And they’ll decide when a human right is violated, thank you very much. Adam Bitely: Speaking on Wednesday, Bob King the President of the UAW, announced that it would be aggressively moving forward on organizing workers at Honda, BMW, Toyota, and Hyundai, among others. Seeking to come off as a benevolent representative of the typical “disenfranchised employee”, he informed the automakers that he seeks to be a friend and not

Or, put another way: if conservative speech is hate speech, civility itself is (at least partially) defined as the social rejection of conservatism and classical liberalism. It is a call for the very kind of “shunning” Paul Krugman says he desires, albeit couched in the language of reconciliation. Halibut, says I.

…was noted here last night in the comments: […] you’d think Lowry would’ve known exactly how this was going to play out. Obama and his handlers essentially orchestrated a minor Sister Soldjah moment. It was planned this way. We know this because yesterday Obama was on the phone with Sheriff Dufus commending him for his fine (dirty) work, which in castigating the Tea Party (YAY!) and right-wing radio (YAY!) set

Just to recap what we’ve learned today: the phrase “blood libel” is, per a host of “reasonable” people in the media and in public office who have reached an interpretive agreement, objectively anti-Semitic — regardless of the intent behind its usage — when not deployed in a particular pre-vetted context, or by a particular identity group who has claimed ownership of the phrase and have the requisite authenticity to use

Yes. The Tuscon “rampage” did that. Not Democrat and media attempts to tether the tragedy to talk radio and the TEA Party, this generation’s version of the “angry white males” who skulked about being all angry and white in the 90s. — And which angry white males, incidentally, happened to rear their ugly, hate-filled heads — and were ubiquitous objects of media scrutiny and analysis — in the run-up to

Harsanyi: My only contribution to the crumbling discourse, it seems, is believing in the tenets of classical liberalism. That, in and of itself, is a sin. This leaves the person with two choices: revise your viewpoint or shut up. Which, of course, is the point. The always-civil Jacob Weisberg of Slate was more forceful in this regard, claiming that, “At the core of the far right’s culpability is its ongoing

Sarah Palin: “America’s Enduring Strength” from Sarah Palin on Vimeo. I’d have gone with fuck you, you cynical cunts, we’re not going anywhere, so you’d better get used to it, but I can understand how a Christian might go a different rhetorical direction.

…but it’s, like, over 100-years old, to boot! Grow up, fetishists. The height of sophistication is admitting that the government is restrained by nothing, really — and that we all know it. (h/t sdferr)

Washington Examiner: Jared Loughner, the gunman charged with wounding Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., and murdering six others in Tucson on Saturday, held bizarre beliefs about “conscious dreaming” and government mind control imposed through English grammar. No serious person would connect his belief system to a mainstream political ideology. But then there’s New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. He places the blood libel of blame for the Tucson murders squarely on

Aid and comfort: Some Republicans responded with indignation—why should the alleged act of an apparently deranged young man with a record of barely coherent, and only vaguely ideological rantings get charged to their account? Others acknowledged what they called an unavoidable reality—flamboyant or incendiary anti-government rhetoric of the sort used by many conservative politicians, commentators and tea party activists for the time being will carry a stigma. A senior Republican