as it conjures memories of Nazi extermination of jews in boxcars.
Another reference form that poster was about Hansen trespassing the property of a mountaintop coal mining company in West Virginia with a bunch of protesters just a year ago, an illegal act for which he was arrested.
Other than that Hansen was also in the news less than a year ago for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.
And of course, Hansen endorsed this book
http://www.farnish.plus.com/amatterofscale/index.htm
where the author Keith Farnish claims
” The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization.”
and
” Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine. The process of ecological unloading is an accumulation of many of the things I have already explained in this chapter, along with an (almost certainly necessary) element of sabotage.”
And Hansen’s take on that book? It was as below
” Keith Farnish has it right: time has practically run out, and the ‘system’ is the problem. Governments are under the thumb of fossil fuel special interests ““ they will not look after our and the planet’s well-being until we force them to do so, and that is going to require enormous effort.”
So Keith, while I agree that Anthony’s  post about warmista’s was possibly something he could have avoided and not in good taste, that was nowhere near to the kind of behaviour and activism espoused by Hansen.
And you defended Hansen, while castigating Anthony. Sorry, I believe you don’t have a right to take the moral high ground here when you seem to condone Hansen’ s behaviour.

Ref – Stu Says:
September 2nd, 2010 at 12:13 pm

Hoohah!  Ditto!

I actually read Watt’s post.
He refers to his readers in the post as ‘filthy’.
Obviously a post meant to be sarcastic. Unfortunately, not everyone read it that way.
In any case, whacko’s tend to be drawn to apocalyptic causes, always have been.
Blather on endlessly about the coming apocalypse as a result of X,Y or Z and watch the whacko’s become completely unhinged.
It would be good entertainment if real people didn’t end up dead as a result.
�
�
�
�
 

A crack pot attempts to hold a television network hostage, threatens to kill people, and is shot when he apparently starts to carryout his threats.  Our fair moderator notes that “the truly whackjob stuff is coming from Beck;” Wattsupwiththat posts a headline critical of “warmistas;” Think Progress makes a big deal about his “anti-immigrant” rantings; and Climate progress chimes in with how mean Anthony Watts is.
�
Am I the only one who thinks that maybe it might be worth trying to analyze what really happened, and why, without playing blogosphere dodgeball?
�
I don’t think this maniac can be blamed on anyone but himself.  But it is also nonsense to claim “…the fact is, like lots of crazy people, he defies category or logic.”  He doesn’t “defy category.” His radical hatred of people in general explains both his Pol Pot style environmentalism, and his vilification of immigrants.
�
Is there one side in the debate that includes those who see people as an infestation on this planet?  Is there one side that actually argues as a core principle that the end justify the means?  Saul Alinsky:  “The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means.”
�
Lee Harvy Oswald was a devout communist.  Sirhan Sirhan wrote in his notebook “Communism is good, any brand of communism is good. Russian, Chinese or Nasser’s. Long live Nasser.”  Giuseppe Zangara, who tried to assassinate Roosevelt (and did kill Anton Cermak), was quoted as saying “I have the gun in my hand. I kill kings and presidents first and next all capitalists.” Oh, and John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated the first Republican president?  He was anti-immigrant too.  Anybody see a patten here?
�
I will now wait patiently for someone to post a list of free market conservative assassins.

Keith
Perhaps because Immigrant issue was only one of the 11 point manifesto raised by him? Going into two-plus pages of spittle-flickings to find his single anti-immigration rant is cherry-picking.
Majority of his rants were environmental and related malthusian ramblings.

Which conservative Republicans have bashed immigrants? Admittedly they (we) bash progressive/liberal/moderate (whatever) politicians who encourage illegal immigration in hopes of securing votes (particularly coupled with banning verification of identity at polling places).  And they also  criticize employers who get away with paying substandard wages to illegal immigrants who fear being deported.
�
But I don’t know a single conservative who wouldn’t admit that he/she would try to come to this country to support a family mired in one of the socialist paradises in Mexico, Central and South America, Southeast Asia, Haiti, Cuba, etc.
�
I see absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing cynical politicians, and hypocritical liberals (and conservatives – think the Wall Street Journal editorial page) whose real concern is keeping their veggies cheap, their sheets ironed and their lawns tailored.  Conservatives don’t advocate “controlling the population” of immigrants.  But one can find many examples on this blog alone of those who favor the China one child policy, and other governmental “control of population.”
�
“immigrant bashing by Republican demagogues and media pundits”  Isn’t that, in itself, demagoguery?
�
And Lou Dobbs a Republican?  Not in years.

