At issue, is an episode Jennings recounted in a book (available at Media Matters), in which he advised a 16-year-old student who thought he might be gay on an encounter with an older man he met at a bus station. This happened 21 years ago, when Jennings was a new teacher in his early 20s. Here is the Fox/Lou Dobbs/Washington Times version of the story, heavily promoted by Sean Hannity:

A 15-year-old male student confided to Jennings in 1988 that he had sex with an adult male he met at a bus station and Jennings, a teacher, failed to report it to authorities, in contradiction of Massachusetts state law.

Only after reporting on this story for several days did Fox make an effort to verify the story with the alleged student, who explained that he was 16 at the time. The student (now an adult) also released a statement to Media Matters and showed them his driver’s license, proving that he was 16 at the time:

In 1988, I had taken a bus home for the weekend, and on the return trip met someone who was also gay. The next day, I had a conversation with Mr. Jennings about it. I had no sexual contact with anybody at the time, though I was entirely legally free to do so. I was a sixteen year-old going through something most of us have experienced: adolescence. I find it regrettable that the people who have the compassion and integrity to protect our nation’s students are themselves in need of protection from homophobic smear attacks. Were it not for Mr. Jennings’ courage and concern for my well-being at that time in my life, I doubt I’d be the proud gay man that I am today.

So, the student was 16 and never had sex with the man. Although Fox “News” has conceded its error, Sean Hannity said he doubted the veracity of the student’s claim to have been 16. If Hannity went to Media Matters and viewed the student’s driver’s license and compared that to the time of the incident, which was in 1988, he would realize the student was being truthful. Since Jennings did not work at the school prior to the student’s 16th birthday, the student would have been 16.

Of course, they’ve moved on to accusations that Jennings was involved with NAMBLA, an organization that promotes man-boy love. There is no evidence, but since when does Fox and their ilk need evidence? A representative from the Family Research Council was on NPR today discussing this and referred to the student as 15. The “narrator” reported the boy’s true age at the time of the incident but did little to dispel the sordidness implied by the Family Research Council spokesperson. The spokesperson made it clear that they would mount similar efforts against anyone Obama appointed who did not meet their standards for being a decent human being.

This includes Chai Feldblum, a nominee for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Feldblum’s sin, allegedly, is signing this statement:

Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others…Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner” along with “Single parent households” and “Adult children living with and caring for their parents,” among others, as people that “stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage.

Yes, Feldblum is a lesbian and a gay rights activist. She also had the nerve to describe gay sex as “morally good” and equated it with the morality of having heterosexual sex.

They have even taken to attacking Mary Cheney, a lesbian and daughter of former vice president Dick cheney, whose second pregnancy has become public (all grammar/spelling errors are by the original poster):

I respect Dick Cheney, but I don’t understand why he is allowing his daughter to take innocent children into her lesbianic home. Can anyone claim that these kids won’t be scarred for life? So sad.

Also repugnant, IMNSHO, is the use of “they are expecting a child” when, for obvious reasons “they” could not POSSIBLY have conceived. It is the slight of hand that the left does with rediculous name reversals (like “FAMILY PLANNING”) that implies something that in fact does just not happen…but I don’t understand why he is allowing his daughter to take innocent children into her lesbianic home.

I am sure it comes as no surprise to anyone that the right wing hates gays, including gay conservatives who remain in the closet. I just hope the Obama appointees do not do a Van Jones and resign. These haters must not be allowed to win or they will move on to try to pick off all his appointees one by one.

The judge tried many times to get Taitz to convince him that she had standing in the case. He dismissed various claims she made by applying prior legal rulings, some of which were not applicable and others which were not precedent-setting. She attempted to discuss the “Kenyan” birth certificates, but he said the only one he was interested in was the US one. She tried to discuss Obama’s “100+” fraudulent Social Security numbers, but the judge was not interested in that, either. She asked about deposing Obama, but the judge said he did not see the point since it was unlikely Obama would recall being born.

At the same time, the judge did not strike me as a very sharp tool. I have read all the filings, and I think the government’s case–as Judge Clay Land affirmed–is watertight. Yet, Judge Carter expressed a desire not to “shut” anyone out from the court system, said that if he did rule against her he would provide her with advice on how she could get standing, and suggesting that Washington D.C. might be a more appropriate venue. It seemed like he recognized the validity of the government’s case from a legal perspective but from a personal one does not want to throw the case out. There are many possible reasons for this; perhaps he wants the nonsense to end; perhaps he has doubts himself (though it did not seem that way); perhaps he wants 15 minutes of fame.

The best point Judge Carter made was when he said he did not agree with the premise that if an American woman had her child outside the country that child should be disqualified from being president. What if an American woman had her child en route to the United States in an airplane? he asked. It does seem illogical that the authors of the Constitution would differentiate between the child of a lifelong American and resident of the country who happened to give birth overseas during a vacation, for example, and a similar woman who had her baby on American soil. Does a baby born to an American overseas develop an allegiance to a country in which he has resided for no more than a week or a month?

The question that also occurred to me in reading a recap of the proceedings is why the definition of who is a citizen is arbitrary and something that Congress has the power to change. At some point, a political majority could theoretically legislate that those registered with the minority party were not American citizens. I have always found it odd that “birthers” argue that because the laws in place at the time Obama was born say his mother had to be a citizen so many years after the age of 14 to confer citizenship on him abroad, he would not be a citizen if born in Kenya. However, if he had born just a short time later when the laws said 3 years after the age of 14, he would be a citizen. Yet he would not be any different. It seems to me that once Congress decides what constitutes a citizen, that definition should apply retroactively–otherwise, how does the definition have validity?

