AFF's Doublethink

mikeybackwards — September 11, 2009 at 3:34 pm

I think one would have to be blind or illiterate not to be aware that Andrew Sullivan supports decriminalization of marijuana (and while he has never come right out and said it, I at least, had the impression that he was – in the words he has used in the past – a closet consumer of marijuana). However, as I commented at Galley Slaves (having followed your link), I am not so certain that one can say more than it appears Andrew Sullivan was the recipient of singular preferential treatment by the US Attorney.

Sonny Bunch — September 11, 2009 at 3:43 pm

From the federal judge who oversaw the case:

[The U.S. Attorney] “is not being faithful to a cardinal principle of our legal system, i.e., that all persons stand equal before the law and are to be treated equally in a court of justice once judicial processes are invoked. It is quite apparent that Mr. Sullivan is being treated differently from others who have been charged with the same crime in similar circumstances.” (emp. mine)

A summary: http://blogs.masslawyersweekly.com/news/2009/09/10/judge-angered-by-special-treatment-for-andrew-sullivan/

PDF of the full decision:

http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=collings/pdf/09-0476rbcsullivan.pdf

mikeybackwards — September 11, 2009 at 4:23 pm

Sonny,

I provided you a link to my comment at Galley Slaves rather than cutting and pasting it here. It does not appear from your reply that you saw where I addressed that issue after having read the decision (having followed the link Galley Slaves posted).

However, here it is:

I think you are drawing a conclusion that is not substantiated by the facts “but because he’s Andrew Sullivan, the State quickly decides to drop the charges . . .” Nothing you posted substantiated your suggestion that another individual without Mr. Sullivan’s notoriety and status as a journalist and blogger would not or could not receive similar treatment. Indeed, while the judge in this case clearly noted that others were being charged and prosecuted for a similar offense, the court fails to show that any of those individuals were facing similar immigration concerns. Absent evidence to the contrary, it is possible that the US Attorney is applying the law and its discretion equally and fairly inasmuch it may dismiss such petty offenses for all potential defendants involved in such immigration proceedings because the potential penalty of prosecution places a disproportionate penalty (jeopardy of immigration status) that similarly situated US citizens, permanent residents, and foreign nationals not involved in, or contemplating such immigration considerations do not face.

So, while there may indeed be an appearance of conflict of interest – and I agree that Mr. Sullivan should address that appearance, I am not so certain that Mr. Sullivan or the United States Attorney acted inappropriately.

Posted by Mikeybackwards | 3:24 PM

Having failed to consider that disproportionate penalty that a would-be immigrant would face, the argument the judge makes is valid only in the crudest and most broad application. The formulation I am suggesting is a more narrow and nuanced application of the same principle. Since the judge did not explore, and neither the US Attorney’s office nor Andrew Sullivan have addressed, the issue of consistency within that more narrow context, we do not know, nor can we necessarily presume, that equality and justice under the law are not best served by the US Attorney’s actions.

mikeybackwards — September 11, 2009 at 4:31 pm

Also, aren’t you being just as hypocritical, in suggesting we should treat everyone equal under the law, in this case, even as you have defended those who in the Bush administration who violated laws in the torture and warrantless wiretapping programs from prosecution.

Sonny Bunch — September 11, 2009 at 4:43 pm

Mikey, I’m not a fancy big city lawyer … instead, I’m more or less content to take the word of a federal judge who went waaaaay out of his way to highlight the fact that some shady doings were a-transpirin’. He should know. He only deals with this stuff every day. If it turns out that the U.S. Attorney lets all potsmokers with visa issues go free, then so be it. But that’s certainly not the case that was made in front of the federal judge, now is it?

And as far as charges of hypocrisy go, I’ll take mine against Sullivan’s constant harping about the “rule of law” (not to mention the absurd invasion of Sarah Palin’s privacy/false allegations of a fake pregnancy while maintaining radio silence on his own ACTUAL transgressions) any day of the week.

mikeybackwards — September 11, 2009 at 5:15 pm

Sonny –

I’m not a fancy big city lawyer either, but if I can see this gap in the judge’s considerations – I don’t think it would take much of an attorney to address it either. Likewise I see the point you and Galley Slaves made as I acknowledged in my comment on Galley Slaves, cross posted above, but am not going to jump to conclusions, absent what appears to me to be a pretty big gap in the judge’s argument.