MikeM it looks like you need to spend more on eyecare and less on the tinfoil hats.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/energy_update
�
“Most voters (62%) continue to regard global warming as a serious issue, but that number has trended down slightly since last November when the Climategate scandal broke, raising questions about the research and methodology of many pro-global warming scientists. Thirty-four percent (34%) do NOT share the concern about global warming.”

This may sound harsh….
But isn’t this all a bit of a side show…
Some unbalanced person latches on to  ’cause’, etc, etc..

Similalary, recent threads about personalities.  I have no idea really who Romm, Refkin,Morano, etc, Monckton to me (whilst from UK) is just a small side show as well. They are not on anyone’s in the UK/EU ‘s radar really with respect to AGW…  Where ALL politicians are part of the IPCCconsensus.

Immigration was ‘cherry picking’ a bit AND I’m sure Watts UP reallly regrets the headline – VERY CRASS. Pity the more unbalanced members of society, perhaps talk about how Media scares, fears may create this behviour.

Forget about Deniars/Alarmist and talk about where the general public are, the vast majority who have never heard of any of these blogs…  Not even Watts UP, and seem to be mildly sceptical (lukewarm?) about catastrophic man made global warming…

Not ‘side’ not a ‘game’ but real world descisions, issues and consequences.

In the UK, one EU densiet population, immigration is a fcator in AGW..
The goovernment signed up to massive CO2 reduction, but are equally unconcerned about adding 10 miilion people (4/5 immigration) to the countries populaition, with all the inevitable CO2 output..

It is not a racist issue, but a factor in the AGW debate..
For the record, my wife is of spanish origin, and my children have relatives/grandparents of english, italian, spanish, czech and venuzuealn origin…..

I would tend to agree with 95% of Tom’s article at Watts up, I’m also sure our politics are very different, but If we are naming sides, that Tom and I are on the same side,  (that has a broad church)

Sorry, Keith.
�
http://imgs.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/inalameda/2010/05/07/cute-puppy-pictures-sorry-eyes.jpg
 

Wait, Lee didn’t actually get to kill anybody, the police apparently stopped him in the act.  My bad.

I’m a regular over at WUWT, and this particular post of Anthony’s was not, in my opinion at least, one of his finest moments. I, like a number of others, posted to say that this was just a case of a probably mentally disturbed person who would likely have gone postal about something else had it not been environmental issues. We can’t claim in any sense that Lee was representative of the typical CAGW adherent. There are disturbed individuals who ally themselves on both sides of issues like this.
�
However, it’s not quite symmetrical when one side in particular enjoys so much “establishment” approval. And, what Anthony sometimes does – for better or worse – is provide opportunities for a certain section of his readership to vent – and yes, maybe to allow himself to unleash them as his own way of venting.
�
We’re all human, and sometimes we don’t manage to keep a level head. But as has been pointed out, WUWT is, on the whole, a tolerant place. You can say pretty much what you want, pro or con, provided you keep it on-topic and reasonably civil. You’re as likely to be snipped for transgression of these rules whichever side you’re on.
�
My impression of CP is its sheer earnest monotony, like a convention of old-time preachers firing one another up about the evils of wine, women and song. Humourless, self-righteous and deeply depressing. I have yet to find a sceptical site that packs so much venom.
�
There’s a certain amount of anger on both sides of the fence. When exhibited, it’s not an edifying spectacle, and that comes across more than any underlying substantive argument. It’s a question of how much and how often; I get turned off by it from either side.
�
I’ve mentioned humour. Unfortunately, not everyone takes this seriously! . Where you have humour on both sides, it’s usually a sign that a debate is genuine and has the potential to be productive. I’m not talking about mockery or scorn, but the kind of humour that arises when people can appreciate their own fallibility.
�
It’s been my frequent observation that those who are over-earnest are usually such because they aren’t that sure of themselves (I myself make no claims to having always been immune). If they were, they’d be more at ease with their own uncertainties; but uncertainty is the only certainty in life. Psychologically speaking, I think that this is a natural seed bed for the development of humour, and a pretty reliable sign of genuine openness to another guy’s POV. That’s why I think humour is such a serious issue: it allows us to learn new stuff, rub along together, and evolve.
Keep an eye on WUWT. I think Anthony does sometimes poke fun at himself. But Joe? Nah. He’s a Grand Ayatollah with a great long beard and fire in his eye: the stuff of children’s nightmares. When I remember that, I can smile.

Well, I’m mightily impressed at yet another entry into this unprecedented conclave of clairvoyant, time travelling psychiatrists.  Alas my skills are in other areas.  Please forgive any disturbance I might have caused in your circle-jerk.
�
See you in the future.