Today, Judge Carter’s office issued an order confirming the dates set previously but noting the Motion to Dismiss was still under consideration. Some at Native Born Citizen have said this is merely an administrative act. Orly Taitz and the birthers, however, has taken it as affirmation that the judge will rule against the Motion. If that were his impetus for the administrative order today, wouldn’t he have just ruled on the Motion, as well? Orly’s assistant, a Texas attorney disbarred for criminal actions, then sent an e-mail to the US attorney handling the case asking them to stipulate to disclosure (against which the Judge has issued a stay), who replied with one word, “Nuts.” He later explained it related to military history, and a quick online search uncovered its origins:

The 101st Airborne had sent all of its supply trains west out of Bastogne (presumably empty) during the night of Dec 21st (and just in time: they were shot at by recon elements of the 2nd Panzer, who were looking for a crossing over the Ourthe River) and now that the encirclement was complete, there was no chance of getting more ammunition, food and medical supplies, already badly needed, except by air, and no planes could fly due to “Hitler’s weather”. The fog and snow continued until the morning of Saturday, December 23rd when the temperature plummeted, the sky dawned clear and bright with unlimited visibility, and the longed-for air drop became possible. The resulting 1446 bundles parachuted in by low-flying C-47s (several were shot down) surely saved the defenders of Bastogne, for ammunition was so low that artillery batteries were firing air-dropped shells while the air drop was still under way.

On the previous day four Germans had appeared under a flag of truce with a written demand for the Americans’ surrender. When shown the message, General McAuliffe had just been awakened and uttered a one-word contemptuous reply. This word has been variously reported, but there is no disagreement as to what he wrote on the paper delivered to the Germans. It was the now famous “Nuts”, which had to be explained to the Germans, and incidentally, also to civilian Belgian and French friends. The latter, when told it was a gesture of defiance, replied “Ah, the word of Combrun”, referring to an unprintable that Napoleon’s General Combrun had used under similar circumstances. There is now a “Nuts” street in Bastogne, as well as a “Place McAuliffe.”

Taitz decided the “Nuts” response was a lack of respect for her because she is a woman, rather than a lack of respect for her because she is insane. Taitz then filed a motion asking for an expedited ruling or a lift of the stay so she could proceed with deposing Barack and Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and just about anyone who has ever had contact with the President.

Also of interest, the Washington Postdecided to give Taitz the glamor treatment, providing a somewhat sanitized profile of the lunatic. Here is how the writer describes Taitz:

If you were the producer of an opinionated news show and wanted to book a birther, whom would you choose? A nondescript Pennsylvanian or an excitable Moldovan American lawyer-dentist described by Lincoln, her assistant, as a “fierce blonde” reminiscent of the warrior goddess Athena? Easy call! Today Taitz, 49, is wearing white high-heeled slingbacks; bare legs; a white skirt; black and white shirt; enormous eyelashes; and her characteristic air of charming but ferocious tenacity, part Meg Ryan, part Madame Defarge.

If I were Meg Ryan, I would sue for defamation. If I were Madame Defarge and a real person, I would also sue for defamation. I love this quote by Taitz:

She also dismisses the concern that this president might be uniquely vulnerable to violent extremism. “There’s no reason to believe that that’s going to happen,” she says. “There is a lot of protection — the Secret Service. I think there is a much higher chance of violence against me than against” the president.

In other words, the president might get shot at, but he’ll be okay, because he has the Secret Service. She’s the one in real danger. The Postdoes shed light on some of Taitz’s crazier claims, like the idea that there are already 600 FEMA death camps set up, waiting to execute political prisoners. As Judge Carter told Taitz, her version of America–where the media are brownshirts, we’re all in danger of being thrown in concentration camps and gulags, and our rights are about to vanish–does not resemble the America that he sees. Indeed, if Taitz’s version of America were real, she would not be able to make these frivolous findings in courtrooms across the country as she searchers for that one judge who has just enough of her mental malady to rule that the case can go forward.

Van Jones, who was far more of a private citizen than one could ever consider Glenn Beck at the point that Glenn Beck attacked him mercilessly (and unfairly) is the father of a 4-year-old boy. That did not seem to sway Beck into leaving Van Jones alone. Van Jones was just trying to do what he thought was right.

Valerie Jarrett, someone else Beck regularly attacks, is a mother. No doubt many of the ACORN employees–filmed without their consent and some wrongfully smeared by Beck and his ilk–are parents. They are also private citizens, unlike Glenn Beck.

Glenn Beck also whined that he wanted the media to stop looking into his past, including questioning his mother’s supposed suicide. Beck has often mentioned his mother’s “suicide,” which he said occurred when he was 13, as a pivotal moment in his life. Yet according to police records, his mother died in what appeared to have been a boating accident when he was 15:

The county coroner found no evidence of violence on either body. Police investigators told Tacoma’s News Tribune that the double drowning appeared to be a classic man-overboard mishap — a failed rescue attempt in which both parties perished.

No wonder Beck does not want anyone to talk about. It undermines his ability to use the story to milk sympathy from some of his viewers and to manipulate them with his confession of such personal events. Beck also whined that he wants the media to stop talking about how he is bad for the republican party or bad for the democratic party.

Guess what Glenn? It’s not just the media talking about it. Lindsey Graham is not exactly the media:

Asked what he thinks of another Fox News personality, Glenn Beck, Graham replied, “Only in America can you make that much money crying.” He said Beck is “not aligned with any party as far as I can tell. He’s aligned with cynicism. And there’s always been a market for cynicism.”  “But we became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers,” he added.

Peter Wehner, who ran the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives under President Bush, is not a media figure:

[Glenn Beck's] interest in conspiracy theories is disquieting, as is his admiration for Ron Paul and his charges of American “imperialism.” (He is now talking about pulling troops out of Afghanistan, South Korea, Germany, and elsewhere.) Some of Beck’s statements–for example, that President Obama has a “deep-seated hatred for white people”-are quite unfair and not good for the country. His argument that there is very little difference between the two parties is silly, and his contempt for parties in general is anti-Burkean (Burke himself was a great champion of political parties). And then there is his sometimes bizarre behavior, from tearing up to screaming at his callers. Beck seems to be a roiling mix of fear, resentment, and anger–the antithesis of Ronald Reagan.

Glenn Beck, you see, “is just a father, doing this for his kids.” And billions of dollars. And to fulfill his narcissism.

