|
|
 |
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
The Latest "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week"
Steve Benen has the details on this dubious enterprise undertaken by David Horowitz. On the subject of religious fascism, I have made a YouTube video, "the World's Most Powerful Cult."
Monday, March 17, 2008
Media Appearance Today I appeared on Dave Congalton's San Luis Obispo (CA) radio show (920 KVEC) and discussed David Horowitz. The reason being is that Horowitz will be appearing at a fundraiser for San Luis Obisbo County Supervisor Jerry Lenthall on March 29. I discussed how Horowitz, like Irving Kristol, was a New Left radical who became a right-wing radical and how these true believers tend to retain their dislike for pragmatic progressives after their political metamorphosis (my thoughts are not new; historian Richard Hofstadter extensively examined how the far right mimicked elements of the far left). I discussed my motivation for becoming a part of HorowitzWatch including Horowitz's meltdown when I pointed out the irony of Horowitz's call for the execution of the American Taliban, John Walker Lindh. I also talked about Horowitz's quixotic attempt to have unhinged radio talk show host Michael Savage named the dean of UC Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism. I also mentioned Horowitz's penchant for sloppy reporting on his website (e.g., here) and brought up the problematic pilgrimage to George W. Bush's Crawford ranch. One thing I forgot to discuss was Horowitz's alliance with white supremacists like Jared Taylor. Congalton stumped me when he asked why Horowitz would be involved in a local race. It was only after he mentioned that Lenthall's opponent, Adam Hill, is a college professor that it clicked. Perhaps Horowitz's lucrative penchant for professor-bashing is a motivation (I also mentioned how anti-intellectualism has long been a staple of American right-wing populism).
Monday, March 10, 2008
David Horowitz's FrontPageMag Tries to Slime The Center for Public Integrity
Details by Terry Krepel of ConWebWatch
Friday, February 22, 2008
One Reason Why George W. Bush is a Miserable Failure
From Jacob Weisberg's The Bush Tragedy:During his first gubernatorial campaign, [Karl] Rove encouraged the candidate to read books by David Horowitz, Myron Magnet, and Marvin Olasky--Bush's trinity of messianic Jews.
Friday, November 02, 2007
David Horowitz: Feminist?
Read Katha Pollitt in The Nation.
Monday, October 29, 2007
David "There's alway a noose over my head" Horowitz: Martyr
On today's edition of Worst Person in the World, Keith Olbermann awarded David Horowitz the silver medal for his whiny comparison of himself to the black professor who was the victim of racial intimidation:
The Olbermann transcipt: The silver to right-wing lunatic fringer David Horowitz wrapping up his hatefest Islamo-fascism Awareness Week at Columbia University said that he too objected to the posting of a noose on an African-American professor's door there: "But I detect somewhat of a double standard at this university in that nooses have been put figuratively on the doors the college Republicans who invited me. Of course, there's alway a noose over my head." So you're saying that there's no difference between the real noose hanging at the black professor's office--an act of racism--and the imaginary one you see over your own head because you've been accused of being a racist. Well there's your problem right there . . .
I find Horowitz's whine particular ironic considering his words for white supremacist Jared Taylor of American Renaissance magazine: There are many who would call Jared Taylor and his American Renaissance movement "racist." If the term is modified to "racialist," there is truth in the charge. But Taylor and his Renaissance movement are no more racist in this sense than Jesse Jackson and the NAACP. In my experience of Taylor's views, which is mainly literary (we have had occasion to exchange opinions in person only once), they do not represent a mean-spirited position. They are an attempt to be realistic about a fate that seems to have befallen us (which Taylor would maintain was inevitable given the natural order of things). But Jared Taylor is no more "racist" in this sense than any university Afro-centrist or virtually any black pundit of the left. He is not even racist in the sense that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are racist. He is -- as noted -- a racialist, which Frontpagemag.com is not.
When I first read Horowitz's paean to Taylor, I responded to it on my main blog.
UPDATE: You can watch the segment here.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
David Horowitz is the Worst Person in the World
For the picture in his poster celebrating "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week." Watch the video here.
This isn't the first time that Horowitz got fooled. I wrote about DH swallowing an urban legend a few years ago.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Where Would We Be Without Rush Defending the Military?
Rush defends General Petraeus and defends the Swift Boat lies. Blast from the past, in 2003, when Wesley Clark was mulling a run for the presidency, Rush accused him of conduct unbecoming an officer (El Rushbo baselessly charged that Clark "had to beg Bill Clinton for his fourth star. Military people think that he didn't earn it--that he hasn't deserved it--that Clinton gave it to him anyway").