I personally think the US Attorney’s office should have responded to the judge’s inquiry. I agree that neither party asserted that it was a general policy of the US Attorney to let defendants with visa issues off on these types of charges. The judge, however, is making an affirmative and exclusionary case for this being an unjust action by the US Attorney, so the burden for supporting that argument falls to him. I understand your respect for the judge’s expertise, but for someone who refused to respect the ruling of the majority of the California Supreme Court, your sudden and facile respect for the bench seems just a bit self-serving to me.

However, I agree with you that Andrew does seem to have a strange fixation on the whole pregnancy thing, and have already acknowledged he should address this issue.

Sonny Bunch — September 11, 2009 at 7:56 pm

If it wouldn’t take much of an attorney to address it, then why didn’t they address it? It would have literally taken one sentence from the U.S. Attorney — We routinely do not prosecute immigrants for trivial pot possession because it places an undue burden on their residency status — to clear it up with the judge and dispel his worries about equal protection under the law. The U.S. Attorney probably knew he couldn’t utter such a statement because such a statement would have been total BS. So he kept quiet. Just a guess, but considering the way things went down, not an unreasonable one.

I “respected” the California Supreme Court’s ruling insofar as, if I was a resident of CA, I would have abided by it, just as I “respect” the constitutional amendment that was passed by a majority of the voters of that state outlawing gay marriage. I don’t particularly “agree” with either the 4-3 Supreme Court decision or the passage of Prop. 8 (after all, I have no real problem with gay marriage…but I do have a problem with gay marriage imposed by judicial fiat).

mikeybackwards — September 11, 2009 at 8:09 pm

So in short you respect the rights of judges to rule on the law and issues so long as you agree with the ruling.

Got it.

Sonny Bunch — September 11, 2009 at 8:20 pm

Do you not recognize the difference between “respecting” and “agreeing” with a legal ruling?

mikeybackwards — September 11, 2009 at 9:12 pm

I absolutely understand the difference. I also appreciate the difference in deference between the two rulings, which is my whole point. You agree with this ruling (flawed as its argument might be, however correct the conclusions formed may or may not be) and disagreed with the California Court (even to the point of trying to argue that their authority to rule on issues of constitutionality is not appropriate). Thus you overlook the soundness of the legal reasoning in the latter case, even as you overlook the problematic reasoning in the former case based solely on your agreement with the conclusion rather than the legal merits.

This judge got upset because he didn’t agree with the US Attorney’s decision. So he took it upon himself to research to prepare this diatribe that Galley Slaves and you seized upon to bash another writer with whom you disagree. He absolutely has the right and power to do so, and to determine whether or not, as the US Attorney argued, his role in dismissing the charge was merely procedural or if it was determined (which even he finally concluded it was not).

The fact that the judge’s consideration and presentation of supporting arguments for his predetermined position with incomplete was not noticed by you or Galley Slaves. You then respond to this challenge by asking, rhetorically, I presume, why the US Attorney didn’t respond pointing this out, when there was no response need, or required as the judge ultimately performed his function in the dismissal process.

This same disregard for completeness and accuracy was evident in your zeal to pass on Gateway Pundit’s portrayal of Van Jones as an organizer of a Truther march in 2002 as support for your predetermined conclusion even though it was not true as a plain reading of the source material showed, reading that in both cases you apparently failed to do.

Then you get upset when someone calls you out on it.

Sonny Bunch — September 11, 2009 at 9:58 pm

If you notice, I agree with and respect the ruling of the judge in the Sullivan case even though I dislike the final outcome. Like the judge, I think it’s pretty clear that Sullivan is receiving disparate treatment; like the judge, I’m intrigued by the fact that the U.S. Attorney refused to explain himself; like the judge, I realize that it’s not the judge’s place to arbitrarily impose his will on the legal process contra the established procedures. And that final point is the difference between the judge in this case and the slim majority in the CA Supreme Court…it’s the difference between interpreting the law as a judge and imposing your will on the law as a judge. The former I agree with and respect; the latter I respect but don’t agree with.

And I’m unimpressed by your determination that the judge’s “consideration and presentation” was “incomplete.” Again: He asked whether or not this was SOP, received no answer, and ruled according to the law. What’s incomplete about this? If he was wrong or sloppy, why hasn’t Sullivan defended himself? Why hasn’t the U.S. Attorney? Why haven’t we seen the facts that every immigrant with visa troubles gets charges dismissed because they’re inconvenient? I’m guessing we haven’t seen these things because they don’t exist.