Perhaps most amusingly, Glenn Beck called Fox “The Alamo for the Truth.” Aside from the hilariousness of Fox “News” being a bastion of truth, there’s also Beck’s apparent moment of forgetfulness–everyone defending the Alamo died.  If Fox “News” wants to pretend to be the last refuge for truth and suddenly disappear, I am all for Fox News being the Alamo.

The real issue here, is not what Beck is calling “yellow journalism.” The real issue is that Beck is starting to realize that the world exists beyond his measly 2 million viewers/listeners and that the majority of people do not like Glenn Beck. He is starting to worry that the increasingly vocal opposition against him, which is now even gaining attention on Fox, is going to reach the ears of his devotees, turning some of his followers away from their self-proclaimed messiah. He is worried because even overseas companies are starting to pull their advertising not only from his show but from Fox, condemning Beck’s behavior:

We take the placement of our ads in individual programmes very seriously, ensuring the content of these programmes is deemed appropriate for a brand with our values,” a customer service spokesman is said to have written in reply. “Since being notified of our presence within the Glenn Beck programme, we have withdrawn all Waitrose advertising from the Fox News channel with immediate effect and for all future TV advertising campaigns.”

Sorry Beck. I don’t think the media will lay off any time soon. I guess you’ll just have to get some more Vicks to rub under your eyes so you can do some more fake crying.

Because this was something Obama elected to do, the right wing felt the need to respond with criticism. They criticized the president for cronyism and they criticized Chicago. Sean Hannity, from Fox “News,” pointed to recent violence in the city and asked if it was a place where “we want the Olympics” and Glenn Beck, adopting his artificial ‘coy’ personality, said “Chicago is good at … organized Mafi — oops, did I say that out loud?”

Obama’s personal plea to the IOC was not unprecedented; Tony Blair and his wife did the same in a successful bid to have a future Olympics hosted in London. Other heads of state appeared before the IOC along with Obama, such as Japan’s prime minister Yukio Hatoyama. Tokyo was eliminated in the second round, to the collective disappointment of the Japanese people.

The conservatives are spinning this as a slap in the face to Obama by the international community. Rush Limbaugh positively crowed about it on his show, repeating “Barack Hussein Obama” in a sing-songy voice and sounding like a cross between a spoiled child and a deranged lunatic:

LIMBAUGH: For those of you on the other side of the aisle listening in who are upset that I sound gleeful, I am. I don’t deny it. I’m happy. Anything that gets in the way of Barack Obama accomplishing his domestic agenda is fine with me.

According to Media Matters, ever the sexist boor, Limbaugh also suggested Oprah–who is significantly thinner than the rotund Limbaugh–”ate Norway” in her grief. He also claimed the president had been traveling the world telling everyone that “America sucks.” Glenn Beck called the elimination of Chicago “so sweet” and told listeners to “savor this moment.” The Weekly Standard reported that its office staff erupted in cheers (no pretense at objective journalism, there).

The republicans are apparently unaware that there are actually republicans that live in Chicago. For most countries, hosting the Olympics is a source of national pride, no matter what city they are in. Is there any evidence that the IOC made its decision to deflate Obama’s “ego” as Matt Drudge suggested? Or to “bitch slap” him, as Limbaugh claimed? In a word, no. As Think Progressindicates, a question from a Pakistani IOC judge may shed light on the IOC’s decision:

Michael Froomkin, Professor at the University of Miami School of Law, is convinced that the “the same stupid anti-visitor policy that is destroying American higher education” also sunk Chicago’s Olympic bid. Chicago was eliminated during the first round and received the fewest votes. A New York Times article points out:

In the official question-and-answer session following the Chicago presentation, Syed Shahid Ali, an I.O.C. member from Pakistan, asked the toughest question. He wondered how smooth it would be for foreigners to enter the United States for the Games because doing so can sometimes, he said, be “a rather harrowing experience.”

To take part in a US-based Olympics, amateur and professional athletes on an Olympic Team from any of the countries not included in the 35 that participate in a special VISA waiver program with the US must secure a P-1 Visa. Here is a list of fees that appear to be associated with obtaining a visitor’s VISA, including a P-1:

• Nonimmigrant visa application processing fee, Form DS-156 (non-refundable): $131.00
• Border crossing card – 10 year (age 15 and over) non-refundable: $131.00
• Border crossing card – (under age 15). For Mexican citizen if parent or guardian has or is applying for a border crossing card (non-refundable): $13.00
• L Visa- Fraud Prevention and Detection for visa applicant in the L blanket petition abroad only (principal applicant only): $500.00

According to MSNBC, the US delegation to the IOC assumed they had several more votes than they ended up getting and now believe many Africans shifted their votes to Rio De Janeiro. Could this be in part because no African countries are included in the VISA waiver program? An additional $800 per athlete, coach, and other Olympic staff in VISA application fees (plus whatever the VISA costs to issue) is not a small amount of change.

The Associated Press offers another compelling reason about why the US lost its Olympic bid that has nothing to do with President Obama–and perhaps is why Obama felt the need to go to Copenhagen and try to counter the writing already on the wall:

[There is] bad blood between the committee and its U.S. branch — they’ve had flare-ups over revenue sharing and lucrative broadcasting rights — proved to be a note of discord. IOC members said the slap to Chicago was more directed at the U.S. Olympic Committee than to the Windy City itself.

French IOC member Guy Drut said “an excess of security” for the Obamas unsettled some of his colleagues. He complained that he’d been barred from crossing the lobby of his hotel for security reasons, and he grumbled that “nothing has been done” to resolve the financial disputes between the IOC and the USOC.

The IOC’s last two experiences in the United States were bad: the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics were sullied by a bribery scandal and logistical problems and a bombing hit the 1996 Games in Atlanta.

According to one IOC member, it was not a problem that Obama made an appearance–only that the appearance was so short:

Former IOC member Kai Holm said the brevity of Obama’s appearance — he was in and out in five hours — may have hurt Chicago. “Too businesslike,” Holm said. “It can be that some IOC members see it as a lack of respect.”