Lazar;
Thank you for visiting me here in the future with your parable about James Lee being “mentally ill”

GaryM,
�
What on earth is your point? Yesterday you were saying “Crazy is crazy, and afflicts people of every political affiliation” and today you seem hell bent on dragging this thread into whether there are more liberal assassins than conservative ones. Make an argument, or let it go.
You pick ideological fights here all the time. To suddenly put on airs (“Isn’t it funny how all the Rodney Kingish, “can’t we all get along,” kumbaya, let’s have a civil discussion, rhetoric disappears”) when people respond in kind is more than a bit lame, frankly.
�
But while I’m here: if the ‘left’ is stuck with Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, Giuseppe Zangara and John Wilkes Fricking Booth along with Stalin and Mao, then you guys get Scott Roeder, John Salvi, Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and yeah, Hitler. You don’t get to give him back, sorry.

PDA,
I’m sorry, which of those were free market conservatives?
�
I initially wrote a comment about Lee, anticipating the attempts to blame various liberals for his acts.  That is nonsense, and I said so.  Joe Romm is no more personally responsible for Lee than I am.
�
The ideology of socialism, on the other hand, the very concept of central planning by the state, the concentration of massive power in the hands of a small self-styled elite, is another matter all together.   Exalting the collective over the individual makes possible the most horrific acts, without the need for insanity.
�
The people I mentioned all killed in the name of some form of socialism and/or environmentalism.  I did not include John Hinkley who shot Reaganor Dan White who killed Milk and Moscone, for example, because their politics were irrelevant to their acts.
�
And remember, mainstream American leftists for decades defended the actions of Lenin and Stalin.  Castro and Che Guevara are still rock stars on the left in this country.  And we have advisers to the president now who still praise Mao.
�
Roeder and Salvi killed abortionists.  I will concede that their conduct was in furtherance of a traditional conservative value.  It was, however, antithetical to the faith they claimed to hold.  Nor would I consider them any more insane than those leftists on my own list.
�
McVeigh’s and Nichols’ stated purpose on the other hand was revenge for the government’s actions at Waco, having nothing to do with economics or politics, other than lunatic paranoia.  And finally Hitler – if you think National Socialism was about free markets, read Mein Kampf.  I mean really read it, not the cliff notes version.  I won’t waste my time arguing with you on that.
�
Are there those who hold conservative beliefs, who go off the rails and kill?  Absolutely.  Are there similarly leftists whose rampages are unrelated to their politics? Absolutely.  But I pointed out those “who have really killed people in the name of socialism and/or environmentalism.”
�
You have to be nuts to kill in the name of free market conservatism (leaving out just war theory, a different topic all together).  But history is filled with those who killed in the name of socialism/environmentalism.  And as I noted above, some of them are still celebrated.
�
I ask again, who are the free market conservatives who have killed people in the name of their politics?  Who are the “right wing” mass murders who appear on conservative t-shirts these days?
�
As I finish this post, I see Willard’s post.  OK, that’s one…

One to concede, I think, Gary!
�
Nod of the head to Tom for his post over at WUWT. Good call.

Spot the pattern between this thread and this:

> On the Muslim deception, Limbaugh has sprinkled lie dust all over the place. “Obama says he’s a Christian, but where’s the evidence?” he said on Aug. 19. He has repeatedly called the president “imam Obama,” and said, “I’m just throwing things out there, folks, because people are questioning his Christianity.”

> You see how he works. He drops in suggestions, hints, notes that “people are questioning” things. The design is to make Obama un-American. Then he says it’s a tweak, a provocation. He says this as a preemptive way to keep the press from calling him out. And it works; long profiles of Limbaugh have largely gone easy on him.

Source: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/building-a-nation-of-know-nothings

I guess Limbaugh is on topic because the subject of this post is demagogues, and the vast majority here being liberal, I assume he fits the bill.  That being said, if I want to know what Rush Limbaugh thinks, I will go to the New York Times just as readily as I will go to Hamas to find out what Benjamin Netanyahu thinks.
�
I’ve heard Limbaugh’s riff on the Obama Muslim issue, which was based on his responding to MSM stories about why there are doubts about Obama’s religion.  He took pleasure in noting that it was Ka-daffy of Libya who first called Obama a Muslim.
�
By the way, the poll in the article cited by Willard, that points to Limbaugh’s August 19 show as the part of the cause of the poll results? That poll was taken July 21 – August 5.  It also contains this interesting point, amazingly missed by the sleuths at the NYT.  “When asked how they learned about Obama’s religion in an open-ended question, 60% of those who say Obama is a Muslim cite the media. Among specific media sources, television (at 16%) is mentioned most frequently.  About one-in-ten (11%) of those who say Obama is a Muslim say they learned of this through Obama’s own words and behavior. “  (And Limbaugh ain’t on TV.)
�
The New York Times, all the news that’s fit to make up.  Just ask Joe Romm.  (Dang, something both sides can agree on.)