As to Van Jones, once again: He signed the “911 Truth Statement, a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur.” That makes him a Truther. Regardless of his involvement in the SF march, he’s a Truther. Just admit it. It’s no big deal. He’s embarrassed by it now (only because it cost him a cush gig), and he should be! But he’s a Truther.

And who’s upset?

mikeybackwards — September 11, 2009 at 11:20 pm

You agree with the judge’s ruling because he concludes (as you do) on incomplete information, that the dismissal is unjust and violates the principle

that all persons stand equal before the law and are to
be treated equally in a court of justice once judicial processes are invoked.

This serves your purpose of accusing Andrew Sullivan of hypocrisy.

As I have noted with detail, it is incomplete and sloppy because it only examines the limited circumstances under which the predetermined conclusion that it violates that principle are valid and only reluctantly (and with the qualification that the ruling is forced and unjust) does the judge comply with the request to dismiss.

It should be noted that in the California Supreme Court case, the judges concluded that based on past precedent and the wording of the California State Constitution they had no choice but to find that California’s pre-Prop 8 ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. This is the exact formulation you claim to find in the judge’s decision in the Sullivan case. The only difference is you like the conclusions Judge Collings made, and dislike the findings of the California Supreme Court majority.

You love to use the artifice of ‘well, if I’m wrong why hasn’t X defended himself’. You used in the debate about Van Jones, and you have used it repeatedly here. The fact that someone chooses not to respond, or to respond in a manner you dislike is not proof that you are right.

The fact that Van Jones may be a Truther (although if signing one petition years ago that he may or may not have read completely makes that so, then you must also conclude the legislators who sponsored Birther legislation are even more conclusively Birthers than Jones is a Truther), does not absolve you of posting and failing to correct your assertion that he was a sponsor of the San Francisco march.

Why is it that you can’t just admit that you failed to verify the evidence regarding Van Jones’ association with the Truthers because it met your preconceived conclusion? Why can’t you just admit that accepted Judge Collings arguments without reading them critically because they bolstered the argument you wanted to crib off of Galley Slaves?

By the way, I won’t just admit Van Jones is a Truther, because absent some more substantial proof than signing a single petition several years ago, there is nothing to contradict his statement that he is not now, nor has been in the past a Truther. But just to call you on the whole consistancy thing – if Van Jones is conclusively Truther based upon signing one petition – then you need to just admit that the Republican members of the House of Representatives that introduced the Birther bill are Birthers.

I know applying one’s standards consistently to those with whom agrees as well as those with whom one disagrees is hard – but man up, already.

Sonny Bunch — September 11, 2009 at 11:33 pm

This is really hilarious. Van Jones signs a petition stating that further investigation is needed into George W. Bush’s willfull allowance of 9/11: Not a Truther! Several House members cosponsor legislation saying that in the future presidential nominees should have to prove that they’re 35 years of age/natural born residents (as the Constitution states they have to be) with no reference to Pres. Obama, and (most of) those same members vote for a resolution that literally affirms Pres. Obama was born in Hawaii: They are Birthers! It’d be funny, if it wasn’t so sad.

mikeybackwards — September 12, 2009 at 12:55 am

Guess what – you’re wrong again. Do you really read nothing before you make such idiotic claims? Here is a link to the statement Van Jones signed Please post showing where it says Bush willfully allowed 9/11 to happen? Oh wait, you can’t because it doesn’t.

As to the Birthers – it is ludicrous for you to suggest that the legislation that was introduced was not targeting Obama in light of these comments by sponsors of the bill.

When you learn how to read something before you repeat it – and then post and comment accurately about what they say – or get honest and consistent about your arguments, you might actually find yourself making sense.

Until then, we once again see you refusing to admit that you were wrong about what you posted and making wild accusations based upon that flawed and deliberately misconstrued information. But then, I guess that’s why you write movie reviews which don’t require the same intellectual honesty or rigor of real journalism where you are accountable to such niggling things as details and facts.

Sonny Bunch — September 12, 2009 at 8:13 am

Once again, as I’ve quoted before in this very thread, the statement that you linked to and which Van Jones willingly signed is “a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur.” Are you quibbling over whether or not George W. Bush is one of the “high-level government officials” the Truthers were after? Because if you are, you’re being about as obtuse as the warden at Shawshank.

Let’s go in the wayback machine and take a look at a link I posted in the first go-round on this. Here’s the text of the actual “birther bill”:

“To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.”