In addition to the bad blood between the IOC and the US, the most likely reason Chicago lost its Olympic bid and Rio de Janeiro one is the country’s appeal to the IOC’s sense of fairness. No South American nation has ever hosted the Olympics. Now Rio de Janeiro will benefit from the jobs created in building the Olympic facilities and hosting the Olympians and the revenue that will be spent during the games. As a former Chicagoan, I do know Olympians are going to miss out on some great pizza and Italian beef.

It is a clear indication of the country’s divide and the conservatives’ hatred of this president that they are exultating in America’s failure to secure the Olympics for 2016 (so much for their unflagging ‘patriotism’). Had it not been Chicago or had it been Chicago but Bush was president, their reaction would likely have been far more circumspect. But what is Chicago to a conservative, other than the home of that “evil socialist Nazi” in the White House.

Every day, the conservative loud mouths who claim to speak for their party’s followers give the rest of the country increasing reason to distance themselves further from that party. I have never seen a bigger bunch of sore losers in my life.

Q.From today’s Times online: A team of travel editors and writers from The New York Times uncover affordable places to stay, eat, drink and shop in the Caribbean. Explore all 13 islands.

Times editors and writers should stay at home until they learn that a collective singular noun should be followed by the appropriate predicate, in this case: A team…uncovers. I’ve spotted this error so often that I finally concluded that you folks have simply forgotten what a collective noun is and that the subject dictates the verb to be used.

Both of these queries involve the use of collective nouns — words like team, couple, group. In a sentence, should they be construed as singular or plural?

It’s a trickier grammatical proposition than one might think. As the esteemed Times editor and language expert Theodore M. Bernstein wrote (in “Watch Your Language”): “Whether to treat collective nouns as singular or plural is a continuing source of perplexity. The British seem to resolve their doubts in favor of the plural; the Americans seem to resolve theirs in favor of the singular. Both should resolve them in favor of logic.”

As Bernstein suggests, context is important. If the sense is of one unit, viewed as a single entity, then the noun should generally be treated as singular. But if the idea is of a number of separate people or entities acting individually, the plural is often best.

Our stylebook has a specific entry on “couple,” since the question of singular or plural often arises:

COUPLE may be either singular or plural. Used in reference to two distinct but associated people, couple should be construed as a plural: The couple were married in 1952. The couple argued constantly; they [not it] even threw punches. When the idea is one entity rather than two people, couple may be treated as a singular: Each couple was asked to give $10; The couple was the richest on the block. In general, couple causes fewer problems when treated as a plural.

 On the specific example offered by Mr. Swan — “A team of travel editors … uncover” — I say, well, hmmnn. That’s a good one. Is it one team, traveling en masse from island to island in search of fun and bargains? Or do we mean, in effect, “Many editors, working separately, uncover …” I can argue it either way, but since “team” does inherently have the sense of a unit acting as one, I might be inclined to agree with Mr. Swan and go with the singular. Then again.

The New York Times has not published an updated version of its stylebook since 2002. Corbett recommends Bryan A. Garner’s Modern American Usage.

In a blog posting to Newsmax John Perry wrote about a coup scenario involving the U.S. military. He clearly stated that he was not advocating such a scenario but simply describing one.

After several reader complaints, Newsmax wanted to insure that this article was not misinterpreted. It was removed after a short period after being posted.

Newsmax strongly believes in the principles of Constitutional government and would never advocate or insinuate any suggestion of an activity that would undermine our democracy or democratic institutions.

Mr. Perry served as a political appointee in the Carter administration in HUD and FEMA. He has no official relationship with Newsmax other than as an unpaid blogger.

As MediaMatters states, it is notable that Newsmax disingenuously mentions Perry’s work in the Carter administration to intimate he is not one of them and describes his relationship with them as nothing more than an “unpaid blogger.” Perry has been writing for Newsmax since 1999 and was once a senior editor for the site. For anyone who wishes to read this fear-mongering treasonous trash, luckily MediaMatters copied it before Newsmax attempted to whitewash it out of existence.

As much as Newsmax and their supporters would like to pretend Perry’s article no longer exists, it is important to examine it in the context of the other movements out there–the birthers, deathers, teabaggers, gun nuts, militia movements, FEMA concentration camp believers, and fantasy assassins responsible for a 400% uptick in presidential death threats since Obama took office, etc. As I have written before, this is a concentrated collective effort by the extreme right wing–or as Bill Clinton calls it, a “vast right-wing conspiracy–to portray Obama as a threat to America that must be vanquished by any means necessary. Has there ever been such a hateful and violent reaction to a democratically elected leader of the United States of America in the first 8 months of his tenure in office? Those behind this movement know a popular revolution or a military coup is next to impossible; they secretly hope to inspire a lone wolf to target their prey.

Let us inspect Perry’s  “describing” of the possibility of a coup d’etat in the United States, beginning with his opening:

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic. America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont.” Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through
military eyes:

Perry does not elaborate on just how “remote” this possibility might be or why he it is remote. Nor does he describe how the prospect of a coup is “gaining” momentum. This complete lack of substance of facts to support his musings is a reccurring theme throughout Perry’s article. His reference to the “Obama problem” telegraphs his rampant bias and belief (or hope) that others perceive the situation similarly.

To assume that an American coup would be “civilized” is born of the philosophy of American exceptionalism. Perry goes on to say “that [a coup] has never happened doesn’t mean it won’t.” What an interesting contradiction. First, Perry offers the profound assumption that an American coup will be civilized, then follows it up by demonstrating there is nothing in the American experience that lends validity to this assumption. One could easily argue that coups in “Third World” countries are more likely than coups in America to transpire quickly because they lack a stable government with checks and balances or an enforced constitution. American governmental institutions are so established and ingrained in our society, a coup could be more difficult and longer lasting and, consequently, bloodier; at any rate, a far cry from “civilized.” Not to mention, people in many Third World countries are often so universally desperate (poor, hungry, downtrodden) that there is little incentive to organize opposition. The perception is often that the new government is not likely to improve upon the old.

