From the moment I saw that sentence in the Reuters article that Palin was blaming “liberal bloggers” for spreading the whole covering-up-for-pregnant-daughter thing, I knew it was going to give me headaches. I figured it would give Bill O’Reilly a new reason to bitch about DailyKos being like the KKK and some other right-wing nutjobs would follow suit.

What’s surprising me, though, is that even my fellow lefties in the media are starting to follow suit. I was listening to Sirius this morning and caught Alex Bennett, a guy who criticizes Democrats for not being liberal enough, practically burning the blogs in effigy for their awful part in spreading the rumor.

Let’s get a few things out of the way, first. I’m a blog-hound. I read the normal news and watch the cable stations, but I also love getting the opinions of liberal writers. Not just small-time folks like me, but the big ones such as those in my link list. And I can say, categorically, that none of those writers spread the story. Okay? You got it? John Aravosis didn’t touch it, nor did Greenwald, Huffington, John Amato, Atrios, Josh Marshall, the good people of Think Progress, none of ‘em.

I normally have a policy not to give a crap what Michelle Malkin has to say, much for the same reason I ignore Ann Coulter: at some point someone becomes so stupid you just can’t let their stupidity bother you.

This time, though, Malkin did something so monumentally dumb that it serves as a reminder of What Not To Do as a blogger, pundit, commentator, and journalist. Recently Arkansas Democratic Party chairman Bill Gwatney was shot and killed, which is a terrible tragedy. Malkin, however, found a way to focus the attention on herself.

Her evidence is, get this, a single email which she produces, complete with full name and email address, in which someone says: “You should be in jail. Your hate turns people to murder.” Based on one dumb email, Malkin turns the murder of another man into a big ol’ post about herself. For the moment I’m going to ignore “posts full name and email address of person who says her posts result in murder.” I doubt it even occurred to her.

Folks, if bloggers took every single stupid email and turned it into a post like that, there’d be no time to make other posts. I’ve been blamed for all kinds of things in the abstract, and my audience isn’t even close to Malkin’s (sadly). Try and imagine the kinds of emails Markos and the guys at Crooks and Liars get.

Notice that the email doesn’t really blame Malkin specifically. It says “the hate you and folks like Hannity spew,” meaning the emailer was just blaming all right-wing hate speech, not Malkin herself. It’s not like it said “because you did X, a man was shot.” And believe me folks, if I had a nickel for every time I got something like “liberals like you are getting our men and women killed in Iraq”, I’d have enough to keep this site running from now until doomsday.

So here’s the lesson: if you get an email or message of some kind that says “people like you made this bad thing happen”, and your first thought is “I’m to blame for this event? I must tell the world!”, then you’ve drifted into Crazy Town. Come back, please.

I’m a critic of the media, don’t get me wrong. They do a lot of dumb things, they print asinine articles, hire writers that have no business getting mainstream exposure, etc. However, sometimes I think people get out of control with it. This article got some exposure on Reddit and it’s a fine example of taking things a little too far. The qualm? An editorial in the New York Times endorsed Hillary.

Here’s what I propose

Write a letter to the New York Times expressing your disapproval of their endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Make the next news story that they received more mail disagreeing with this decision than any other in their history. We can do it.

Here’s the problem. This isn’t the Times’ endorsement, it’s an editorial. That’s how editorials work. Secondly, any paper should be allowed to endorse whoever the hell they want. You can’t think it’s even remotely logical to launch a complaint campaign against the NYT simply because you dislike who they’re endorsing. I’d like it if it was someone else myself, but come on. This is just asinine.

If we’re going to get into the business of organizing mass campaigns against papers every time an editorial says something we don’t like, then we’re going to be pretty damn busy.

A while ago I wrote an article about how much I can’t stand bloggers who straw man the other side and then spend an article just attacking their made-up opponent. However, I have no problem with attacking some idiot who does just that. I was sent this article “asking liberals questions” and felt the need to answer ‘em.

1) The modern American “peace movement” is responsible for the deaths of far more people than the U.S.-involved wars its members have protested over the past half century. Why then are so many Americans still convinced that going to war is the worst thing our country can do?

