…but I stayed up late since the wife took the youngest to the ER (turns out it wasn’t what she thought but no harm in being sure. Why does he always get the worst sick on Sunday nights?)

So I only caught the last 45 min of his show, no word on the march. So this morning I tuned in to the radio show for the first 20 min. Lots of stuff about what Repubicans should do, More Joe Wilson and Kanye West not a peep about the march, not even as something coming up later and I listened to see about what was coming up later.

The real question is this: Will the congress believe the Sgt. Schultz media or their own eyes?

The problem with the I know nuuuuthing plan is that all of those people have neighbors and co-workers. Protesting is not the way they earn their living so this will all become water cooler talk all over the country.

That more than anything else is going to kill the MSM, it’s one thing to hear stuff from the net and discount it, it’s another to hear it from a neighbor that was there.

…And welcome to round 2. Johnson comes out for Round 2 swinging, McCain counterpunches we have some strong action in round one as Johnson ladned a flurry of blows, McCain blocks and counters.

To this point Johnson has been on the offense. We know Johnson has a strong methotical and unrelenting attacks from his victories in the Rather and Mapes fights.

McCain has been countering and putting up a good defense here in Round 2, but has yet to shift to offense, as we’ve seen in the Griffin and Audrey fights. McCain tends to mount his offense in mid to late rounds but they simply overpower their opponents.

We will keep you informed of the fights’ progress throughout the day as time permits.

I suspect this will be as epic and violent a contest as the Marciano Vingo fight from December of 1949.

One oddity of this fight will be that McCain lives on the east coast and Johnson on the west so McCains blows and counters will generally be morning blows while Johnson will strike in the evening.

I’ve been reading Charles Johnson for 7 or more years, he is what you would call a 9/11 conservative, basically a liberal who took 9/11 seriously and dug deep into the swamp of radical Islam, his fight against radical Islam, his exposure of the Rathergate memo and of faux photography, and his unwavering defense of Israel against all comers have been gifts to the country and the world. His support for the troops is unyielding and nobody searches the web like he does.

Robert Stacy McCain is a professional reporter who unlike many reporters of today, actually reports. He has not been shy about speaking up for conservative causes. Like Johnson he is a supporter of Israel and the troops and a hater of Radical Islam and takes 9/11 as seriously today as if it was 9/12/2001. And when it comes to the causes conservatives believe in He Fights!

Yesterday in a comment on a thread of the tea party in Washington Charles Said this:

VodkaPundit is linking to white supremacist blogger Robert Stacy McCain at Pajamas Media.

Vodka Pundit responded in a post here stating:

Now, I’ve worked with Stacy in person a couple of times, at the DNC last summer and at CPAC in February. Both were crowded, high-stress situations. At no time did I see Stacy treat anyone — of any color, creed, whathaveyou — with anything less than respect and good humor.

So, is Robert Stacy McCain a white supremacist? Hell if I know. But he enjoys breaking bread with agnostic half Jews like me, which would certainly make him a different kind of white supremacist.

And serious action took place in the comments. Charles being Charles shot back again with links from the SPLC to back him up:

Check out any of these groups on the web, Stephen, and see if I’m exaggerating.

Robert Stacy McCain being Robert Stacy McCain didn’t interrupt his eating and drinking, but late that night replied with first a comment on the Vodka thread, than an update on his main tea party blog entry concerning the commentators:

Why engage with people who think that way, except to point out that they think that way? Why should I be compelled to defend myself against such “ransom note” smears? And who is “MPH,” except an anonymous a-hole trying to recycle old left-wing attacks on me?

And finally directly to Charles in a three part tour de force this morning.

We are in a fight to preserve what remains of American liberty, and I don’t want to waste time defending myself. However, if I may be forgiven for paraphrasing a Yankee, I’m willing to fight it out on this line if it takes all week. Or I might quote Nathan Bedford Forrest’s famous words to Braxton Bragg

I’ll leave you to read the quote, any person who knows the history of the Civil war would be familiar with it. As a person who once took exception to something Charles implied and received satisfaction I can certainly understand Mr. McCain’s anger and in the same position would have reacted the same.