Perry suggests the U.S. military is inclined to take a most literal view of the Constitution:

Officers swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to “obey the orders of the president of the United States.”

This may be one of the few truths in Perry’s seditious screed. At the same time, Barack Obama was democratically elected in accordance with the Constitution they are sworn to protect. Isn’t it therefore logical that protecting the Constitution requires protecting the legitimate outcome of exercising our voting rights under the Constitution? It also bears noting that the Constitution, penned by the “founding fathers” some in this country worship, designates the president as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States (see article 2, section 2 of the United States Constitution). To anyone serving in the military–officer and enlisted, alike–the president is a superior officer. To disobey a superior officer constitutes insubordination; to attempt to replace a superior officer is mutiny. Of course, Perry fails to mention any of this and assumes his audience, like he does, is among the minority of Americans who view Barack Obama as an enemy attacking the Constitution rather than the country’s duly elected president/Commander-in-Chief.

Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.

Who are these “top military officers?” What branch of service do they represent? Do they regularly confer with Perry, “a Newsmax blogger?” Once again, Perry offers no finer details, only broad strokes. As for the Constitution being “trampled,” where was this outrage when President Bush expanded the executive branch powers well beyond their Constitutional jurisdictions, along with other examples of unconstitutional behavior by his administration?

 The “institutions and enterprises” Perry claims are being “nationalized” are the ones that went to the government, hat in hand, and threatened that the economy would collapse if they did not get sizeable handouts. How soon they forget that the gargantuan bank bailout was passed in 2008 under President Bush. Neither Bush nor Obama woke up one morning with a dream of carrying out the politically unpopular nationalization of American businesses. The Republicans viewed the financial failing of these “institutions and enterprises” as a win/win situation: if Obama refused to bail businesses out and the economy continued its downward trajectory, they could blame him for that just as readily as they blame him for the bailouts. Perry, however, feels no need to offer facts to support his assessment of the situation, because he is confident that his readers believes as he does, facts be damned.

They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.

Who are these “alarmed” Americans? Perhaps Perry refers to the self-identified conservatives in New Jersey who believe Obama is the anti-Christ? Perhaps he means the 100,000 people (average crowd of a Saturday football game at the University of Texas or Florida) who arrived in Washington D.C. on September 12 for a group “teabag.” Maybe he means the featured nightly guests on Fox “News.” Perry must not realize that the military has never been beholden to public opinion; if it were, one wonders what might have occurred when Bush’s approval ratings plummeted into the 30s and then 20s.

Perry goes on to explain the right time to act, which, quite troubling, is before any of these events transpire:

So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?

Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear bombs
falls into the hands of militant Islam?

If it were not such a serious matter, the thought of Obama being responsible for bungling Afghanistan would be laughable, considering Bush spent more than 7 years in the country. Perry’s leap of logic from the war in Afghanistan to radical Islamists’ acquisition of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is puzzling. Perhaps Perry believes the Taliban will re-conquer Afghanistan and then Pakistan? Once again, he provides no insight or factual support regarding his assertions.

Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran’s nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?

In 1981, when Israel struck Iraq’s nuclear reactor the Middle East did not “explode”–assuming by “explode,” Perry means all-out war. The Arab world has gone to war with Israel many times since 1948. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and others have made various failed attempts to defeat Israel militarily and have often suffered tremendous losses (think Six-Day War). Even assuming that the countries in today’s “Middle East” operate as a singular entity (which they do not), one wonders how they would manage to “subjugate the Free World” when they cannot even defeat Israel. I do not believe I have ever read anything that so blatantly demonstrates the writer’s ignorance of history and international relations as this brief passage in Perry’s article. Then again, such an obvious lack of knowledge is irrelevant when your audience is at least as ill-informed as you are.

I was fortunate enough to come across this 2006 article from Harper’s Magazine in which a roundtable of military officials and academics discuss the hypothetical situation of a coup d’etat taking place in America. I recommend reading it in its entirety, but I offer a few notable excerpts. Regarding a coup, Edward Luttwak, a senior adviser at the center for Strategic and International Studies, said the following:

It just wouldn’t work here. You could go down the list and take over these headquarters, that headquarters, the White House, the Defense Department, the television, the radio, and so on. You could arrest all the leaders, detain or kill off their families. And you would have accomplished nothing.

You would sit in the office of the Secretary of Defense, and the first place where you wouldn’t be obeyed would be inside your office. If they did follow orders inside the office, then people in the rest of the Pentagon wouldn’t. If everybody in the Pentagon followed orders, people out in the military bases wouldn’t. If they did, as well, American citizens would still not accept your legitimacy.

Richard Kohn also took part in the discussion; Kohn was chair of the curriculum in War, Peace, and Defense at the University of North Carolina. He said:

I’ve raised this point before with military audiences: Do you really think you can control New York City without the cooperation of 40,000 New York police officers?

Kohn’s statement is insightful; how does Perry reconcile conflicting views between the military and law enforcement? Andrew Bacevich, who was a professor in international relations at Boston University and served in the army from 1969 to 1992, shared his observations:

And this comes back to the federal system. As Edward pointed out, even if you seized Washington, Americans are willing to acknowledge that Washington is the seat of political authority only to a limited extent. The coup plotters could sit in the Capitol, but up in Boston we’re going to ask, “What’s this got to do with us?””

The professional ethic within the military is firmly committed to the principle that they don’t rule [the country].

The discussion does a great job of examining the possibilities and theories regarding a military coup in the United States. Suffice it to say, these experts would disagree with Perry’s mind-numbingly asinine assumptions. In closing, let us examine one final passage from Perry:

Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America’s military leadership is lost in a fool’s fog.

