Liberals celebrate idiocy, hail noted moron Brian Beutler

Stacy McCain sums up salon writer Beutler, and his column of lies to perfection

Brian Beutler is hailed by his fellow liberals as a genius — a man of brilliant insight — for exactly one reason: He is a liberal.

And he expects us lowly mortals to be impressed.

Here is more from The Other McCain I am giving you almost the entire fisking McCain does on Bong Boy Beutler because, well it is dead on, funny, and well worth your read.

The right’s black crime obsession

Conservative media’s total fixation on black-on-black
and black-on-white crime isn’t going to end. Here’s why

(We may derive the intent from the headline: “The right” is conflated with “Conservative media,” because everyone who votes Republican does so because Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh have told them to. This is therefore the umpteenth journalistic reiteration of the Media Matters daily mantra about the illegitimacy of conservative media.)

BY BRIAN BEUTLER

(Prepare for deliberate dishonesty.)

There are a few black people up to no good in this country and Fox News is on it! So is Drudge Report. Vigilantly on the lookout, 24 hours a day, for stories about black youths behaving badly.

(Didn’t I warn you? Beutler starts lying right off the bat, assuming a liberal readership who never actually watch Fox News and who are too lazy even to bother checking the Drudge Report.)

This isn’t a particularly new phenomenon, but it’s intensified noticeably in the past year for at least two reasons. Conservatives, particularly white conservatives, feel a burning urgency to find a racial counterweight to the aftermath of Trayvon Martin’s shooting (including President Obama’s public comments about the incident), a logical response to the argument that things like background checks and an assault weapons ban are appropriate ways to reduce the likelihood of another Sandy Hook-style massacre, and anecdotal justifications for indiscriminate policing of dangerous neighborhoods.

(This has “intensified noticeably in the past year,” which means since August 2012. Is it true that “white conservatives” actually do feel the “burning urgency” Beutler attributes to them? Or is this just another tendentious assertion he pulled out of his ass? Certainly I feel no such urgency, but maybe someone else does.)

But these are hopeless pursuits. The incidents they draw attention to fail by definition to underscore the things they believe. They all require projecting motives or details or both into tragic events, to create false dichotomies between shootings perpetrated by whites and blacks. They have the unhealthy effect of creating dueling tallies of white-on-black and black-on-white crime. And ironically they all tend to underscore the argument that more “stand your ground” laws and more racial profiling are off-point responses to these incidents.

(Do you see how this is going to go? Brian Beutler asserts that conservatives hold certain beliefs, and then asserts that facts don’t support those beliefs. And notice Brian Beutler says conservatives are “projecting motives,” which Brian Beutler never does!)

The latest conservative cri de coeur is over the tragic shooting death of Chris Lane, a 22-year-old Australian attending East Central University in Oklahoma on a baseball scholarship. Two teen boys spotted Lane on a jog last week, trailed him in a car, and allegedly shot him fatally in the back (a third teen reportedly served as their driver). One of the suspects said the boys committed the murder out of boredom.

(This is merely the “latest” such incident — i.e., in which conservatives are alleged to have done what Brian Beutler says they do — but what was the one before Chris Lane? I don’t remember it, but maybe Brian Beutler could, if he chose, rattle off a long list of incidents like this which, so he says, “conservative media” have hyped for the reasons that he says they’re hyping such incidents. He doesn’t actually provide a list, however, so readers are supposed to take Brian Beutler’s word that this is actually a phenomenon.)

Word of the shooting spread quickly. And that’s when the right clumsily revealed that its obsession with gun violence reflects an obsession with racial score settling rather than with averting further tragedies. The conservative media, including Fox News, repeated the claim that the Oklahoma suspects were all black. But this turned out to be a toxic mix of racial bias and wishful thinking. You almost wonder whether the people whose ulterior motives led them into error like this actually lamented the fact that one of the suspects happened to be white. It would be so much more convenient if that weren’t the case.

(When did Fox News, or anyone else, do what Brian Beutler says they did, claiming that the “suspects were all black”? I mean, maybe they did — I haven’t paid any attention to this story — although I don’t see Beutler linking to a source, or quoting anyone. But once again, Beutler assumes a liberal readership that never watches Fox News, so he could say anything about the network’s programming and his ignorant readers would have no choice but to accept his assertions.)

But let’s pretend for a minute that the suspects had all fit the stereotype the hosts at Fox and Friends wanted. Then the idea is that Chris Lane’s death should somehow offset Trayvon Martin’s, or that the people who sought to turn George Zimmerman’s actions into a national referendum on “stand your ground” laws are somehow hypocritical for having little to say when the races of the culprits and innocent victims are reversed. For reactionary Obama foes like former Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., the obvious question is, “Whom will POTUS identify w/this time?”