FYI, Shub, the audit report is e.g. here on the Guardian site.  That took 30 seconds to find, BTW.  Google is my friend, and could be yours as well.

Calling the madman Lee a “warmista” is cherrypicking of data. In his weird manifesto he mentions global warming, along with pollution etc, in one of his eleven demands. “Find solutions for Global Warming, Automotive pollution, International Trade, factory pollution, and the whole blasted human economy. ”

In six out of eleven demands, he rants about population control. He concludes “You MUST KNOW the human population is behind all the pollution and problems in the world, and YET you encourage the exact opposite instead of discouraging human growth and procreation.”

Obviously a crazy guy, but not particularly a crazy warmist.

“In six out of eleven demands, he rants about population control. He concludes “You MUST KNOW the human population is behind all the pollution and problems in the world, and YET you encourage the exact opposite instead of discouraging human growth and procreation.”

Yet this is the more extreme GREEN agenda of some people..

Ie humans are killing the planet with their CO2 emmisions…
Very many eco groups wantthe pouplation control (not for political reason) but beacsue those nasty humans are killingthe planet..

So projected increase in world population, become a very core part of CAGW. less humans, less CO2.

So, imho, 6 of the demands regarding population, are because of the fact that he is a CAGW  alarmist.

It would be nice to get back to issues, rather than personalities, other bloggersthough.

As a final note, it appears that the University of Maryland has already categorized this as green terrorism…
�
http://newsdesk.umd.edu/universitynews/release.cfm?ArticleID=2223
�
 

Willard, a few people on the thread have done as you say, which given the topic of the post, I thought was interesting to let through. It appears that some of them found there way here through WUWT, since I had a back and forth with Anthony Watts yesterday on his original post.
On a related note, I see that Joe Romm did another post basically doing a round-up of the blame game taking place in the right wing media. Interestingly, as Romm notes, neither Michelle Malkin or Glen Beck hopped on that bandwagon. Maybe they’re smart enough to recognize that tarring of a group or class of people cuts both ways, and that the next maniac (as you pointed out in the link to that article upthread) could be citing Limbaugh or Hannity as an inspiration.

glad you pointed out the ridiculous equivalence re Anna Haynes Steve…she hardly qualifies as a ‘stalker’…

Wait, Limbaugh is on topic again?  No, just long enough for another stem winder about his hate filled speech.  Now he’s off topic again.
�
Citing Inyourfaceradio and Media Matters….yeah, there’s that agnostic, middle of the road centrism again.

GaryM,
�
Sorry to be catching up late, work and all that. Since the thread seems to be in drift, I’ll continue a bit longer, with our host’s indulgence.
�
I guess no one (or one, if you concede Willard’s example) has killed for “free-market conservative” beliefs. Similarly, no one has killed in the name of my minarchist small-d democratic beliefs. So we’re back where we started: what’s the point?
�
Can ideology (not mine or yours, of course, just other people’s) really be implicated as a contributing factor in the acts of a madman? And what should we do about it if so? Call for banning of political organizations, as a threat to public safety? Or can we, perhaps, just use it as a way to subtly (or not) dismiss positions that could  possibly be associated with that ideology?
�
Again, and again, what’s your point?

Is it too late to bring the KKK to the party? Seems they’re pretty right-wing in their outlook.. not sure if they’re free-market conservatives, though. They’ve definitely killed for their beliefs, though.
�
If it turns out that they are free-market conservatives, can I have 10 points?
�
On WUWT, I fear I may have stepped in the right-wing rattle-snake basket left out by Tom, with his reference to the Palestine/Israel peace talks. Urgh.

Gary, bahh! No point in pretending I’m well-versed in US political history, then, is there? My numbers didn’t come up on the lottery, so I figured maybe lady luck was hanging out here for me.
�
The Democratic Party and the White Supremacy movement don’t mesh in my naive perception of US political battle lines, but I have nothing with which to challenge your assertion. Rather like with James Lee, political affiliation is increasingly difficult to apportion (or perhaps is increasingly irrelevant), the more unhinged an individuals’ extreme views are.
�
I’ll take the 5 point hit.. it’s only fair!

GaryM,
�
That’s not a point, that’s a question. For what it’s worth, the answer is ‘no,’ but I suspect the question was a rhetorical one anyway.
�
What is your point?

kdk, what is it that’s confusing and not covered in the discourse?
�
Gary, thanks for the info/links. US politics are a world away from British politics.
�
In the UK, the British cultural racism and anti-immigration was epitomised by the Conservative politician Enoch Powell (Rivers Of Blood speech), as well as a strengthening National Front (NF, now transformed into the BNP).
�
They were very effectively countered by the Anti Nazi League and Socialist Workers Party, with many other workers’ unions, and the emerging counter-culture punk rock genre and “Rock Against Racism” (RAR) in the mid 70s to early 80s.

