It’s pretty pathetic. And as is generally the case with these people, it’s classical projection:
The general manager of her station chimed in with the news that we are all as depraved as she is, so really, get over it:
Sarah was not acting in her position as KCRW Publicity Director when she wrote these comments. She spoke in the heat of the moment without consideration to the impact her words would have. We’ve all said things we didn’t mean and don’t reflect our core values. We believe that was the situation in this case.
We’ve all e-mailed a group of 400 relative stranger with the news that we would laugh like maniacs while watching a man’s eyes bug out as he dies of a heart attack? Seriously? What is in the stuff they are smoking in California, and how could they possibly think of legalizing it?
It reminds me of an old Monty Python sketch (though I guess that’s redundant — it’s not like there are any new ones…):
Well, we psychiatrist have found that over 8% of the population will always be mice, I mean, after all, there’s something of the mouse in all of us. I mean, how many of us can honestly say that at one time or another he hasn’t felt sexually attracted to mice. (linkman looks puzzeld) I know I have. I mean, most normal adolescents go through a stage of squeaking two or three times a day. Some youngsters on the other hand, are attracted to it by its very illegality. It’s like murder – make a thing illegal and it acquires a mystique. (linkman looks increasingly embarrassed) Look at arson – I mean, how many of us can honestly say that at one time or another he hasn’t set fire to some great public building. I know I have. (phone on desk rings; the linkman picks it up but does not answer it) The only way to bring the crime figures down is to reduce the number of offences – get it out in the open – I know I have.
Who among us haven’t fantasied about Rush Limbaugh dying painfully of a heart attack, while we cackled in glee? Why, you’d have to have a heart of stone to imagine Glenn Beck going blind and not take great joy in it.
I have no idea how widespread this fantasy psycho behavior was at the Journolist, or how well it was received. Maybe the Daily Caller could sift their archives and run some denunciations of these sorts of posting. These libs spent years deploring Bush’s macho cowboy act and declared it to be the end of Western Civilization when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded, so I would like to hope that one or two pushed back against the plate glass window smashing and heart attack eye-bugging.
I’d like to hope so, too. But I sure can’t get into the heads of these kind of people. And I don’t think I want to.
[Update a while later]
“Put up or shut up, Ezra.”
These are references to individuals who chose to adopt a particular ideology
No, they include references to people who live in the same city as people who choose to adopt a particular ideology, people whose only offense is to be born in a certain place to a certain culture and religious tradition.
Hate to break it to you, sport, but Muslims are not a race.
And therefore calling Muslims animals worthy of extermination is not racism. But surely it’s a close cousin, and no more admirable.
And I find it both amusing and pathetic that you had to dig back four years, to find one post.
Hate to break it to you, sport, but I didn’t not read the archives in reverse chronological order. Google happened to find that one; I’ve read worse in the last couple years, but I don’t keep a clipping file.
But since you want an example of racism, as opposed to anti-Muslim prejudice, how about:
So, black + rioter = unemployed. Black + unemployed = on welfare. Black + on welfare = more interested in collecting a check than anything else.
But no, there’s no racism on Transterrestrial.com.
While Michael Savage is really too far over the top for my taste, at times like this I have to agree with his sentiment/book title, “Liberalism is a mental disorder.”
I don’t even know if he is just refering to the policy positions that tend to fly in the face of common sense, history and facts, but I see deeper issues of frustration, projection and neurosis.
Jim: There’s racism everywhere. Even among blacks, who supposedly are only victims of it, if we are to believe our liberal media brainwashing (ever notice how in CSI Miami the criminals are almost ALWAYS white? IN MIAMI? or how since 9/11 the ‘terrorist’ in a terrorist style action flick always turns out to be a redneck, but before 9/11 sometimes they were Muslims?). Its a part of human nature. Am I saying its right? No. Maybe though, its a little more complex than just being a simple right or wrong issue. At the very least, if we are to be told that racism among whites is ‘wrong’, then people of other races should be held to the same standard.
Jim proclaimed from his throne on Mount Olympus:
black + rioter = unemployed
Probably, or else why would they be rioting instead of at work? I think it’s pretty racist of you, Jim, to imagine that working black people are somehow more inclined to riot than working white people.
In any case, if any black rioter was working, he wasn’t after his boss found out he’d taken time off work to go smash windows and set things on fire.
Black + unemployed = on welfare
Yeah, for the most part. They have bills to pay same as everyone else. Or do you think blacks don’t have the same need for food and shelter as white people do? Oh, that racist meter just keeps going up and up, Jim! Even if they have unemployment compensation from a previous job and were laid off, unemployment money is a kind of welfare.