(The link to the Tweet by Allen West is THE ONLY LINK IN THIS ENTIRE COLUMN. Isn’t Salon.com, y’know, one of those Internet kind of things, where political bloggers routinely link to their sources, so as not to give the appearance that they’re just pulling stuff out of their ass or, as some call it, “doing a Beutler”?)

I’ll give West, et al., this: If you ignore motive, circumstance, history and (likely ) outcome, then liberals, particularly black liberals, sure seem craven. By that standard, though, Jean Valjean and John, King of England are moral equals — just a couple of guy s with similar names taking other people’s property.

(Does that paragraph mean anything? Anything at all?)

So let’s review: George Zimmerman wouldn’t have shot Trayvon Martin if he hadn’t been profiling by race. And even if he had been, the shooting feasibly wouldn’t have happened if he hadn’t been legally allowed to carry a handgun and didn’t think he was empowered by law to take matters into his own hands. The monstrous killing of Chris Lane has no such back story. The killers apparently had no motive whatsoever, were armed illegally, and certainly weren’t trailing Lane because they believed, based on his race, that he might be a criminal. They are, however, likely to face serious prison time for their crimes. Zimmerman walked.

(And here, evidently too stoned to realize it, Beutler actually proves a point — a conservative point — about crime: People get shot to death all the time, for all kinds of reasons, or for no reason at all, and no policy advocated by liberals is going to prevent this from happening. Zimmerman shooting Trayvon? You can call that “racial profiling” or you can call it a tragic misunderstanding, but exactly how do you propose to prevent it from happening? “Zimmerman walked” because he had a claim of self-defense sufficiently plausible to constitute “reasonable doubt.” Also, notice that, while admitting that the teenagers in the Chris Lane shooting were illegally armed, Brian Beutler assumes that if Zimmerman “hadn’t been legally allowed to carry a handgun,” Zimmerman would not have also illegally armed himself. Why assume that? And what about Trayvon’s “whoop-ass” beating of Zimmerman, which Zimmerman said he thought might end in his own death? Would Brian Beutler have been happy to have Trayvon beat Zimmerman to death?)

Put that all together, and it turns out these stories aren’t counter-parallel at all. And more to the point, the events don’t even anecdotally augur for policies the right supports. The kids in Oklahoma weren’t “standing their ground,” and a “stand your ground” law wouldn’t have saved Chris Lane. Neither would a stop-and-frisk regime — the killers were trailing him in a car. By contrast, a “stand your ground” environment and a stop-and-frisk mentality were instrumental in Trayvon Martin’s death. Take either away , and there’s a good chance he’d be alive today. Martin in fact personified the statistical folly of stop-and-frisk. If Zimmerman had yielded to real police, they would have, in absence of any suspicious behavior, stopped Martin, frisked him and found only the skittles and iced tea that made his death that much more tragically poignant.

(Again, it is only Brian Beutler’s assertion that the Chris Lane murder is being reported because “conservative media” believe the story supports a policy argument. My own guess is that after the incessant 24/7 media drumbeat about the Zimmerman trial, which liberals claimed was an event fraught with political significance, some “conservative media” basically decided, “Hey, we’re going to stop downplaying or ignoring black-on-white crime, just to make a point.” But that’s merely my guess. Unlike Brian Beutler, I don’t possess any clairvoyant mind-reading powers that enable me to know why Fox News producers or Matt Drudge do what they do.)

You could twist that into a claim that stop-and-frisk might have saved Martin’s life. But that gets the onus backward. Proponents of profiling policies need to do better than argue we have to violate the civil rights of minorities in order to protect them from hair-triggered vigilantes.

(The “stop-and-frisk” thing is strictly an issue in New York, because of an NYPD policy that was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge. It has nothing to do with Oklahoma and even less to do with Sanford, Florida. Why Brian Beutler keeps bringing it up, I don’t know. Has the “stop-and-frisk” issue has been discussed by anyone at Fox News in the context of the Chris Lane murder? If it has, then why doesn’t he quote that discussion? In general, why are there no links or quotes in this column? Why can’t Brian Beutler be bothered to provide actual evidence of the phenomenon he presumes to critique? Why do liberals think it’s acceptable to assert controversial claims that they don’t bother to prove? How many bong-hits does Brian Beutler usually do before writing his columns? Seven. That’s  now an established fact — because I just asserted it, see?)