SimonH,
�
�
�
There is no need to be well-versed in history.  Here is the current Knights of the Ku Klux Klan platform:
�
�
�
http://www.kkk.bz/program.htm
�
�
�
Compare and contrast with the many pages on conservativism .
�
�
�
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States
�
�
Compare and contrast conservatism in the USA and conservatism in general:
�
�
�
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
�
�
�
Finally, compare with neoliberalism:
�
�
�
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
�
�
�
The only conclusion that we can honestly say is that these epithets are quite complicated.  We can agree that Lincoln and Reagan were members of party with the same name, but we must admit that the conceptual lineage is thin.
�
�
Let’s not forget that, at the time of Lincoln, the Republican party, and the conservative ideology, was actually at the center-left of the spectrum (the question of slavery destroying the Whig Party), and that both conservatives and democrats embraced republicanism .
�
�
My point never were to attack conservatism in itself and I don’t recall anything like an attach on conservatism itself here.  As far as I am concerned, there is something very good in philosophical conservatism.  It’s even a good scientific quality.  If Thoreau is thought to be a conservative thinker, there is no reason to condemn conservatism in general.
�
�
Maybe **The Trap** is still relevant enough to put all these conceptual distinctions into a more pragmatic perspective:
�
�
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_zk2X92kxY
�
�
***
�
�
That said, conflating conservatism and the Republican party would be a very serious mistake.  An even worse mistake would conflating what the Republican party can bring to America and pure eliminationism rhetorics:
�
�
�
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminationism
�
�
�
This concept of eliminationism is being put forward by David Neiwert, who claims that hate talk is radicalizing the American Right:
�
�
�
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_hate_groups_went_mainstream
�
�
�
This idea of eliminationism might be reconciled with the general admonition to stop the hysterics.  Hysterics is bad.  I believe we can all agree that demagogy, however entertaining it might sound, cannot be constructive.  Never.
�
�
I believe this is Keith’s point about his very own chopping block.   I always thought, as Jonathan Gilligan said earlier, that it might be better not to mention it and even to ignore it.  But if what he wants to convey is that his favorite ignoramus’ rhetorics can become dangerous, he may have a point.  And I am forced to accept it.
�
�
And so I believe I was never really as OT as one might fear.

And note that it the common theme of racist politicians during teh civil rights era wasn’t so much being Democrat, as being *Southern*.

Cutting through the BS:

The KKK is, in the mind of everybody at this forum, a racist organization whose mission is to oppress people of color.  Racism isn’t a conservative or liberal issue; republican or democrat.  It’s racism. 

They may have a web page with a platform and some of those planks may be conservative (and some not).  That’s not what distinguishes the KKK, and those aren’t the associations that anybody makes.  Nobody thinks of the KKK as “those guys who want to repeal NAFTA”, they are “those guys in white robes who lynch colored people”

So, when you say KKK people think racism and when you say “the KKK is right wing” you are implying that racism is “right wing”. 

It’s not.

The sentiments of Steve Sullivan and Willard are exactly the point I was trying to make about the offhand comments some have made recently on this blog.  They say in paragraphs what some imply in their off handed comments.  And those who are the targets of the slurs are thereby marginalized.
�
The whole point of my comments above was to show that even “open minded” liberals/moderates like our fair moderator slip allegations of conservatism = racism into conversations that have nothing to do with that topic.  It is like background noise to them, they hardly notice it themselves and cannot understand why anyone is bothered when they do it.  Doesn’t everyone (they know) think that way?
�
I also tried to show that this claim has been false since its inception.  There are conservative racists, there are liberal racists, but it is a simple fact that the Democratic Party was the home of institutionalized racism while the Republican Party was the party that fought slavery and Jim Crow.  Both parties in general eventually supported the civil rights laws, though the Dems were a bit late to the game.
�
The point was not to claim that liberalism = racism.  Quite the contrary, the point was to show liberals that their incessant claims that conservatism = racism are not based on actual history, but on decades of propaganda.  The facts are otherwise.
�
I do not think Keith Kloor is a racist. I know for a fact that I am not.  So let’s make a deal.  I won’t imply liberals are racists (and I haven’t) despite their favored party’s long history of real institutionalized racism, if they won’t keep dropping false racism slurs (explicitly or implicitly) against conservatives in general  into off hand comments about conservatives.
�
Calling conservatives as a group racist is absolutely no different from calling luke warmers like Keith anti-science, do nothing pawns of the oil industry.  Both are false on their face, and both are made to marginalize the object of the slur.
�
For my part, these will be my last words on the issue of racism, unless someone makes future charges.  But the real reason I like this blog so much is the genuine attempt to open people’s minds to actually listen to what their opponents say, not just label them so they can be ignored.  I would just like to broaden the practice of that principle a bit.
�
Labeling people is intended to stop debate, not further it.  If you can convince people your opponent is anti-science, or a racist, an immigrant basher (did you mean French immigrants?), a whackjob or a purveyor of hate speech, then you do not have to deal with his arguments.
�
For example, there is still one party that actively works to keep racial animus alive.  It is the party that cannot win national elections without 95%+ of the African American vote, so they need accusations of racism desperately.  That does not make them racists, it just makes them demagogues.  But just because cynical politicians use race baiting for their own ends, does not mean the people who vote for them have to adopt those same views.
�
The larger climate (CAGW) debate is moving swiftly past the point where what is said on blogs and in the media are having much real effect.  My real interest here is to see whether in the debates that will continue afterward, any of the liberals/moderates who are so cogently urging people to listen to one another now, will continue that posture in the future.  And follow it themselves.
�
I write above about how I think progressive economic policies encourage a certain mindset that leads more easily to extremist action.  PDA, while a bit dismissive, at least asks me to explain what I mean.  If someone wants (on topic) to discuss how particular conservative principles make racism or other harmful bad conduct more likely, that would be a fair debate.  But simply throwing in that conservatives bash immigrants, are whackjobs or engage in hate speech, does nothing to further the debate.  Just the opposite.