First off, I have no idea what this even means. The thing is, the wars Americans have protested were wars of political grandstanding a la Vietnam and Iraq. I didn’t like how the tactics went in Afghanistan, but I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t absolutely support it. And we’ve been saying for a long time that if American troops should have gone on humanitarian efforts, Darfur made a hell of a lot more sense than Iraq.

2) Over the course of its existence, our planet has been much colder and much warmer than it is today, having endured periodic ice ages and various cataclysmic natural events. That being the case, why would anyone choose to believe that human beings are responsible for the earth’s most recent, and relatively mild, climatic shift?

Well, that would be because CO2 levels in the atmosphere have correlated with temperature and the levels today are light years beyond what they’ve been in the past 650,000 years or so. Take a look at this graph, then tell me if you can figure how in the world anyone could imagine that us piddly humans could possibly think we may have an effect.

This one ain’t gonna win me many friends, but oh well. Every blog has its focal points. Mine, when I get around to it, is religion. I’m big on religion stories and I’ve written about my views unabashedly many times. Crooks and Liars does a lot of media focus, some like economics. Over at AmericaBlog, the cause celebre is GLBT issues. Which is fine.

However, John Aravosis is a goddamn crybaby. I caught this article railing the NYT for using the phrase “practicing homosexuals” and I have to admit, I agreed with his complaint. I thought he was a little too angry about it, but hey. I still agree. And then he started to drift into Whiny Angry Land.

The media has slipped back into the old of ways of subtle bigotry when reporting on gay issues, even when the report is positive on its face. The Washington Post reported on gay pride this year in DC, they showed a picture of some guy with his ass hanging out of a pair of leather pants with no backside (apparently the PFLAG parents, who got the biggest applause, weren’t nearly as titillating a photo). Thanks, Washington Post. The NYT reports on gay cops in London, they show a picture of drag queens. Why is this a problem? Because it is an intentional effort to depict us as something the public will find outrageous, and probably distasteful.

No John, the NYT had a stupid editorial that used offensive language. Why the chaps photo? Because all photos in a newspaper are to attract the eye and give you an idea of what the story’s about. That’s why stories about Iraq are full of smoke and explosions. It’s not that they’re trying to “depict” you as “distasteful”, it’s that they’re trying to use a picture that will get people to pick the thing up. To act like it’s a massive conspiracy is just retarded.

However, I do see his point, it’s unfair and it makes gays look bad when that’s their only public face. I have similar qualms with reports on religion that make atheists look like rabid maniacs who want to burn Bibles and criminalize worship. So while I think he’s making a mountain out of a molehill, fine. Then we get into this, where John has an absolute hissy fit over being called… homosexual.

Why? First, because it’s become archaic. Usage changes, and just as Negro and colored changed to black and African-American, just as oriental gave way to Asian, homosexual has become gay. But second, and more importantly, the word homosexual is offensive in the same manner as negro and oriental. Sometimes archaic words sting. In the case of homosexual, I think the main problem is three-fold. First, the clinical nature of the term. It’s a scientific word that mildly dehumanizes gay people by suggesting that they have a medical or psychological condition. Second, the words “homo” and “sex.” Both words connote something negative, or at least something that shouldn’t be spoken out loud, to a lot of Americans. Third, and most importantly, homosexual is the word the religious right uses expressly and uniquely in an effort to dehumanize gays. Anti-gay religious right activists have said publicly that they will not use the word “gay” - rather, they insist on using “homosexual.” Why? Because for some reason or another they figure that the word homosexual helps their cause. And while I don’t agree with the religious right on many things, their ability to gay-bash swiftly and effectively is unqestioned. If they think the word gay helps us and the word homosexual hurts us, who am I to argue?

Allow me to say, John? Shut… the… fuck… up. You are a homosexual. Your sexual inclinations lean towards those of your gender, thus homo-sexual. The reason “negro” changed to “black” and “oriental” changed to “Asian” was because the words that they changed to are more useful. Negro is offensive, it’s true, but black is a descriptor. I disagree with “African-American” because whites can be from Africa and black people can be from Jamaica or Haiti. Asians are from Asia. Homosexuals are homosexual.