What might well have stopped both killings, though, is making it harder for people, legally or illegally, to come into possession of handguns. That’s a conversation the right is less obsessed with.

(Again with the assertion: People who Brian Beutler doesn’t like are “obsessed,” or they “ feel a burning urgency,” or have an “obsession with gun violence” and “an obsession with racial score settling,” or are motivated by “racial bias and wishful thinking.” Over and over again — pausing only to take another bong hit — Beutler attributes irrational motives to antagonists for doing what he asserts they are doing, although he merely asserts this without providing any actual evidence of it. There are no quotes from Fox News broadcasts in Brian Beutler’s column, no links to transcripts. It’s just a straight-up rant that was written only because Brian Beutler is supposed to write a certain number of columns per week for Salon and, because he never does any reporting or, for that matter, much of anything that could be called “research,” he just sat down, toked up a few bowls of sinsemilla and let it rip, right off the top of his head.)

Brian Beutler is Salon’s political writer. Email him at bbeutler@salon.com and follow him on Twitter at @brianbeutler.

(Or you could also block him on Twitter. Or say rude things about him on Twitter. Certainly there’s no reason to follow him, unless you want him to hook you up with some weed.)

Copyright © 2011 Salon.com. All rights reserved.

Fuck you. Fair use. Sue me, you bastards, I double-dog dare you.

Hence forth, any time I reference Beutler, AKA Bong Boy, and I am sure I will because he writes such incredibly bad pieces ( so bad they make David Brook’s screeds look good) that I will feel compelled to take him to the proverbial woodshed at some future point. As an added bonus, here is Brian Beutler preparing to do a Salon piece

Bong Boy1

What could be worse than Hillary 2016?

Smitty suggest Janet Napolitano might run if………

Via Drudge:

So, what happens if Hillary Clinton doesn’t run in 2016?
It is hard to imagine the presidential field without a woman contender, and here’s one to keep your eye on: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Napolitano is quietly making it known that she is considering the race, and there is reason to take her seriously.

Yeah, I can see the GOP, Tea Partiers, and basically anybody else with a functioning brain being more than a little motivated to work against Big Sis if she’s on the ticket.

Now, if she brings on Bill Maher as VP, would the double negative somehow work?

Napolitano/Maher 2016? Or maybe I should say Dumber than a Tree Stump/Ultimate Douche Nozzle 2o16? And the campaign slogan would have to be If you See Something Say Something

Senator Bob Menendez hooker scandal? UPDATED!

RS McCain has the scoop

Dominican hookers, to be specific. This is what we’re hearing about the sex scandal involving a “powerful senator” in a sex scandal being touted by Drudge, with a story by the Daily Caller promised late tonight.

Domincan hookers you say? Maybe they are just doing the Horizontal Bop with a man who American hookers just will not do?

Well, do not expect this to get much attention from the media types, unless it is a headline that reads something like Humanitarian Bob Menendez reaches out to help underprivileged Dominicans.

This update just in, Bob Menenedez is accused of not only having sex with the hookers, but screwing them out of money too, sounds like a Democrat to me

In interviews, the two women said they met Menendez around Easter at Casa de Campo, an expensive 7,000 acre resort in the Dominican Republic. They claimed Menendez agreed to pay them $500 for sex acts, but in the end they each received only $100.

The women spoke through a translator in the company of their attorney, Melanio Figueroa. Both asked that their identities remain obscured for fear of reprisals in the Dominican Republic.

When shown a photograph of Sen. Menendez, the women said they recognized him as the man with whom they’d had sexual relations at Casa de Campo this spring. Both said they were brought to the resort with the understanding they would be paid for sex.

Neither knew the identity of the man at the time. Both claimed to recognize him later as Sen. Menendez.

“He called him[self] ‘Bob,’” said one.

Who knows if these allegations are true, if they are, well, men paying for sex is not too uncommon and Menendez is single, divorced, so it is not like he is cheating, but still, this is not the way a United States Senator ought to conduct himself., especially on a trip funded by our tax dollars. Stacy McCain asks a pertinent question, one that hits on the accusation that Menendez cheated these women out of money.

What would Lilly Ledbetter say?

What would she say indeed!

Ah, I love it when “entitlements” and invented “rights” bite Democrats in the ass!

This is priceless, absofreakinglutely PRICELESS!

 

From CBS Charlotte, we learn [tip of the fedora to the Drudge Report]:

The Democratic National Committee is taking flak from women’s groups for the lack of child care that is being provided at the convention. The Charlotte Observer reports that children will not be allowed access on the floor of the Democratic National Convention and that daycare will not be provided for delegates who bring their kids.