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1503

Note: Nowhere is there a mention of Obama and, since a few people have already seen his birth certificate, it won’t really affect him in 2012, will it? This actually isn’t a terrible idea; as one of the flaks in that WaPo blog mention, this specific type of idiotic rumor pops up all the time. It’s happened in the 1800s; it’s happened in the 1900s; it’s already happened in the 2000s. It’d be worth putting them to bed once and for all: Crazy people will find all sorts of things to get worked up about…I’m all for giving them one fewer thing.

And, let’s not forget, that almost all of the cosponsors on that bill signed the following resolution:

“Whereas August 21, 2009, marks the 50th Anniversary of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s signing of Proclamation 3309, which admitted Hawaii into the Union in compliance with the Hawaii Admission Act, enacted by the United States Congress on March 18, 1959 … Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:2:./temp/~c111w70ra8::

Lookie there, they signed a resolution that went out of its way to emphatically state that President Obama is in fact eligible to be president. This makes them the opposite of Birthers. If you look at the quotes from that WaPo piece, all three of the Members Akers cites — Blunt, Gohmert, and Culberson — voted in favor of that resolution. Again, here’s the roll call vote:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll647.xml

I’ll take their actions over their idle (and probably tongue in cheek, knowing the venues from which those quotes were gathered) speculation.

So, to summarize one last time:

Van Jones is a 9/11 Truther and thinks that there is evidence that Bush and his cronies deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, putting his name to a petition that said just that. The Republican House members you so casually defame as Birthers, meanwhile, have signed onto a resolution stating that they believe the opposite of what the Birthers believe, meaning they are not Birthers. It’s really pretty basic.

mikeybackwards — September 12, 2009 at 12:10 pm

Funny, using the same reasoning as you apply to the Birthers – since the statement nowhere mentions the name or title of George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States, your statements that the statement claims Bush deliberately allowed 9/11 to occur, there is nothing there, that is not the intent of the 9/11 Truthers.

However, that is not all. Once again, you appear unable to parse a text properly. So for your edification I will do it for you.

To wit:

Respected Leaders and Families Launch 9/11 Truth Statement Demanding Deeper Investigation into the Events of 9/11

NEW YORK CITY, NY (Oct. 26, 2004)(Updated Sep. 11, 2009) – An alliance of 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 today announced the release of the 911 Truth Statement, a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur. The Statement supports an August 31st Zogby poll that found nearly 50% of New Yorkers believe the government had foreknowledge and “consciously failed to act,” with 66% wanting a new 9/11 investigation.

Focusing on twelve questions, the Statement highlights areas of incriminating evidence that were either inadequately explored or ignored by the Kean Commission, ranging from insider trading and hijacker funding to foreign government forewarnings and inactive defenses around the Pentagon. The Statement asks for four actions: an immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Congressional hearings, media analysis, and the formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.

The Statement’s list of signatories includes notables spanning the political spectrum, from Presidential candidates Ralph Nader, Michael Badnarik, and David Cobb to Catherine Austin Fitts, a member of the first Bush administration, as well as Washington veterans like Pentagon whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern. Other signers range from peace activists like Global Exchange’s Kevin Danaher to former US Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq, Edward L. Peck; from environmentalists like Randy Hayes and John Robbins; from populist journalist Ronnie Dugger to renowned investigative reporter Kelly Patricia O’Meara.

The Statement also includes 43 noted authors, including New York Times #1 bestseller John Gray, as well as 18 eminent professors, historians, and theologians. Other notables include five-term Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, singers Michelle Shocked and Michael Franti, and actors Ed Asner and Mimi Kennedy.

The Statement was facilitated by 911truth.org, a leading coalition. The organization has also announced a press conference outside of Eliot Spitzer’s Manhattan office (corner of Cedar and Nassau) at 2:00PM on Thursday, Oct. 28th where 9/11 family members and victim group representatives will file a formal complaint demanding the first criminal investigation of 9/11 events by the New York Attorney General.

Page Update 9/9/2009: Following is the actual statement endorsed by these signatories, as referred to in the press release above.

The above text is the press release that was made after Van Jones and the others signed the Statement. Van Jones may or may not have been aware of this press release before it was made and/or at the time of his signing of the Statement. He has since claimed that he was unaware of it and as the appended text of the website reflects he and two other of the original signatories have now distanced themselves from the Truthers and repudiated their signature of the statement in light of the press release claims.

Here is the text of the Statement:

The Statement

We Want Real Answers About 9/11

On August 31, 2004, Zogby International, the official North American political polling agency for Reuters, released a poll that found nearly half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of those in New York state believe US leaders had foreknowledge of impending 9/11 attacks and “consciously failed” to act. Of the New York City residents, 66% called for a new probe of unanswered questions by Congress or the New York Attorney General.

