Saturday, January 28, 2006


Why poison him when you can use Ann Thrax?

One never knows what one will drudge up from the bottomless cesspit of the far right. Today, Ann Coulter was reported to have said this: "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice [John Paul] Stevens' creme brulee...That's just a joke, for you in the media." I don't get what's funny about John Paul Stevens drinking creme brulee. As for the rest of it, it fits the essence of present attempts at a legal definition of terrorism: "in at least 109 definitions of terrorism, and finds that, in rank order, most definitions emphasize goals (political), purposes (fear), targets (victim reactions), and methods (combat strategy or tactic." Check, check, check, and check. Not that I expect that the Department of Homeland Security can take time off from watchlisting four year olds or wiretapping Quaker grandmothers to explain this point to Ms. Coulter.
Who provides security to the Supremes? The U.S. Marshall's Service or something? Shouldn't they have someone who is advocating the murder of a Supreme Court justice under scrutiny?

Let's see, call the president a terrorist, immediate denigration. Call for the murder of a Supreme Court Justice, yucks at LGF etc.

Can I suggest someone strike Ann Coulter with a size 10 Griswold cast iron fry pan? Oh, no, they don't like Griswold. Better make it a sledge hammer.
I think this case is emblematic, EPT. We see it being played out elsewhere, in particular in the initiative against "eco-terrorists."

The same sort of acts that are called "eco-terrorism" when done by environmentalists are called criminal mischief when committed by right-wing militias.

You cannot have a legal system when the law is not administered even-handedly.
Charles, I posted something about "eco-terrorism" on Echidne yesterday. Listening to our local public radio station which takes money from Plum Creek, the people who want to ruin Moosehead Lake with development and who had some of their employees homes vandalized last fall something occoured to me. Our legislature is considering "eco-terrorism" legislation. A lot of the same people who have pushed this are the people who opposed hate crime legislation because it "punished thought" and because "the acts were already crimes".
The only conclusion you can draw from this is that violence against people is based in protected "thought" but damage to property was based in impermissible thought. Once again, property has more protection, read rights, than persons.

So, hand me that Griswold and stand back.
I have learned not to stand between a determined person armed with a frying pan and the intended point of impact.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

More blogs about politics.
Technorati Blog Finder