He will find that Johnson unlike Bragg is almost certain to keep up the fight. Foote describes Bragg’s decision to not press the matter as a combination of retaining Forest’s services to the army (which were considerable) and his belief that as an “irregular” he was “less subject to discipline for irregularities” (P 813 Civil War a Narrative v2, great book buy the whole series BTW). This means we can expect a week of back and forth, Johnson using the net and McCain using his resources as a reporter.

I don’t know either of these men personally but I’ve linked to McCain he is on my blogroll and I’m damn well not taking him off. I’m a registered commentator on LGF have been for years and I’m damn well not leaving that site either. My opinion can be summed up by these two clips this clip:

Update 2: I’ve removed the 2nd embed since it skipped the meat of the scene that I was looking for.

I have no idea how it will end but neither man is going to go anywhere quietly.

Update: Dan Riehl knows Robert Stacy personally and after this post I can see he is the type of friend I would want in my corner:

For better or worse .. worse, at times!! heh! Stacy McCain is my friend. He doesn’t deserve to be accused as he has been by Johnson. And he certainly deserves strong support from me and any other of his alleged friends, or colleagues that want to make any claim to actually knowing the man a bit. It’s Johnson that is now obviously unworthy of any more of my time. And, lastly, I do find that, as I also find Charles these days, to be somewhat sad.

So Instead of the scenes above that I would prefer to see, we will see the scene below:

Update 3: Legal Insurrection comments:

With good reason, being tagged a racist is about as damaging a tag as exists because the damage is caused once the accusation is made.

And that is the point. If you want to ruin someone’s reputation, just keep posting the words “racist” in close proximity to their name on the internet so that web search engines associate the person and the accusation. That is what some people tried to do to Glenn Beck recently by making accusations of past criminal conduct in the form of a question for the very purpose of influencing Google and other search engines.

The false accusation of racism is a despicable tactic. It damages the person against whom it is made and the victims of true racism.

And that is why I felt it necessary to speak up this time.

This is not going to be a quiet week.

Update 4: Saberpoint knows Robert Stacy and has his back too as does Dan Collins.

But the greatest defense comes from Cynthia Yockey and deserves quoting:

Beyond those few common principles, I find enormous diversity of belief and opinion in the Right, as well as a diversity of sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, race and what have you. Plus, I find women in positions of power and authority. People on the Right are able to have opposite and mutually exclusive opinions on various matters. Put together, that is real diversity.

So, yes, Stacy and I are at daggers drawn over homosexual equality, especially gay marriage equality. But he states his reasons — and his feelings. I state mine. And we remain staunch and loyal friends.

In addition, Stacy is NOT a racist — there’s just no way.

As I’ve said I don’t know Robert Stacy McCain personally, but after hearing his friends come to his defense, I sure would like to.

Ok we can safely say that the attendance at the 9/12 rally was between 500,000 and 2 million people. Either way that an awful lot of people.

The MSM will see this sign
The MSM will see this sign

Charles Johnson has seen some signs he didn’t like, and also pointed out that the John Birch Society planned to attend. He didn’t mention the Ron Paul guys but from the Tea Party in Boston I attended a few months ago there were a few Ron Paul guys there so I’d be shocked if there weren’t thousands of Paulians there.

I didn’t like the signs he pointed out either, the John Birch Society are a bunch of nuts and I’m already on record referring to Ron Paul as a Crazy Uncle.

On that subject lets talk about crazy uncles:

It’s not so odd that 1% of any population might be off its rocker, the problem is in a country of 300,000,000 that is 3 million people. Even if 1/10 of one percent is crackers that’s 300,000 people. To give you some perspective that’s more troops than we have in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Based on the 1% theory that would put the number of absolute nuts there between 5,000 and 200,000. If you use the 1/10 theory that makes a range of 500-20,000

Now if I’m the MSM and I’ve ignored the buildup to this story I’m going to highlight those crazy uncles and their signs and dismiss the movement altogether.

A promoter of the parties might choose to totally ignore the crazy uncles altogether.

As I proclaim myself a normal reasonable person I’m going to notice between 499,500 and 1,980,000 normal American with legitimate complaints about the moves this government has made without forgetting also that there is going to be a smattering of crazy uncles in the mix.racism anyway

Oh and I suspect like the Boston Tea Party I attended there will be practically no arrests (if any) and no damage. After all these are the taxpayers, they would be paying for repairs.