What makes this more interesting was that Rush got this from a Lowell Ponte article from Front Page Magazine which is run by David Horowitz who is still subject to charges of violation of the Espionage Act.
Monday, May 07, 2007
David Horowitz and
Race
A few years ago, I took David Horowitz on for publishing white supremacist Jared Taylor on his Front Page Magazine website. Horowitz, ironically, uses the the epithet "racist" to falsely describe political opponent. Recently, Horowitz began re-publishing white supremacist Lawrence Auster.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Insightful Article on David Horowitz
Kevin of Beautiful Horizons knows the score.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
The Moonie Media Engages in Another Fabrication
A little over a year ago, I wrote a post reporting that David Horowitz was essentially calling for violence against members of Congress by placing photographs of Ted Kennedy and John Kerry over a quote supposedly made by Abraham Lincoln that stated, "Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged." I noted the irony that this call for the execution of two men who served honorably in the military was being made by a man who violated the Espionage Act by publishing classified state secrets (quick note: if you want to really cheese off Horowitz, bring this episode up--Horowitz became hilariously unhinged when I did, click here and here).
I was reading Roger Ailes' blog the other day and discovered that the Lincoln quote was fabricated by the Moonie-owned Insightmag.com--the rag responsible for the phony Obama/Madrassa story.
This isn't the first time Horowitz has been hoodwinked by right-wing disinformation. On his blog, Horowitz helped to spread an urban legend attempting to implicate the Clinton administration in the Enron scandal.
The more I read about Sun Myung Moon's media empire and its war against journalism, the more I realize the shortsightedness of national Democrats for not dealing with it (also click here).
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Another Reason (Other Than Treason) To Throw David Horowitz in the Slammer
RL Eskow has the details.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
A Spectacle So Bizarre that I Had To See It To Believe It
Today there was a meeting of the minds of two of the biggest conspiracy nuts on the American political right: David Horowitz and Pat Robertson. Horowitz appeared on Robertson's 700 Club television show to discuss his new book The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Have Seized Control of the Democratic Party (co-authored with Richard Poe). Horowitz apparently is still smarting over being taken to the woodshed by Media Matters for America about the shoddiness of the book. Three weeks ago, Media Matters published a long post debunking the main premises of the book which Media Matters researchers found to be rife with libels, slipshod conclusions, and assaults on Soros that mirror those of fringe presidential candidate and conspiracy nut Lyndon LaRouche (click here for an amusing post on the Larouchies). The misinformation is Shadow Party was so egregious that even Fox News operatives confronted Horowitz about it--something that probably caught Horowitz completely off-guard. Despite promising "exhaustive" rebuttals to the Media Matters post, Horowitz and Poe have yet to offer one (which is not surprising because the facts are on Media Matters' side).
Horowitz is addressing Media Matters' substantive criticism in another way: using the hard right's extensive media apparatus to launch attacks against Media Matters. Today's 700 Club appearance was an example of this strategy. Horowitz used the appearance to make the wing-nut claim that "George Soros now controls that Democratic Party." Horowitz called Media Matters "a shadowy group" run by David Brock, who, Horowitz claimed, admitted to making "a career by smearing people." Horowitz went on saying that he doesn't know of a group that possesses "lower ethical standards than Media Matters."
REALITY:
1. What makes Media Matters dangerous is not that it smears people. What makes it dangerous is that it records the words of the right's media apparatus and gives sober and thoughtful analysis. When a post on Media Matters quotes a wing-nut saying something false or stupid, it usually provides a transcript of the entire conversation so that the reader can determine if the quote is in context and if the criticism is warranted. As I have mentioned today on my personal blog, right-wing institutions such as hate radio have gotten away with murder because, until Media Matters came along, there wasn't an organized group monitoring and transcribing their hate-filled diatribes on a daily basis. Members of the right's media apparatus hate Media Matters because MM's monitoring of the right's media means that the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and O'Reillys of the world can no longer smear with impunity.
2. I'm surprised about Horowitz's claim that David Brock made a career out of smearing people. Brock admitted that in the 1990's he was part of a concerted effort to discredit Anita Hill and then-president Clinton that was subsidized by paranoid conspiracy theorist Richard Mellon Scaife. An example was Brock's reporting of the "Troopergate" hoax. When the lurid tales by the troopers were exposed as fabrications and when Brock found out that the troopers were paid to fabricate stories, Brock came clean and repudiated his actions and devoted his life to exposing the truth about the right's attempts to use the media to smear opponents.
So Horowitz is partially correct. Brock was a hatchet-man when he worked for Horowitz's benefactor Richard Mellon Scaife. However, he now is exposing the lies of his former friends.