In making this gross assumption, Perry again illustrates his belief that he has the power to read the minds of “America’s military leadership.” Does this excerpt really resemble a benign attempt to “describe” the situation? And if it were so benign, why did Newsmax take it down? I doubt this is the first article that has generated complaints from some readers. The one thing Perry surely knows is what constitutes a “fool’s fog,” since he obviously lives in one and seeks to expand its borders so that it swallows others.

sandy says: [A]nything that will get us out from under the mess we are in with Obama works for me. He has driven us deeper in dept than this country has ever seen. Taking from Peter to give to Paul has never worked. He’s a good talker and handles himself well, this is why the general public see’s him as great. We now know that most of those who voted for him have major regrets and are in those protest groups. He wants a solid one world goverment and his healthcare plan is another plan in sheeps clothing. The purpose of the plan is to have everyone and their personal information very accessable for spying. The people at the tea parties were filmed, he is taking names and the names will not be in his black book but his red book. Look up US concentration camps on the net. One stoke of the pen and he can tell us where to live, force us into hard labor, take over control of transportation. He can even force Muslin law on us which is his plan. He stated that “it’s ok to lie in order to futher the cause of the Muslim religion”. Does that sound like a man you want as your President? Hillary Clinton is one member of a high profile people that meet monthly to discuss a one world goverment and how and when it can be acheived. The Bible states this must take place before the rapture. But that doesn’t mean we can’t fight it. Don’t tell me what I can and cannot do. What about the declaration of independence? I think he has forgotten it exists. He’s a wolf in sheeps clothing. He is holding the majority of the stimulas money to be disbursed before we choose another president, to make himself “look good” he can wear angel wings and he won’t look good to me. This is why I stay informed. The local news is bias and only give you tid bits and can make things appear different that how they really are. By the way, it’s FEMA consentration camps, all over the good old USA.

Actually, Sandy, more Americans than voted for President Obama view him favorably according to polls, which means it is unlikely “most of those who voted for him have major regrets” and have joined the teabaggers. As for trying to force “Muslin” law on us, that can only be a ploy of the country’s muslin lobby.

To JDL,, since you are so certain that Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii, how bout YOU bringing those documents forward?, You are just another Easly Fooled Fool. And to THE others who which to SHREAD the Laws of the UNITED STATES and trash and dis-respect ( thru ignorance ) the CONSTATUTION, what was once a Great Nation is now being destroyed by your Ignorance and the Dumbing Down of America. Now without changing the subject or talking about OTHER Presidents, just DEAL with this subject, WHERE is the Proof? Why is it being HIDDEN? The answer? OBVIOUS

 Who is the ignorant one here?

Jimmy L Porter says

I’ve read most of the comments on this issue, and while I do not like to be taken for a ride either, I faithfully think my heart is telling me the right information. As a ” birther” myself, I find this is an issue which will be a cause for civil war within America. We are being swindled and half the country doesn’t care, or doesn’t beleive what is before their eyes. I can only see that history will prove what is right, but for now we need action. I know what needs to be done, but will not say it here. I look for true civil war, I do.

A poll was posted on Facebook asking users to vote “should Obama be killed?” The responses include: “yes,” “maybe,” “if he cuts my health care,” and “no.”

Conservative speaker Kitty Werthmannled a workshop called “How to recognize living under Nazis & Communists.” During her session, Werthmann went through a litany of examples of how President Obama is like Adolf Hitler. She noted that Hitler, who acted “like an American politician,” was “elected in a 100% Christian nation.” Although she failed to once mention Antisemitism or militarism, Werthmann explained how universal healthcare, an Equal Rights Amendment, and increased taxes were telltale signs of Nazism. Werthmann also warned the audience:

If we had our guns, we would have fought a bloody battle. So, keep your guns, and buy more guns, and buy ammunition. [...] Take back America. Don’t let them take the country into Socialism. And I refer again, Hitler’s party was National Socialism. [...] And that’s what we are having here right now, which is bordering on Marxism

From Phyllis Schlafly:

“Kitty has pointed out the parallels between the slow, incremental Hitler takeover of Austria and some of the things that are happening today,” said Schlafly, asked about Werthmann’s “How to Recognize Living Under Nazis and Communists” session. “She’s an expert on that. I see what [Obama] is doing as absolute socialism, as government ownership of the means of production.”

“I submit to you that the feminist movement is the most dangerous, destructive force in our society today. [...] My analysis is that the gays are about 5% of the attack on marriage in this country, and the feminists are about 95%. [...] I’m talking about drugs, sex, illegitimacy, drop outs, poor grades, run away, suicide, you name it, every social ill comes out of the fatherless home.”

From Retired Lt. General William Boykin, who said it was only prayers that kept us from being attacked after 9/11:

“If you look at the classic model for moving to Marxism,” said retired Lt. Gen. William Boykin, who would give the conference’s opening speech, “you look at what every Marxist organization has done, they nationalize. They redistribute wealth. They restrict gun ownership. They then go out and suppress the opposition. And then, finally, they censor the media.”

From Rep. Trent Franks, a republican from Arizona:

Now I gotta tell you, a president that will do that, here’s almost nothing that you should be surprised at after that. You shouldn’t, we shouldn’t be shocked that he does all these other insane things…he has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity.”

From republican Mike Huckabee, who wants to be president someday:

The highlight of the convention Saturday night was a speech by former Arkansas Gov. and GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who targeted the United Nations and argued that it ought to be run out of the country. “It’s time to get a jackhammer and to simply chip off that part of New York City and let it float into the East River, never to be seen again!”Huckabee said, inspiring a standing ovation. “It’s time to say enough of the American taxpayer’s dollar being spent on something that may have been a noble idea, but has become a disgrace!” said Huckabee. “It has become the international equivalent of ACORN and it’s time to say enough!”

It should be noted that this conference was attended by several republican politicians and well known conservative leaders. If the above is not enough to make you accept that the efforts of Fox “News” and other conservatives are ratcheting up conservatives’ attitudes to a dangerous level, then I suggest you get an account at Free Republic and Red State and hang around for a few weeks and see if you change your mind.