I submit that the last sign and the stuff you will see posted by Vodkapundit and Glenn (where 12,000 showed up in Illinois) are much more typical. And I’ll also bet that all the adults know what their signs say.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but based on what I’ve seen both from the net and personally 99% or more of these are regular people who have just decided they’ve had enough. There will be hangers on who want attention and the movement should take note to keep the fringes on the fringe. Pointing that out is just being honest, but attempts to make this something this movement something is not that’s either an agenda or Sullivan’s syndrome.

Update: More signs via the corner

On Morning Joe this morning John Meacham talked about the Newsweek reporter who has been held in Iran for several months.

He is of course correct to be upset about this and lambasting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the irony of him coming to the UN to freely speak when a reporter can’t freely report a presidential election.

During the discussion it was pointed out that Iran is developing Nukes and as I watch I couldn’t believe it. Didn’t the senior editor of Newsweek Michael Hirsh say that lumping Iran into the axis of evil was “devastatingly stupid?

Amazing the perception difference when George Bush is not in the White House.

…If nobody ever hears about them.

11:30 AM EDT

From a Nexis search a few moments ago:

Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.

If you were to receive all your news from any one of these outlets, or even all of them together, and you heard about some sort of controversy involving President Obama’s Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, your response would be, “Huh?”

It’s unfashionable to quote oneself so quickly but it’s worth repeating this paragraph:

All are part of “subgroups” within their groups their opinion and their theories are accepted and unquestioned but when exposed to the general public they become problematic. 30 years ago one might have been able to hide these views, but in the age of the internet and YouTube that just isn’t as easy as it once was. This is why it was so vital to the media to ignore those associations for as long as possible.

I suggest that the well known non-vetting of then Candidate Obama wasn’t due to merely to adulation. I submit it is because the press knew that his positions could not survive vetting to the general public…

…and even worse to them Sarah Palin would be vice president today. What’s journalistic ethics compared to that?

Update: Nice Deb lists some nice questions.

Everybody has one, a relative who is a nice guy or a fun guy or a reliable friend when you need him, but has some totally off the wall opinions on some subject.

30 years ago I had an uncle like that who was convinced that the Spanish were part of some conspiracy to control the country.

Usually they would listen to some overnight radio show on AM where some odd host whose station had a longer range due to the night would rant and rage about this that or the other thing. Once they get started they are highly motivated too and it takes a lot of effort to change the subject or shut them up.

I have other relatives who are salt of the earth but when they get on about particular things they go mad.

It’s not so odd that 1% of any population might be off its rocker, the problem is in a country of 300,000,000 that is 3 million people. Even if 1/10 of one percent is crackers that’s 300,000 people. To give you some perspective that’s more troops than we have in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The problem is with the internet and social networking and the like that crazy 1% or 1/10 of one percent is suddenly empowered. Instead of the crazy uncle at the family gathering that you can ignore, suddenly he has 1000 friends that he can text to rebut and counter rebut all night. He is affirmed and empowered and boy is he motivated, because now there are thousands of people telling him he’s been right all along and is MUCH smarter than everyone thought.

300,000-3,000,000 crazy uncles as individuals isn’t a big deal, but get them all writing e-mails or making phone calls and most importantly AFFIRMING themselves and suddenly you have a potent economic and or political force. Suddenly there is a huge market for a book or 10,000 people willing to pay $20 for a DVD. That’s a fair amount of change and a person can make a good living off of it.

This is the technical reason why the truthers, the birthers and all the others out there have so much more power than they once did. They have whole networks ready to affirm them and back them up. And his isn’t limited to groups such as those, you have cultural subgroups that have “interesting beliefs” within that sub culture those ideas are gospel, outside of the group they tend underplay it. Doesn’t help when dealing with the general public.

Lets quote a great old piece from a guy name Bill Whittle he describes a long encounter with a skeptic of the moon landing:

Every time I would identify one of these great mysteries, Joe had the same response: okay, but what about this! No fight, no defense – nothing. And then we’d be on to some new blur or smudge that proved, incontrovertibly, that this “reality” we live in is a giant lie, and that we are all victims of Dark Forces moving beyond our control or even our awareness… and that while the sleepwalking sheeple go on with their corporate-controlled lives, the mysterious wheels of the Shadow Government turn inexorably onward, crushing those brave few individuals who are on to the whole horrid plot like so many ants. There is a word for this diseased mental state.