3. This isn't the first time that Horowitz smeared Brock. Horowitz was part of the right's unsuccessful attempt to smear Brock when his book Blinded by the Right was published.
4. It is hardly surprising that Horowitz would use an intellectual sewer like Robertson's 700 Club (quick note: the 700 Club was the forum Jerry Falwell used to blame the 9/11 attacks on gays and progressives) to attack Media Matters. Horowitz was spewing his LaRouchesque conspiracy theories on the show run by a man whose 1991 book The New World Order is a compendium of the looniest conspiracy theories since The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion hoax. Although it was a bizarre spectacle, it made perfect sense for two conspiracy nuts to discuss George Soros' plans to rule the world.
UPDATE: Media Matters has a post on the exchange.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
David Horowitz Caught Smearing George Soros with LaRouchie Propaganda
Media Matters has the full story and a follow-up post on Horowitz's slowness in issuing "an exhaustive, point-by-point refutation" of the charges.
I have written about Horowitz's partner-in-crime, Richard Poe on my personal blog.
8/9 UPDATE: On Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-hosts E.D. Hill and Steve Doocy confronted Horowitz about these issues.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
David Horowitz: Big, Fat Liar
Media Matters for America had his number.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Exclusive: Self-Admitted Traitor Still Subject to Indictment for the Violation of the Espionage Act Invited to the White House and Hugged by George W. Bush
Self-Admitted violator of the Espionage Act David Horowitz (click here and here for details) attended the White House Chanukah Party on December 6, 2005 and was hugged by George W. Bush. Traitor Horowitz in his own words:He [George W. Bush] saw me in the line he called out "Horowitz" with a big smile on his face, then embraced me in a bear hug.
Where's the outrage?
Sami Al Arian Acquitted
I've waited a day after the announcement that Sami Al Arian had been acquitted of 17 charges relating to support for terrorism in order to take in some of the reaction and reporting on the case. I first wrote about Arian in 2002 in a post for Horowitzwatch. If you have a moment, give it a read.
If you haven't caught up on the news in the last 24 hours, check out the New York Times, The Miami Herald, or The Chicago Tribune. See also: a helpful Q&A, a list of the charges and verdicts, a brief timeline of events in the case, and some reactions to the verdicts, all from the St. Petersburg Times. For some Sami-in-his own-words, check out this page from the conservative civil liberties group FIRE.
If you take the time to read even a couple of the links above you will, unfortunately, be better informed than many of the bloggers who have so far weighed in on the verdicts.
At the risk of repeating myself, let me just emphasize my earlier sentiments as expressed on Horowitzwatch: I don't like this Sami Al Arian guy - at all. He is an extremist Palestinian nationalist whose rhetoric has often been overtly racist, and he has associated with a great many people who are certainly terrorists. Whatever genuinely charitable and positive endeavors he may have engaged in over the years, they do not impress me as balance to his repugnant politics.
Al Arian was tried in a high profile case that was seen as a test for the new government powers granted by the Patriot Act, and the complete failure of the prosecution to get even a single guilty verdict out of a 51-count indictment can only be seen as a disaster for the government.
If only the prosecutors could have stacked the jury with bloggers. Many had already independently determined that Sami Al Arian was guilty.
Dan Darling of Winds of Change calls the verdicts "disgraceful", and in a later comment claims that there was so much evidence that he must have been guilty. What Dan doesn't seem to realize is that most of the evidence presented by the government occurred before the 1995 passage of the law that made support for Palestinian Islamic Jihad a crime. The prosecution presented a purely circumstantial case that relied heavily on pre-1995 evidence.
In other words, if Al Arian had done the things after 1995 that he had done before 1995 he would have broken the law. But Al Arian appears to have changed his activities after the '95 law was passed. Dan Darling didn't take the time to research the facts before he declared the man guilty of terrorism. I'd call that, well, "disgraceful".
This dipshit, at a blog called Sister Toldjah, cites video of Al Arian at a 1991 Cleveland event where Sami Al Arian can be seen and heard saying:
Despite all difficulties, the Palestinian people have decided to continue: to continue to confront, to continue to resist, to continue to endure, to set an example for all people and Muslims around them. Thus is the way of struggle. Thus is the way of giving. Thus is the way of sacrifice. Thus is the way of jihad. Thus is the way of martyrdom. Thus is the way of blood, because this is the path to heaven.
This quote is proof enough for Sister Toldjah that Al Arian is guilty of terrorism. By this standard our prisons would be filled with Neo-Nazis, redneck racists, and quite a few Fag-Hating/abortion-doctor-targeting Fundamentalist Christians in no time, and there would be no room left for Jee-Hadies.