“If you want to talk about the politics and demagoguery involved today with respect to immigration and race relations, then you have no choice but to discuss what the leaders of the respective parties (and their surrogates in the media)  have to say it TODAY”“not a hundred years ago.”
�
And, what are they saying, Keith?  Are Republicans denouncing legal immigration, or equal rights for *all*?  What are you implying?  ….Lady in Red

Keith.
�
This being a science blog, I would think you would know that 1964, when 80%+ of Republicans voted for the civil rights acts wasn’t a hundred years ago.  Yep, racists in the party that voted  61% in favor of the civil rights acts, left that party to join the racists who voted 80% in favor of those same acts.  Riiiiiigggghhhttt!
�
“If you want to talk about the politics and demagoguery involved today with respect to immigration and race relations, then you have no choice but to discuss what the leaders of the respective parties (and their surrogates in the media)  have to say it TODAY….”
�
Great, when are you going to do that?  I asked, Lady in Red asked.  Where are the conservatives who bash “immigrants” rather than illegal immigration?  Post some quotes.   Surely your source of knowledge on the issue, of which you are so certain, isn’t really Wikipedia?
�
And I listed the most prominent racist Democrats who fought civil rights, though I left a bunch out.  They all remained Democrats their entire life. The only supposed Dixiecrats who switched parties were guys like Strom Thurmond who switched because of redistricting.  The vast majority stayed right at home, where they were always welcome.
�
But please don’t cite Wikipedia articles written by progressives to prove your point.  “Politically-motivated revisionist historians today are trying to redefine the Southern Strategy….” Yeah, no agenda there.  You might as well quote editorials from the New York Times or the Washington Post.  Why not post some evidence similar to what I have posted about the Democrats.
�
Did Nixon, the self described Keynesian who gave us wage and price controls, the EPA, and Title IX, have some racists on his staff?  Sure.   So has every administration.  But it was never an institutional policy.
�
I know this “conservatives are racists” meme is so ingrained that its become part of some folks DNA; my point was that perhaps you ought to try to be a little more circumspect in throwing around insulting generalized charges of racism.

But if you have to, why not come out and do it with examples?  Drop the innuendo.  Who are the racist conservatives and their “surrogates?”  Pawlenty, Jindahl, Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, Clarence Thomas?  And where are their racist comments?  If I wanted to waste my time and yours, I could post lots of examples of current liberal racists, their racist statements and racist liberal policies. But even then I wouldn’t throw around the charge that “liberals are racists” or whackjobs or hate mongers. I would be describing racists individuals, and I would back it up.  I will leave the generalized baseless insults to my liberal betters.

Hey Gary and Lady-in Red!
We had a Democrat elected to his 3rd presidential term when the Japanese were put in interment camps. Would that qualify FDR as racist, Japan-o-phobe? Definitely anti-immigrant, LEGAL immigrant!
<TIC>

And now for something completely different.
�
Government funded research that actually worked – when the government provided the basic funding then got the hell out of the way:
“Since 1996 Brazilian farmers have increased the amount of land under cultivation by a third, mostly in the cerrado. That is quite different from other big farm producers, whose amount of land under the plough has either been flat or (in Europe) falling. And it has increased production by ten times that amount. But the availability of farmland is in fact only a secondary reason for the extraordinary growth in Brazilian agriculture. If you want the primary reason in three words, they are Embrapa, Embrapa, Embrapa [a public corporation].
…
No less astonishingly, Brazil has done all this without much government subsidy. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), state support accounted for 5.7% of total farm income in Brazil during 2005-07. That compares with 12% in America, 26% for the OECD average and 29% in the European Union. And Brazil has done it without deforesting the Amazon….”
�
(Sorry for the off topic comment, but defending against charges of racism gets old after a while.)