In connection with this news, we have assembled 100 notable Americans and 40 family members of those who died to sign this 9/11 Statement, which calls for immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.

We want truthful answers to questions such as:

Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?
Why hasn’t a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
Why haven’t authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?
Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed judge?
How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA’s radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?
How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?
What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?
Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?
Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the questions posed here?
Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?
Those who are demanding deeper inquiry now number in the hundreds of thousands, including a former member of the first Bush administration, a retired Air Force colonel, a European parliamentarian, families of the victims, highly respected authors, investigative journalists, peace and justice leaders, former Pentagon staff, and the National Green Party.

As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:

An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.
Given the importance of the coming election, we feel it is imperative that these questions be addressed publicly, honestly, and rigorously so that Americans may exercise their democratic rights with full awareness.

In closing, we pray and hope for the strength to approach this subject with wisdom and compassion so that we may heal from the wounds inflicted on that terrible day.

Signed, [followed by the list of signatories]

It really is the same story of how you read (or rather failed to read) the source material that was edited in such a way by Gateway Pundit to claim to show Van Jones as a sponsor of the 2002 San Francisco march (here is the actual archived page from Rense.com, again, please note that the list with Van Jones’ name comes at the end of the second article, not the first article about the march).

So being consistent applying the same standard of evidence and reasoning to Van Jones as you apply to the Birther legislators – Van Jones (by your standard of evidence) is not a Truther).

However, we’ve strayed far afield from the actual point, so I would like to bring it back home for you. Rather than applying reason and investigation – you determine the point you want to make and then look for, selectively edit or read, and present facts that support your predetermined opinion. When it is pointed out that the facts are not what you want them to be, you repeat your skewed and edited facts like the Wizard saying into the speaking tube – “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”.

With your seeming inability to admit that you are wrong, even when faced with clear evidence, one suspects you only became a conservative because of the sobriquet The Right. In light of your willingness to ignore the facts and selectively read, edit, or present the facts so that they only support your predetermined conclusions, your editors might wish to change the name of the magazine from Doublethink to Doublespeak.

Sonny Bunch — September 12, 2009 at 3:53 pm

Are you really this obtuse, Mikey? This is directly from the statement that you so pedantically reproduced here: “[W]e have assembled 100 notable Americans and 40 family members of those who died to sign this 9/11 Statement, which calls for immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.” If anything, that’s more damning than what was in the press release.* That’s what Van Jones signed: boilerplate Truther nonesense. Van Jones is a Truther. I really don’t see how you can dispute it, especially by citing the petition he signed.

*(As an aside, I don’t think pulling a summary quote from the press release is exactly a journalistic lapse; using a precis like that is exceptionally useful (esp. in the blogosphere ) since doing so avoids the clutter of cutting and pasting the entire document.)

mikeybackwards — September 12, 2009 at 11:42 pm

Sonny –

And this differs exactly how from the statements the sponsors of the Birther Bill made? Which is exactly my point that you are running so hard in trying to prove Van Jones is a Truther, that you are either deliberately or carelessly ignoring. Given the blatant statements in support of the Birther movement by those legislators, followed upon by their affirmative action of not only speaking favorably, but introducing legislation under their own names, which they later repudiated in statements and several of them voting in favor of the Democratic Resolution is exactly the same as Van Jones signing this statement and later repudiating that with frankly about the same level of credibility as the Birther legislators.

Because you are willing to accept the Birther legislators repudiation (which is counter-indicated by far stronger evidence than that linking Jones to the Truthers) you must (if you are intellectually honest and consistent) accept Jones’ repudiation of the Truthers.

You are the one here who started this thread accusing Andrew Sullivan of inconsistency, hypocrisy, and a double standard. I am simply demonstrating that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

So are you really so obdurate, partisan, and self-serving that you can’t admit that?

*(As a reply to your aside, I generally would agree with you except in regarding the use of a precis or press release, except in cases like Jones’ where the individual has claimed the press release or precis prepared by a third party does not/did not accurately reflect that individual’s understanding or position regarding the issue at hand where only examining the complete source text and/or the individual’s statements should be used. This is why, in the example of the Birther legislators, I cited a news source that had exact quotes from the individuals involved. I would hope you, as a journalist and former editor, would understand the distinction and propriety, your past behavior notwithstanding.)

mikeybackwards — September 13, 2009 at 12:18 am

In answer to your original post, did you catch this post from today at the Daily Dish by Andrew Sullivan?