As I was leaving Joe’s, he said something I’m sure he thought was very funny. He said, “Man, I’ll bet a guy like you thinks Lee Harvey Oswald really shot JFK.”

Of course he shot JFK, Joe. Who do you think did it? The American Beef Council? Joe looked at me the way I had been looking at him. That is to say, he simply could not process that I could hold such a belief in my head. You’re serious? I’m dead serious. I recommended Case Closed, by Gerald Posner – without question the best piece of critical reasoning, research and logic I have ever read, bar none. I suspect he did not follow my advice. Books like that are bad for his business. Man, you’re out there, said Joe. You know, the sad thing is, I’m starting to believe he is right.

Read the whole thing and you will have a great handle on not only the mind of the conspiracy theorist but an idea of sub groups.

Dr. Sanity did some diagnosis along these lines:

You would think that a paranoid person would be reassured to discover that people or groups are NOT out to get him. That there is no conspiracy against the group. You would be wrong. This is the last thing that the Paranoid individual or group really want, because–if they are not being persecuted, or betrayed, or lied to, or oppressed–then the Paranoid must face the devastating reality of his own insignificance. This he cannot do and it is why the alternate reality was constructed in the first place.

The paranoid solution to unacceptable thoughts or feelings is to say, “If I am having these bad thoughts or feeling or behaviors, then someone else must be to blame and is making me do it.” The Paranoid person does not take responsibility for his own thoughts or feelings or behaviors.

Conspiracy theories serve one of two purposes. They either serve as a rationale for the unacceptable successes of others; or as reasons for the failures of a particular group or individual. The Arab world fixation with Jews and the reasons for Jewish successes serve as the classic fodder for conspiracy theorists in the Middle East.

Now lets look at President Obama and his crew pre-senate and pre-presidency. President Obama was dealing with groups such as ACORN, he was associating with people like domestic terrorists William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn, he spent 20 years in a church listening to Jeremiah Wright in the pulpit and lived with Louis Farrakhan as a neighbor. All of these people have something in common.

All are part of “subgroups” within their groups their opinion and their theories are accepted and unquestioned but when exposed to the general public they become problematic. 30 years ago one might have been able to hide these views, but in the age of the internet and YouTube that just isn’t as easy as it once was. This is why it was so vital to the media to ignore those associations for as long as possible.

Now once the administration had won to the victors belonged the spoils. Many high profile positions were to be filled but even more lower level positions all over government needed to be filled. The administration naturally filled these positions with people from within their own sub culture those same ANSWER groups that they have worked aside for years.

Now it may be that these people have competence in the various fields that they were appointed to but because they are part of those sub groups they likely have positions and opinions that can not be healthy politically when exposed. In a national campaign it is necessary to get a majority of public opinion behind you. Truther conspiracies and the like don’t sit well.

Which brings us to the case of Van Jones

If you look at the far left groups such as color of change, you are dealing with a subgroup. Within that subgroup signing of a 9/11 truther statement would not constitute any clash with the perception of America as the “US of KKK” or the “Free Mumua” crowd or any of the others.

This is why I believe that Van Jones is a truther. I concede Charles Johnson’s point that it is a tactic of truthers to add false names to their support lists. Apparently it’s a tactic used by the left wing group Color of Change as well concerning their boycott.

Now I understand that some people do not like Glenn Beck. I’m not a huge fan of Beck I watch him once in a great while and never really cared for his radio show. Looking at Charles’ archives I see that Beck went after him back in April.

Very bad move. Charles is not only an excellent blogger but as people like Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, and Islamic and other faux news people have discovered, he’s is relentless.

Unlike these clowns his hits on beck have been above the waist generally using his own words against him and enjoying some schadenfreude over the boycott. I don’t support it as I see a glaring double standard at work.

However one must always beware the specter of Sullivan’s syndromethat turned a once reasonable blogger into a Bush hating trig truther. Becks’ issues (and he HAS some) do not make the Obama administration in general or Van Jones in particular clean. A lot of Bush Derangement and Palin Derangement comes from the it, On the right we have to be careful of the same thing with Obama; WND caught it over birtherism. It’s a case of the anti-antis.