Homo and sex connote something negative or risque? It’s talking about sexuality, of course we’re going to use a word that connotes sex! Homosexuality is defined by sexual attraction. Homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, transsexual. It’s not like we’re talking about something unrelated to sex and then dragging sex into it just to make someone look bad. And another thing, “negro” was used solely to talk down on blacks and had no converse. It’s not like there were “Caucas” or something for whites. There are -sexual terms for everyone.

John Aravosis was also one of those guys who flipped his wig at the Snickers commercial in the Super Bowl. If he prefers “gay”, that’s fine. But this “homosexual is a term to dehumanize and inspire hatred” bullshit is just that: bullshit. Is “homosexual” as friendly-sounding as “gay”? Of course not. It sounds rather flat, a description of a trait. The only complaint I see, thus, is that it places the focus on the sexuality, but that’s only in using it at all in that an article about someone else doesn’t point out heterosexuality.

You know, the religious write also calls me atheist. And I am. I don’t insist on “brights” or some other weird word because “atheist” is used negatively by morons. It’s a perfectly accurate term (though I admit Christopher Hitchens’ “antitheist” term is pretty good) that describes my beliefs. It’d be one thing if “homosexual” was a word devised solely for insulting gays like “faggot” or “queer”, but it’s not. It’s a perfectly legitimate term.

I felt like writing more, but I’m getting so tired of this crap that I just want to finish here. And to my friend that sent me those links, thanks for the migraine.

Happy 4th everyone. I’m currently situated, as I said, at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, back from getting some lunch after watching the Hot Dog eating championships. Disappointed that Kobayashi lost because, hey, it’s friggin’ Kobayashi, but still glad the US brought that title back of all things. Bought myself a neat little mp3 player, the Samsung YP-T9 specifically.

I caught Ratatouille for the 2nd time, and if you get a chance, go see it even if you already have. Normally I dislike posts just blabbin’ about myself, but hey it’s the 4th and I’m enjoying things. Transformers, also a dang good movie.

Why am I at Camp Lejeune? Because of the ol’ stepdad who has the unenviable task of heading over to Iraq for the third time since the invasion. So he decided to bring the family on down for a week before he has to head out. Beach, movies, lots of good food, and a big ol’ hullabaloo tonight including fireworks.

For anyone wondering about this mysterious Hanlon, here I am on the left with the stepdad and my considerably younger sis. I’ll tell ya, sunlight isn’t very flattering.

I don’t think I need to tell you all that I read quite a few liberal blogs. I try to peep at the guys on my list (even if I don’t comment too often), but also the major players. I noticed that two of them had a story concerning this Washington Post article about future military involvement in Iraq, suggesting that a massive scaledown is likely in the next year and a half, culminating in a smaller presence that will remain for quite some time.

First we have ThinkProgress, with the following:

Military said to be embracing Korea model. Sunday’s Washington Post front-pages a story entitled “Military Envisions Longer Stay in Iraq.” The article states military officials are simultaneously planning for a drawdown and a “smaller, longer-term force that would remain in the country for years“

In this case, the site focuses on the future end of things. That there will be a presence in Iraq for years much as there was in Korea. Over on AmericaBlog, the sentiment is slightly different: US military planning to withdraw next year, whether we win or lose. This time around, the focal point is on the seeming contradiction. I find it interesting that one passes over the scaling down, and the other passes over the future presence.

Regardless, there’s one thing that leaps out of this story at me, let’s see if you see it as well.

Military officials, many of whom would be interviewed only on the condition of anonymity, say they are now assessing conditions more realistically, rejecting the “steady progress” mantra of their predecessors and recognizing that short-term political reconciliation in Iraq is unlikely. A reduction of troops, some officials argue, would demonstrate to anti-American factions that the occupation will not last forever while reassuring Iraqi allies that the United States does not intend to abandon the country.

…

Even if a total pullout is the goal, it could take a year to execute a full withdrawal. One official estimated that with only one major route from the country — through southern Iraq to Kuwait — it would take at least 3,000 large convoys some 10 months to remove U.S. military gear and personnel alone, not including the several thousand combat vehicles that would be needed to protect such an operation.

Okay, first point is that we need to pull out because that sends the message to Iraq that we won’t stay forever, the second is that a total withdrawal is neither desirable nor feasible. Do either of those points sound familiar?