In it he also links to this AP newsstory and this Boston Globe article about his arrest and the subsequent dismissal of the charge against him.

Satisfied? I doubt it.

Sonny Bunch — September 13, 2009 at 11:50 am

I think actions speak louder than words, and the actions (i.e., legislation sponsored and voted on) undertaken by Republican legislators in no way shape or form suggest they believe that Barack Obama was born in Kenya or whatever. Compare that to the actions of Van Jones, who signed a petition accusing the the Bush administration of allowing the 9/11 attacks to occur in order to launch a war. This is the definition of Trutherism. I simply don’t buy Jones’s walking back from the 9/11 Truth statement because he didn’t do it until he got caught.

And I stand by using that precis since it’s virtually identical to a line taken directly from the statement. There’s nothing in that press release that’s different from the statement signed by Van Jones and others.

I did see that post from Sullivan, and no, I’m not satisfied. It’s weaksauce.

mikeybackwards — September 13, 2009 at 12:22 pm

Come on Sonny -

Signing a petition prepared by someone else is stronger than introducing legislation that uses the thinnest of covers, especially since it is inevitable that Obama will be running in 2012? This country got by for over 220 years without the need for such legislation – and it was only the Birthers who need this ‘proof’ even after they have ignored the fact that Obama has presented that proof.

It would be the same as if I were to introduce legislation that was binding on say all feature writers for major newspapers after having a dispute with you. Everyone with an ounce of sense would know I was targeting you, just as everyone with an ounce of sense knows that the Birther bill was targeted towards Obama.

You really need to drop the apologia. Because the hypocrisy and deliberate ignorance only makes you look stupid and renders any accusation you make look pathetic.

Sonny Bunch — September 13, 2009 at 12:29 pm

Accusing me of hypocrisy and deliberate ignorance is pretty funny, since you continue to argue that Van Jones isn’t a Truther. Accusing members of the House of Birtherism who have explicitly affirmed the president’s citizenship is similarly funny. I mean, stupid as well, obviously. But also funny.

blind illiterate — September 13, 2009 at 1:23 pm

Is this same game-plan old yet? It is at least boring. And predictable.

Mikey can only talk in terms of hypocrisy and equivalency. Unlike Sullivan, he never breaks the rules:

1) Never actually address an issue directly without first distorting it or your adversary’s position.

2) Never accept the possibility that someone who makes a living condemning might not actually believe his beloved principles are so universal as to apply to him, his life, or laws he doesn’t like.

3) Never accept your fellow travelers’ faults or fall into the trap of questioning the faithful’s genuine wholehearted adherence to your dogma. (This might compromise your case against your common enemies since it only rests upon the unduly elevated prudishness of unbending adherence and affected repugnance at any disrespect for moralism or the Law we like.)

4) Always respond that they do are just doing, or have done, the same thing you or your comrades are doing or have done too; but try to add that they are somehow worse because they are somehow more hypocritical so that you can avoid actually trying to defend or explain the actions or beliefs of you or your allies.

But when the fault pointed out is genuine hypocrisy of one of his fellow self-righteous indignant lovers of consistency and justice he really can’t take it – then he’s got to let you know that all men have sinned, even if it takes 10 posts.

e.g.: ‘Why, even you too are probably somehow a hypocrite when it comes to some unrelated topic of unfair double standards if it is only presented in an awkward, distorted way.
‘Ya’ll commit the only mortal sin of hypocrisy too, just like you did in the way I choose to strongly believe, and is therefore true, but St. Andrew is still pure.’

mikeybackwards — September 13, 2009 at 1:37 pm

No, once again, I simply apply the same standard that you employ in waiving away accusations that the Birthers are just that to Van Jones, and based on that standard, he is not a Truther.

But we already know that you are incapable of understanding that concept.

Sonny Bunch — September 13, 2009 at 2:32 pm

Based on the standard that one should be judged by actions and not empty words, Van Jones is clearly a Truther. But we already knew that you are incapable of admitting this basic, blindingly obvious fact.

blind illiterate — September 13, 2009 at 7:49 pm

5) Never accept a valid point or obvious observation. This gains you nothing. Instead, shift the focus of argument by bringing up new false and outrageous accusations. Claim you are just being consistent in applying a their own ’standard’ or ‘principle’ that you can conveniently choose to attribute to them so that you can equate two completely different things. If the two situations are different enough you can then claim a widespread bias and double standard on top of hypocrisy (double points!).