Thanks everyone for the summaries and links. Though I never intended my original KKK question to be more than a rummage, you’ve all provided much to explore.

Keith,

Well, I tried to get away fr0m the race thing.
�
I, Lady Red, KDK, Laurasaurus, all take your racism slur the same way.  Your subsequent posts have made abundantly clear that we read your comment correctly.  Willard and Steven Sullivan seconded yuor remnarks, without comment from you.
�
We all asked you to provide evidence to back it up..  Your answer?  You quote someone who admits that he “…voted for Clinton, twice. [He] thought he was the best Republican president since Ike” and who also notes that he voted for both Nixon and Reagan, but only has criticism for Reagan.   Then you cite to the Huffington Post.  (I’d rather you go back to Wikipedia).
�
Your snide, off hand  allegation of racism was directed at conservatives.  So why can you only  quote liberals in defense of your claim?  You can quote literally millions of liberals who agree with you, but that is not an “immigrant bashing” quote by a conservative.   The thing about group think?  It’s all about the group.
�
You write about how you consider your site a place where all voices are welcome.  OK, so either provide actual evidence of the racist bashing of immigrants by conservatives, or apologize for the comment.  Otherwise, you aren’t a very good host.
�
Maybe you are comfortable following the Joe Romm  method of debate when it comes to issues other than climate.  But if the election returns mirror the polls in a few months, you might want to art least consider not demonizing those who are in the majority.
�
Conservatives are not evil, or stupid, or both, just because you and all the other liberals you know think so.

I didn’t engage in “an honest debate about the rhetoric and demagoguery [you] keep referencing” because you haven’t referenced any.  I did read each of your articles, when you posted them, before responding.
�
Your first cited article contains exactly zero quotations of any kind regarding conservatives bashing immigrants, which was your charge.
�
The second cited screed contains exactly one supposed “quotation” related to immigration:  “Ayres wouldn’t name names, but was likely referring to such congressmen as Steve King (R-Iowa), who has described immigration as a “slow-motion holocaust” that “threatens an eventual destruction of the middle class.”
�
The article that supposedly contains that quote from King is here.  And here is what that racist conservative actually said.  “There is no job Americans will not do. The hottest, most difficult, dirtiest and dangerous job in the world is rooting terrorists out of Fallujah. Marines are doing that job for $8.09 an hour.
The core of the strength of America has always been an ever-broadening middle class. The flood of immigration, both legal and illegal threatens an eventual destruction of the middle class and is resulting in the creation of a servant class. We cannot stand by while our middle class is eroded so that the ruling class in America can create a servant class for themselves. “  Notice how your writer truncated the quote?  And nary a mention of any holocaust.
�
The language that was quoted was criticism of elitists who want cheap veggies, lawn care and ironed sheets on the back of illegal immigrants. My how racist.
�
So all of your posts pointed obliquely to exactly one misrepresented quotation.  It’s hard to debate someone whose only evidence is quoting people who agree with him.  You don’t need to coddle or stroke anyone.  But when four commenters ask you for evidence, you might want to actually produce some.
�
And yes, I am offended when people make broad unsupported accusations of racism.  The whole point of the accusation is to offend.  I just find it fascinating to see someone engaging in demagoguery in a post he began by criticizing the demagoguery of others.  But you are by no means alone.
“[P]romiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.
…
The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama overread his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them. ”
Krauthamer says it better than I ever could.
�
Just so you can see how it sounds from the other side.  Here’s your comment rewritten.  “I’d like to know if you see similar culpability in the race baiting by Democratic demagogues and media pundits.” and “Maybe [you could be] smart enough to recognize that tarring of a group or class of people cuts both ways…”
�
It’s your blog, you get the last word, I am done with the issue.