My favorite, by far, is a real piece of work named Debbie Schlussel. Debbie appears to be another Ann Coulter wannabe, accompanying her wingnut rants with photos which she clearly thinks present her as a glamorous and sexy Conservo-Babe of some sort. This is a phenomenon that deserves its own post, but we'll not digress today.
Debbie seems to think that Al Arian was so damn guilty that the only explanations for his acquittal must be prosecutorial incompetence and the possible presence of an "O.J.-style" jury. Stupid people who have somehow managed to become federal prosecutors, and too many Brown People on the jury - that's her take on it.
Wow.
By the way, you can join Debbie's fan club! Here's my favorite part of her Yahoo! Club page:
To paraphrase "Wayne's World's" Wayne and Garth, if she were President, Debbie Schlussel would be Babe-raham Lincoln.
And what a talented writer Babe-Raham is! Check out this graph from her Al Arian post:
Krigsman and company threw in everything but the bathwater in this case, putting several jurors to sleep frequently during the case. She took five months to present her case, when it was strong and could have been presented in a much shorter time with less extraneous matter. The defense didn't even make a case. They didn't have to. Krigsman did it for them.
Threw in everything but the bathwater? WTF? And if this stuff just seems to get better to you all the time, check out Debbie's Homophobic Film Reviews!
David Horowitz's Frontpagemag.com has weighed in today, too. Resident nutbag Joe Kaufman attended the trial, and in spite of the jury's verdict believes that Al Arian should be locked up anyway.
But is deportation for this man justice? If that were the case, Sami al-Arian would have been deported long ago. No, al-Arian should remain behind bars. Regardless of what the outcome of the trial was, he was guilty of being a leader in the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a terrorist entity he co-founded.
Atta boy, Joe! Let's show 'em all what Real Democracy looks like!
OK, no more picking on the Short Bus Kids.
Here's the bottom line: The federal government, with the power of the Patriot Act, tried to convict a legal permanent resident of the U.S. for crimes which a jury seems to have decided amounted to guilt by association and protected free speech. In fact, the defense seems to have made no effort to tone down the extreme nature of Al Arian's political views, as this page from their website recounting closing statements indicates. Al Arian's attorney didn't even feel the need to present a defense, so confident was he that the government had failed to prove their case.
Sami Al Arian remains in jail while the feds decide whether or not to re-try him on the counts that were deadlocked, and he still faces charges related to immigration violations. I won't miss him if it turns out that he fucked up enough on the immigration front that the government can rightfully deport him, but for today, I'm happy that a US jury found the wisdom to uphold freedom of speech and association for everyone. The fact that Sami Al Arian's speech and associations were both political and unpopular makes this case an even more important test of our system.
If not deported, Sami Al Arian should be released so he can, I hope, go fuck himself.
See also: Atrios & TalkLeft
Cross-posted at AintNoBadDude
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Two Good Reasons Why An Indictment of David Horowitz Would be Great For America
Click here
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Exclusive: Wing-Nut Advocates Violence Against Members of Congress
Self-admitted violator of the Espionage Act, David Horowitz posted on his website FrontPage Magazine pictures of Teddy Kennedy and John F. Kerry with the following quote from Abraham Lincoln (certainly if Lincoln were alive, he would not endorse this use of his quote by Traitor Horowitz): "Congressmen who willingly take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged." Where's the outrage?
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball report in an October 26 Newsweek story that the current draft of CIA report says "most evidence suggests Saddam Hussein did not provide Zarqawi safe haven before the war. It also recognizes that there are still unanswered questions and gaps in knowledge about the relationship."Isikoff and Hosenball also write that the CIA has determined that documents provided by Iraqis that supposedly showed a link between Saddam's government and al Qaeda were not legitimate: ...in the months after U.S. and allied forces deposed Saddam, NEWSWEEK has learned, Iraqi informants approached U.S. intelligence personnel with what purported to be caches of documents proving that Saddam's dealings with Al Qaeda were extensive. (One cache of documents even claimed that six of 19 of the September 11 hijackers had been trained to fly in Iraq.)Current and former U.S. counterterrorism officials said that when officials at the Bush White House learned about the existence of documents linking Saddam to Al Qaeda, they became very excited and pressured intelligence agencies to work quickly to validate and decipher them. However, the CIA ultimately established that most key documents about the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection turned over were faked... I'm not sure if this is directly related to the documents supposedly showing linkage that FrontPage was excited about this past June.