Black + on welfare = more interested in collecting a check than anything else
This one doesn’t even make sense. Of course people on welfare are interested in getting their money! What would be unnatural would be if they were cavalier about getting their welfare payments. It’s not like people on welfare are so rich they can afford to miss a payout or two. I don’t think Jim knows a lot about people on welfare.
But since you want an example of racism, as opposed to anti-Muslim prejudice, how about:
Jim, did you read the post you linked too? The quote you pulled was a paraphrase of what supposedly Ron Paul claimed in an a newletter. Rand’s post was about how such sentiments made Ron Paul look bad. In fact, you edited the comment you linked to exclude this:
Jim Treacher wrote:
“Order was only restored in L.A. [during the riots] when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began.” That’s not racist?
The commenter was arguing with Jim Treacher, who called the sentiment racist. Are you, Jim, suggesting Jim Treacher is leftest?
And the commenter, Milhouse, commented to exactly 3 of Rand’s post from January to February 2006, which is about as long as Ron Paul got media attention during the time. And Rand wrote in the exact same comment thread: In case you didn’t figure it out, I’m not a supporter of his campaign.
And with all that, there’s nothing in the 2006 quote that is either violent or vitriolic. Certainly, there is nothing there that equates to Sarah Spitz wanting to see someone die.
I also noticed, Jim, that you haven’t denounced Sarah’s violence, for which even she apologized. Further, no one, prior to you, was talking race. You’ve made this into a racial discussion, which is interesting since both Sarah Spitz and Rush Limbaugh are white. So, why do you think a discussion of violence is a discussion of race, Jim?
So, if the rioters were all black, it’s racist to point that out? And if they’re rioting, it’s illogical (and racist, of course) to imagine that they don’t have jobs? And if they don’t have jobs, it’s illogical (and racist) to assume that they’re on welfare? Or would you have preferred that the assumption was that they made a living illegally? Would that have been illogical (and racist) too? If all the rioters had been white, and the same argument made, would that have been racist?
If someone said “all black people are on welfare and riot,” I’d say that was racist, but this example is stupid.
And as already noted, it is hilarious that Jim idiotically brought up racism, which wasn’t even the topic under discussion (hey, it’s the first refuge of a leftist scoundrel), and can’t even make the case. But I guess he likes being the village asshat around here.
What a back breaking piece of investigative work there, Jim. I have to hand it to you. I’m certain that ‘Milhouse’ will necessarily become highly concerned how this opinion will reverberate throughout the blogosphere.
I’m astonished that Jim hasn’t been able to find any racism here. How many years of archives are there? You would think they would somewhat reflect the general population. It must be one of the subliminal things that keeps me coming back.
Speaking of Sarah Spitz. I have it on good authority from an old friend she does indeed swallow too.
How many times does Jim’s inane postings need to be intellectually taken apart and dis-proven piece by piece before he gives up and goes away? Or does his continuing to come back for more after being the subject of innumerable leftist idea dismantlement further prove his idiocy?
I was willing to give Jim the benefit of the doubt untill now.
If pulling out the race card is the best he can do, I have no use for him.
I wipe my ass with his race card.
Fail. Awesome mind boggling FAIL.
“I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t find that kind of talk on a email list of “right-wing” journalists”
sure. If that makes you feel better have at it.
Dave, did you mean to write something intelligent, or intelligible? Because if so, the mind-boggling FAIL was yours…
“Fail. Awesome mind boggling FAIL.
“I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t find that kind of talk on a email list of “right-wing” journalists”
sure. If that makes you feel better have at it.”
The truth hurts doesn’t it Dave?
Much easier to deny it and make a vapid counter-accusations but deep inside, you know in your bones it is the truth.
Can anyone please explain why they respond to Jim’s arguments?
Does he expect us to equate those who comment on Rand’s blog with “professional” journalists willing to slant the news and libel the opposition in order to influence political opinion?
Seems like a dubious proposition, but I could be wrong.
Sure. It’s the same reason one paints over graffiti, counter-protests morally-reprehensible social movements, or even goes to the dentist – entropy is a bitch and must be fought daily.
entropy is a bitch and must be fought daily
Well said Titus (as usual.) If only it was just entropy.
Thanks, Titus.
From the looks of this thread it must be fought hourly.
NP. Just thought of a potential new bumper sticker: What part of “Eternal Vigilance” do you not understand?
‘In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.”’
Indefensible. Those who choose to defend this kind of hatred immediately expose themselves as lowlife. The kind of people that rationalize someone else’s horrible death are the worst of humanity, the kind that lend rise to the leftist fascist regimes of the 20th century.
Spitz is a loser, and so is anyone who defends her.
(And no, I am not a Republican or tea partier.)