Conservatives unearthed the YouTube clip and went insane, screaming about “indoctrination.” Tucker “Bowtie” Carlson, a Fox “News” commentator, said it was like “the Khmer Rouge.” Another Fox commentator read a letter allegedly from a viewer suggesting it was like “Hitler Youth” efforts at indoctrination. An MSNBC commentator said it was like something you’d see in “North Korea.” The principal of the school is said to have received death threats over the incident. Yet another conservative, whose name escapes me, And yet another “Hitler Youth” reference from someone who obviously has firsthand knowledge of that time period:

“It’s just like the Hitler Youth all over again,” said Concannon, an unemployed 26-year-old former National Guardsman. “They should be learning history, but instead they’re being taught to worship the president.”

There are some problems with this line of reasoning. First, the President’s office had nothing to do with the event. They did not require or ask anyone to have the children sing the song; they did not even know the song had been sung. In these other countries that actively practiced indoctrination, the orders to have children praise the leader came from the top down. So, what were these outrageous lyrics, that bring to mind some of world history’s most notorious figures?

The first song begins, “Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama/He said that all must lend a hand/To make this country strong again.” The second one was set to “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and included the refrain, “Hooray, Mr. President.”

“He said we must be fair today! Equal work means equal pay! Barack Hussein Obama! He said, red yellow, black or white, all are equal in his sight! Barack Hussein Obama!”

The republicans have wasted no time shamelessly using the incident as another fundraising opportunity:

RNC Chair Michael Steele writes that the video shows “the indoctrination of our nation’s greatest treasure — our children…Friend, this is the type of propaganda you would see in Stalin’s Russia or Kim Jong Il’s North Korea…I never thought the day would come when I’d see it here in America.”

Since the conservatives first displayed their manufactured outrage, video has emerged of other kids singing a president’s praises–President George Bush:

The Obama song video controversy is reminiscent of an incident involving school age children and Laura Bush during the White House Easter Egg Roll in 2006. Hurricane Katrina had come and gone, and criticism of the Bush administration’s inadequate response was both plentiful and incessant. The Bush White House invited children from the areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina to come sing for the First Lady.

What did they sing? To the tune of “Hey Look Me Over,” children from states devastated by the hurricane sang:

… Congress, Bush and FEMA
People across our land
Together have come to rebuild us
and we join them hand-in-hand!

And those children sang the song praising President Bush in the White House at a national event at the instance of the First Lady, not in a lonely public school auditorium at the instance of an unknown teacher.

When President Obama was elected, even republicans who opposed him made a great show of saying what a historic moment it was for our country to elect its first African American president and how proud they were of the country for doing this. Yet when young kids are encouraged to celebrate that achievement during Black History Month–an achievement that is one of the most monumental achievements for African Americans in this country–the conservatives gin up outrage.

These kids are so young they do not even care about political policies. The song did not encourage them to support abortion rights or gay marriage or even a public health care option. To them, the president is not a republican or a democrat–he is the president, a position that children are typically raised to regard with some amount of awe and admiration. This is the leader of our entire country! It is likely that song will have no effect on their future voting decisions.

This is simply another in a long line of efforts by conservatives in power to whip up and maintain a frenzy of hate against the president that they hope will culminate with his downfall in 2012–or sooner, by the most unpleasant means. There is something insane about taking an innocent song and comparing it to people who mass murdered millions or have been indicted for crimes against humanity.

There continues to be support for a government-run health insurance plan, or government option, with 65 percent of Americans saying they are in favor of the plan and 26 percent opposing it. In August, 60 percent were in favor of the plan, and 34 percent opposed it.

If 65 out of 100 Americans support a government-run health insurance plan, why don’t we have at least 60 of 100 senators who support it, as well? The answer is clearly that our senators no longer represent our interests. Today, the majority of senators on the Senate Public Finance Committee voted down two amendments on a public option. All republicans on the committee–including Olympia Snowe, who, when push comes to shove, almost always toes the party line–voted against it. In addition, democrats Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, Kent Conrad and Bill Nelson also voted down the public option. An August poll by Research 2000 showed more constituents in Baucus’ state of Montana support a public option than oppose it, at 47% to 43%, respectively, with 10% uncertain, so clearly he has support in his state to support a vote for a public option.

Another poll shows the majority of physiciansin the United States support a public option. In total, 73% of physicians support some form of a government sponsored health insurance plan. Am I the only one who finds it ironic that republicans rally against a public option with the argument that it will put a bureaucrat between “you and your doctor,” yet they do not even trust physicians enough to believe our doctors know more than bureaucrats when it comes to what kind of healthcare system the American people need?

We know why most Americans support the public option. Unlike our senators, who have a dream health insurance package that they are allowed to keep even after they leave office, most of us who have health insurance are stuck with companies who engage in the following practices:

• Terminate coverage when we become ill, using “rescission” policies (often phony)
• Deny coverage for care our physicians say we need (sometimes even life-saving care)
• Make us fight for nearly every penny they spend
• Refuse to cover the conditions we need covered the most
• Annually raise rates and copayments (they have to pay their multi-million dollar CEO bonuses somehow)
• Force us to pay extra costs to see the physician of our choice

Unlike members of Congress, when we change jobs, we must generally change insurance and, often, physicians. Then there is the growing percentage of Americans that lack insurance and must sometimes choose between food to eat and lifesaving medication. No one in Congress will ever know what it is like to be in that situation–and they do not care about the fear most of us live with that we will.

Why do our senators oppose Americans’ wishes for how to spend our money? Republicans have an obvious reason for opposing health care reform; they do not want to hand Obama a victory like this. Their political spite exceeds their care about the suffering many Americans–republicans and democrats and others–are enduring on a daily basis. What excuses do democrats have for opposing healthcare coverage reform? Millions of them–all campaign contributions from lobbyists from the health industry that seek to curry their favor.

What can we do? We can call and write our senators and representatives and let them know how upset we are over their votes. We can also fund progressive opponents in the primaries and work for the defeat of these senators in upcoming elections. Congress should not be using peoples’ lives and well being as a political football nor should they sacrifice Americans on the altar of their campaign war chest.