Women’s rights activist Gloria Steinem and several National Organization of Women chapters have called out the DNC for the “discrimination against mothers with young children.”

Love it! The Democratic party spends every day telling different groups what they are owed by governemnt. they spend every day creating fictional “rights” health care, college educations, birth control, child care, and, wait, did I mention child care? Well that chicken has certainly come home to roost. Bob Belvedere is laughing his arse off over this too

Delegate Susie Shannon feels the DNC is putting her in a tough position because she is bringing her 4-year-old along.

“The Democratic Party shouldn’t put you in a position where you have to choose between your child and participating in a political convention,” she told The Charlotte Observer.

Uh-hum…[clears throat]…Mzzzzzz. Shannon, ah…well…what in the Hell are you doing bringing a friggin’ little kid to an adult convention, huh? What’s with this [pun intended] childish Hysteria ['I have to choose between my child and going to the Democratic Convention! (places back of palm on forehead and faints)]?

Give me a break.

Get up off your smug, arrogant little arse, Susie-Q, and hire a Goddamn baby sitter.

By the way, blue Sue: how do you feel about having to be forced to choose between your child and your career? What?…sorry, I didn’t hear you…oh, okaaaay…that’s different…I see…say that again…oh…that’s a different situation because you have ‘a right to be fulfilled’ and your ‘career is the one thing that completes’ you…okay, I get it……….idiot.

Preach it Bob!

Thee is a lesson here, one that every Liberal ought to heed. When political parties begin promising to meet this need, and provide for that need, and start telling everyone that anything they want is a “right” people start buying it. And when people start buying those lines, they begin expecting more, and more, and more. Then they demand more, and more, and yet more. And the more they demand, the less government can deliver, and, well, I doubt any Democrat will ever learn that lesson, until the country crashes off a fiscal cliff, and then it is just too late isn’t it?

The end of Newt? UPDATED

Does ABC News hold the death card that will “end Newt’s career”?

UPDATE: An ABC News executive told The Associated Press the network is likely to air the interview Thursday on “Nightline.” The Blaze’s earlier report and background on the controversy follows below.

According to Drudge Report, Marianne Gingrich — ex-wife of GOP candidate Newt Gingrich — dropped what sources claim is a game-changing bombshell about the former House Speaker — one that could “end” her ex-husband’s career. The two-hour long interview, conducted last week by Brian Ross, is said to contain “explosive revelations” that will “rock the campaign trail.”

The controversial nature of the interview is now causing major waves at the network, according to sources, and a “civil war” has since exploded at ABC on exactly when the tell-all will air.

Drudge reports that executives at ABCNews say it would be “unethical” to run Marianne Gingrich’s interview so close to South Carolina Primary and that a tentative decision has been made to broadcast the interview next Monday after all votes have been counted.

Well, we know that Newt was a bad husband, so there has to be more, a lot more if this story could end his career. Or is ABC just hoping that just the mention of a “bombshell” will do the trick. I have feared Newt’s baggage, and I suppose we will find out soon if my fears were well founded.

Right now, and I hate saying this, it appears that we could be, after South Carolina, down to Newt and Romney. If this news is truly a bombshell though what then. Let’s say Newt gets destroyed by this interview. Does Santorum rebound? Will Romney have  cakewalk from here out? Could there be one last shot for Perry? Likely not, since the voters seem to written Perry off for some unforgivable sin. Frankly, I am stunned that the base turned on Perry so quickly, and so permanently.

One last thought. How valid will this story be? Would Newt’s ex try to destroy him by lying? Clearly he was a cheat, but we already know that. Would she be willing to add “facts” to kill Newt’s chances? I always question the timing these types of interviews. If there was something so bad that it will nuke Newt, why was it not shared before this?

UPDATE! Hot Air reports via Howard Kurtz that the interview will reveal nothing new.

Good lord. After all the hype tonight, is this thing actually going to be a giant nothingburger? Howard Kurtz:

A knowledgeable insider says that Newt Gingrich’s second wife does not say anything in the taped interview with ABC News that she hasn’t said in previous print interviews. But to repeat her account of how their marriage failed—because the then-House speaker was having an affair—in a form that can be endlessly replayed on television could prove a serious distraction for the presidential candidate two days before the South Carolina primary.

So maybe this is just a publicity deal for her? Or maybe the thought is that this will hamstring the Gingrich “surge”. Guess we find out soon enough