During the Cold War, we used to speak of anti-anti-Communists. These were people (on the left) who were not exactly pro-Communist. But they so hated the anti-Communists, they were . . . well, anti-anti-Communists — the best, the fairest name for them.

Today, there are anti-anti-Islamofascists. They are not on the Islamofascist side in the War on Terror. But they hate those who are fighting, or attempting to fight, the Islamofascists more than they could ever hate the Islamofascists. They are anti-anti-Islamofascists.

The similarities between yesterday’s anti-anti-Communists and today’s anti-anti-Islamofascists would make a very good essay — perhaps by David Pryce-Jones or Norman Podhoretz. Of course, many of today’s anti-anti-Islamofascists were yesterday’s anti-anti-Communists — I mean, the same people, in the flesh.

It’s a fine line and likely everyone crosses it once in a while. The trick it to make sure it is ONLY once in a while.

Update: The American Spectator asks questions.

Update 2: It looks like Charles point is looking better and better:

First, Ben Smith contacted two of the other “signatories” of that document, and learned that they had indeed been misled by the Truthers, and thought they were signing a legitimate document calling for further investigations.

Ace Counterpoints.

Update 3: Game set and match to Charles, Crazy uncle yes, truther no.

…are just so easy to annoy:

According to the Ada Evening News, the hometown newspaper of the Oklahoma-born singer (and avid hunter), Blake’s irreverent humor in his Twitter remarks ruffled a few PETA feathers. One PETA tweet which read: “Animal testing breaks hearts,” prompted Blake to respond: “Yeah, and bow hunting breaks their lungs!” Another PETA tweet which read: “There’s nothing funny about BBQing cats,” got this rapid reply from Blake: “Ha! Ha! Sorry but when you say it like that it, is damn funny! Ha!”

For a hunter like Mr. Shelton this is an incredibly easy shot.

Banned by PETA is going to sell a lot of extra country albums.

…and the rest of the men who signed this letter to Yale:

To the Editor:

Yale University Press, owned and operated by the University, has retreated into shameful censorship. The Press accepted for publication “The Cartoons That Shook the World,” by Brandeis Professor Jytte Klausen. But it deleted from her manuscript the actual cartoons. Why? Because the cartoons — which ran in newspapers and are available on the Internet — might lead to more violence.

The Press went even further, stripping out all depictions of Muhammed, such as a 19th Century painting by Gustave Dore. Why? Because Islamic law forbids depictions of Muhammed, and — there might be violence. Evidently Yale now excises from its books any content that might encourage someone to violence. And we all know what kind of “someone” the Press has in mind.

Yale’s shocking surrender to unknown potential belligerents drew scorn from the American Association of University Professors. Yale’s new policy, according to AAUP president Cary Nelson, is: “We do not negotiate with terrorists. We just accede to their anticipated demands.”

This disgraceful resort to censorship also violates Yale’s own explicit policy: “Above all, every member of the university has an obligation to permit free expression in the university. No member has a right to prevent such expression. Every official of the university, moreover, has a special obligation to foster free expression and to ensure that it is not obstructed.”

All Yale alumni have a vital stake in preserving a free press at Yale. We urge President Levin and the Corporation to immediately nullify the Press’s cowardly action. Yale should print Klausen’s book with all the censored material restored and distribute it to university bookstores around the world as a tangible reminder that a free press can never be taken for granted.

If you are a fan of free speech let me have a big AMEN to that. Via Atlas.

I hate the kid stunt stuff. We have a great arguments on the merits we shouldn’t do stupid kid stunt.

Of course as Doug Powers points out it’s better than this

or this

It’s videos like this that really makes us wonder about the president’s address to the kids.

I prefer this video from Reason (via Glenn).

It puts things in their soviet style historical context. Maybe this should be in the religion category. Instead I’m creating a new obamacult tag.

Update: Dan Calabrese this Steve Green is overreacting. It wasn’t too long ago that I would have agreed, myself I’m not worried if my kid had enough guts to be the only one when asked by his teacher who supported McCain in his particular class then he can handle this.