It is undisputed that the level of vitriol on the Internet is greater than in face-to-face (f2f, as Dr. Suler calls it) communications. Racism and rudeness seem to dominate–even on sites where people claim to share objectives and have similar views. For instance, on Daily Kos, I disagreed with a poster about the apparent murder of the census worker. I was polite, offered no comments about the poster personally, did not insult his argument, and merely outlined my differing opinion. He instantly retorted with, “Get off your high horse!” I questioned why he felt the urge to attack me though I had said nothing personal or insulting; he attacked me again, saying I needed to improve my reading comprehension and analytical skills. This occurs all too frequently at many large “community” sites.

Years ago, when Yahoo first started attaching message boards to news stories, any story about a black athlete (like the Williams sisters) was sure to have a slew of racist replies. In online communities like Free Republic, where people who express or accept racism outnumber those opposing it, they make no attempt to be “politically correct,” a phrase they treat like a profanity.

Are they racist in person or just on the Internet? I would say that someone who truly is not racist would never consider using such words about another person, so I would say they are revealing their true attitudes that social interaction forces them to suppress. This is what Dr. Suler calls “the online disinhibition effect.” Dr. Suler believes it is too simplistic to think of one’s online personality as one’s “true self” and the socially constrained f2f personality as “superficial”:

The concept of disinhibition may mistakenly lead us into thinking that what is disinhibited is more real or true than the part of us that inhibits. If we can just peel away repression, suppression, and other defense mechanisms, we will discover the “real” self that lies below. Based loosely on the kind of archaeological approach to intrapsychic structure proposed by Freud, this notion suggests that the personality is constructed in layers, with more true or real features of personality existing at a deeper level.

This is a simplistic interpretation of the much more dynamic psychoanalytic model which states that the inhibitory processes of repression and defense mechanisms are components of personality no less real or important than others…People who are shy in-person may thrive in cyberspace when the disinhibition effect allows them to express who they “truly” are inside. This is a wonderful opportunity for them. But why is Joe’s shyness a less true aspect of him compared to other features of his personality, especially given the fact that his shyness is a prominent feature of his day-to-day living?

I was discussing this with my oldest son, who commented that there is no “one true self.” He pointed out that we act one way when we talk to parents, one way when we talk to peers, another when we talk to coworkers, and another when we talk to strangers, etc. We have many “true selves.” I think this is a good point; it suggests we have a series of selves that we wear like dresses to influence how we want others to see us. Some do this on the Internet–they pretend to be more successful or more intellectual than their lives suggest they are. Some might use racist terms in a place like Free Republic, where it is accepted, but when they go to a parenting forum or a health support group where such language would create shock and outrage, they leave this language behind–just like they would in real life.

This will seem like a shift in direction, but bear with me, please. For centuries in this country, it was acceptable to be racist. Even more, it was acceptable in some regions to rape, beat, and even kill black people without any concern about  repercussions. Today, many of us express disgust at these sorts of events and shock. We cannot believe people treated lynchings like picnics and brought their kids or even acquired souvenirs, like charred pieces of flesh, or postcards of the body. Why did lynchings stop? Was it because everyone came to realize how wrong these views were? I would argue no. Media exposure brought this to the attention of many who did feel it was horrific and wrong, and the pressure brought to bear through public condemnation delivered through the media led to the eventual diminishing of these kinds of actions–but not the extinction of all such sentiments.

The idea that these things are all in the past or that the people who did these things are somehow more primitive humans–less enlightened–is something we say to console ourselves and distance ourselves from “those” types of people. I think this is a false assumption. We see a lot of horrible brutalities in Africa right now–rebel and/or government groups that commit the most grotesque atrocities, like cutting off hands indiscriminately, raping children, torturing and murdering. We also know that these regions are less constrained by the media; many people in more rural or tribal areas where these  crimes are more prevalent lack Internet access; they lack electricity and television; they have high rates of illiteracy. In other words, there is nothing shaming the people committing these acts or putting public social pressure on them to cease.

I think the people who behave with such ugliness on the Internet would behave this way in “real life” if f2f social constraints were removed. When the media or community is complicit in creating an atmosphere that suggests this hatred and ugliness is acceptable, it invites its resurgence. In other words, when certain people no longer feel socially constrained to conceal these hostile or violent attitudes, they will reveal them. I think this is what we are seeing in the Teabagger marches and the comments by Fox “News” commentators and guests.

There is an interesting, if somewhat sanctimonious, movie called “Gentleman’s Agreement,” that was released in 1947. Gregory Peck stars as a journalist who decides to write about anti-semitism. He pretends he is Jewish, and in doing so, because increasingly aware of how prevalent–and how sly–racism can be. There is a dinner party scene where someone tells an anti-semitic joke; most are uncomfortable but some laugh and others are silent. Peck chastises them as accomplices in racism for sitting in silence and not bringing social pressure to bear against people who express prejudice against others.

I urge people who might be inclined to watch Fox “News” or listen to Rush Limbaugh to consider:  Is it really harmless? People have been killed as a result of some of the rhetoric hammered home on Fox; Bill Sparkman, the census worker found naked, bound, and asphyxiated with the word “Fed” scrawled on his body (and rumors that his census ID was taped to his body as well), may simply be the latest victim. Fox–Glenn Beck’s show, in particular–heavily promoted the “evils” of the census, booking guests like Michelle Bachmann and allowing them to spew anti-census rhetoric unchecked.  The Washington Times, a conservative-leaning publication, also devoted a lot of ink to Bachmann’s views.

It is time to use the voice of the majority to make it clear that we will not accept a return to the outright racist attitudes of the past. We must speak up, online and in person, and shame these people into abiding by the laws of a decent, just society that has no place for violence, racism, and threats against the president’s life (like the Facebook poll that someone posted today, asking “Should Obama Be Killed?” It is time to delegitimize people like Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachmann, and Rush Limbaugh. If you want to know what is going on in the world today, tune into NPR or NBC’s Brian Williams. If you want entertainment, rent a movie or read a good book.