They should. I made the first point here, and then here again. The second point is something I’ve been clamoring about for some time as well (no, I can’t pull up a link, sorry to disappoint). Not new ideas there, folks, although the addition of “reassure them we won’t abandon them” is new.

Man, looking all those up made me realize I need to spend more time writing these. I was really inspired to pound out long, thought-provoking articles last year. Maybe I’m bitter and jaded now.

Hanlon’s Razor v2.0, you could call it. We’re back to a fluid width, so you people with a widescreen don’t have a bunch of blank space on either side, while you folks with a lower resolution don’t have to scroll around to see things. None of the functionality is different, the expandable comments and whatnot still work.

Now and again the images don’t all load, but I’m not sure exactly why that is. And let me know if the little WebSnapr link preview is worth keeping or if it should be scrapped.

A rather astute reader alerted me to the fact that the site, until now, has not shown up at all right in IE7. I’m working on fixing that now with a slightly redesigned theme. Give it a day or so and things should be in optimal form. I did my best to keep it from looking much different, but there are some tweaks going on. Let me know if something doesn’t function like it used to or there’s something missing.

Hey folks, remember me? I’m trying to keep up with things here but, well, it’s not working so good. Anyway, over the holidays I found myself, as many often do, discussing politics with family and friends. Along the way I discovered that I frequently dislike talking to people on my side.

Now I can hear you all right now, “Why? Do you like arguing?” Well no, it’s not that. I enjoy having a discussion that’s civil, and I really don’t like it when things get heated because more often than not my emotions run faster than my though process and I either say something I would never actually agree with or I start losing my ability to argue my point effectively.

No, the real reason is actually two reasons. The first is petty, but significant: there is nothing as downright annoying as talking with someone who agrees with you for all the wrong reasons. I am an anti-war, atheist, pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-gay-marriage, “damn I want Clinton back” liberal, but every time I got in a discussion about politics and had to deal with “yeah Bush is an idiot, I mean who chokes on a pretzel??” I start reconsidering my blue brethren.

I’ve always been a big proponent of “keep your outspokenness proportional to your knowledge”. I’m not an economist. Any economical comments I make come from looking at actions and comparing them to the effects of such actions in other situations. As such, I don’t offer deep discussions on the value of the dollar the current (and worrying) rise of the euro.

One of my goals with this blog was to prove that liberals aren’t all idiots who hate Bush for stupid reasons and who say things like “make love, not war”, but then I get into a discussion and suddenly there’s one now. I do what I can to steer the conversation to more substantial matters, but more often than not I find myself shaking myself and hoping that when I talk to a conservative this isn’t how he sees me.

The second reason follows suit: conversations with people I agree with accomplish very little. Now I do have a number of friends who know more than me, and talking with them is always a treat because I find out new reasons to affirm my knowledge, but that just isn’t enough for me.

I’ve also always been of the belief that if you can only sustain your beliefs by avoiding everyone who disagrees (I’m looking at you, religion), then you don’t really believe them, you just don’t want to accept what you inherently know is true. This also applies to situations where you have to lie, distort the truth, or baselessly attack your opponent in order to make your case.

So really the only way to know you’re right is to stack your beliefs up against someone on the other side. If I get into a discussion with someone who’s pro-life, I’m going to find out whether or not everything I base my opinion on is right. Alternately, I find out what I never thought of. I can’t possibly list all the articles on this site that occurred because I got into an argument with someone and was looking for either support myself or dispute the other guy.

Progress comes from conflict, and my biggest jolts of creativity came from talking with someone for the war, who believes in the War on Christmas, or thinks gays shouldn’t marry. How many times have I written an article purely debunking something someone else has said? On O’Reilly alone… yeesh.

Talking with people on your side makes you lazy. It’s the reason I don’t just sit around reading liberal blogs for all my news (not that you should stop reading this one, a-heh heh heh). It’s why O’Reilly and Hannity are popular. Not because they are any good as journalists, but because by berating the opposition the viewers get the message that the host is right, and more importantly the other side is wrong.

Honestly I’m occasionally tempted to simply peruse right-ward blogs and news sites for the sole purpose of material to shoot down. It makes for much more educational and downright entertaining reading than “hey, John from AmericaBlog says this, and I agree!”

What do you think?