Since we’re into Canadian stuff:
> For almost three years, I had argued that immigration was the wrong issue on which to hang the wider cause of protecting America’s national identity against bilingualism, multiculturalism, and postmodern deconstruction (the so-called “National Question”). Just before the 1988 election, I had been astonished at a conservative conference in California when a long burst of applause unexpectedly greeted my mild criticism of the slowly developing spread of biculturalism. Knowing the damage that biculturalism had done to Canada””and sensing from the audience reaction that they were anxious on the same score””I judged that language would be the best horse from that stable. “Official English” enjoyed an 80/20 advantage in opinion polls, it had won the few referenda that the political class had been unable to prevent, and it had none of the “Ellis Island” drawbacks attending the immigration issue””few Americans resented their immigrant grandparents’ having to learn English.
Backing up the “damage that biculturalism had done to Canada” would have been interesting.  One wonders why it’s taken for granted.  Taken for granted in a website called **The American Conservative**.
Here comes the rhetorical fall:
> But I changed my mind under two influences.
�
�
Source: http://www.amconmag.com/article/2007/jul/30/00006/
This certainly is about immigration.  Perhaps not immigrant-bashing, but multiculturalism bashing alright.
This is not racism.  It never was the issue.  Where is the accusation of racism exactly?  Are we really asking about references to substantiate “anti-immigrant bashing by demagogues and pundits?”
GaryM mentions accusation of racism here to victimize himself.  This also seems to justify his probing into my sentiments and my seconding.

�
 

Here is my two cents.

#118
Glenn Beck is not affiliated with either the Rep. or Dem. party. Keith seems to think he is providing talking points for the GOP. Since Beck isn’t a party member, why would the GOP elites pay any attention to what he has to say? Unless, of course, there is substance to his remarks. In which case, maybe the Dem. elites might want to also pay attention. I suspect some of their voting bloc is paying attention.

Now on to what really inspired this post.

In #44 Keith uses the phrase:

“… noxious anti-immigrant element …” for James Lee.
A reasonable description since it might exclude the illegals. Those he smuggled for money.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/09/03/maryland.discovery.channel/

“… alarm about illegal immigrants …” for Lou Dobbs.
Also reasonable as this seems to only include illegals.

“… the immigrant bashing by Republican demagogues …”
I read this as including immigrants of all types. If only a subset was meant, I would expect it to be defined as was done with Dobbs.

Therefore, I consider this unreasonable because what I have seen is different. Others have the same opinion and have tried to elicit a further response. All to no avail.

If Keith actually believes a group of Republicans have been bashing all immigrants, he has no reason to modify his remark. But if he wants credibility he should consider providing evidence for those who don’t believe it to be true.

Without evidence it appears to be just some odious wordsmithing used in an effort to tar a group he dislikes. After all, he might have said, “illegal immigrant bashing”, which would be closer to the truth, but it wouldn’t have the same noxious ring to it.

This thread will soon go away, but any opinions formed will last longer. 

How have Republicans alienated Hispanics?
�
> The people that are on television are the loudest on the immigration issue. The emotion, the anger, is a signal. Put aside the substance, but just in terms of the language. It makes it sound like them and us. And the evidence is that after [the GOP] making major inroads, Hispanics have turned toward the Democratic party in the last two election cycles. Big time. Compare that to how my brother did and how I did and how other Republican candidates have done in the past and you can see a trend line that’s quite disturbing.
Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/jeb-bush-interview-0809#ixzz0yhTYOAcc

That’s coming from Jeb Bush.  No Wikipedia.  No Huffington Post.  No evil liberal stuff.  Esquire, pure fluff.

Greenpeace kid video:
” … by the time I grow up … the polar ice caps will be gone …”
Oh, my.
 

Well, all ya can do with any bogus claim is http://xkcd.com/285/
Push for a citation, and read what someone claims as support.
Often, the person making the claim will softly and silently vanish.
Of course they show up elsewhere with a new load of pony-here-somewhere claims.  There’s no shaming people who do that.

GaryM

This is my first post here.
I am French but have appreciated your analysis.
Lee was as sane as everybody but he believed the CAGW propaganada and felt the need to “ACT NOW” .�
Then the thread derived in a bashing of conservatives/right wing in a quite unpleasant way.

After all this left-right dialectics is eternal and plays in France as well as in the USA.
You have convincingly demonstrated for me beyond any reasonable doubt that Kloor is a biased leftist repeating the same kind of mantra like other biased leftists – for example : “right/conservatism = anti-immigrant/racist = evil etc” .
I agree with you, this is a DNA matter.
Even if you put their noses in it, they wouldn’t see it, no amount of evidence could make them see the reality.
They will indeed wear Guevara T-shirts and genuinely not understand why  normal people find something wrong with it .
No when they insult, they won’t apologise as Kloor so aptly said.
They genuinely don’t see that it is an insult .

If I write this post it is because you did a service to me and I wanted to thank you .
I used to read this blog because I was under the impression that the owner was a kind of tolerant, balanced, slightly leftish leaning sort of guy.

I no more think so and it will liberate the time I spent here for more constructive purposes.
I learned much from you and you waste your talents here GaryM .