posted by micah holmquist / 1:24 PM
Friday, October 28, 2005
Fitzmas Aftermath: One Traitor Enabling Another Traitor
The teaser (located on the home page of FrontPageMag) for this screedby self-admitted violator of the Espionage Act David Horowitz (click here, here, and here) is "The Libby indictment: hanging an American for doing his duty; letting the criminals (Plame, Wilson, Kerry, Edwards) go free." In Horowitz's ass-backwards world, outing a CIA operative responsible for protecting America from WMDs is doing one's "duty." Go figure.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Today's FrontPage Magazine
Today's FrontPage Magazine has an article slamming David Brock and Media Matters (titled "David Brock: Media Liar.") This isn't the first time David Horowitz has tried to ruin Brock's reputation. Click here and here for the story on a failed attempt a few years ago. The truth came out and Horowitz was the one exposed as a big fat liar.
Also, in today's Front Page, there's an unintentionally hilarious article by Henry Mark Holzer, "What is Treason?" Psst, Mark, why don't you ask David Horowitz? He knows all about treason; he committed it. Click here and here.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Keith Thompson's New-Found Friends
Keith Thompson, touted by the radical right for his "Leaving the Left" essay, discusses the Fourth of July in FrontPage Magazine with observations like this:
". . .Well, it's like there are two different kinds of people. Those who celebrate the American Revolution on the Fourth of July, and those who. . .don't."”
My son thinks for a few seconds. "You mean they don't like freedom??" Before I can answer, he adds: "Do they live in America?" By now I'm down from the ladder. We're standing in front of our brightly unfurled liberal irritant. "Yes," I respond. More silence. "Wow,"; Skyler says. Then he cuts to the chase. "Can we go fly the remote control airplane now, before it gets too windy?" We put the ladder away and the rest is aviation history.
It strikes me later, after he has gone to bed, that maybe Skyler didn't know which of his rapid questions his father had answered with "yes." Then I realize I'm not sure myself. Yes, people who don't celebrate the Fourth of July don't like freedom? Or, yes, the non-celebrants live in America? Maybe yes to both? My son's response seems right in any case. "Wow."
If you think that was turgid, I read Thompson's entire essay. Thompson rehashes the same tired argument that the American left doesn't love America and are the kind of people who don't celebrate the Foruth of July. Thomspon doesn't seem to appreciate the irony of writing this essay in a magazine run by a man who is still subject to criminal prosecution for violating the Espionage Act. He also doesn't seem aware that another darling of the American right, Karl Rove, might soon be indicted for his role in disclosing the identity of a covert CIA agent responsible for keeping WMDs out of the hand of the types of people responsible for this morning's bombings in London. Psst, Keith: There is a word for people like your new-found friends Horowitz and Rove: traitor.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
In an interview with Jamie Glazov (FrontPage, June 23) about how popular culture is harming society, the great Ben Shapiro makes a curious comment about the cut and dry issue of fighting the terrorists:I think that the "porn generation" – people 10-30, I’d say – has had more opportunity than any generation in world history... we’ve never truly had to face difficult foreign policy issues (until 9/11). How does the worst day in the history of humanity create any sort of "difficult foreign policy issues"? An innocent country named America was attacked by people who hate our freedom and want to kill us all in an attempt to destroy our way of life and make themselves feel good about themselves. We must respond everywhere around the globe that is necessary and not give up till we have won.You see, I've read my frontpagemag.com. I'm not going to fall for Shapiro's desire to see shades of a color I won't allow my children to even wear when there is nothing but good and evil. Victory to America! Death to traitors! Etc. Etc.
Monday, June 20, 2005
FrontPage would have you believe that a link between Saddam's government and al Qaeda has been proven because of May 23 AKI article on Iyad Allawi telling al-Hayat that a connection between Ayman al-Zawahiri of al Qaeda and Izza Ibrahim Al-Douri of Iraq has been found the Iraqi Secret Service while looking the files of Saddam Hussein's deposed government. (A UPI article, also from May 23, confirms these comments.)While reading this it is important to keep in mind that Allawi once told British intelligence that Saddam's government could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes. The good doctor appears to have been less than reliable in that case.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Who is the Traitorous Wussy-Boy? I'm Reporting; You Decide
Here's the latest assault on John Kerry by David Horowitz:
The Kerry campaign was in part based on the myth that his own Fonda-like assaults on the American military in Vietnam were somehow noble and that America's effort to save the South Vietnamese and the Cambodians from the fate that befell them when America lost was somehow not.
During last year's campaign, Horowitz called John Kerry a traitor and a coward. Let's look at the facts:
John Kerry:
1. John Kerry volunteered for the military and fought bravely in Vietnam.
2. Kerry was awarded three Purple Hearts while in Vietnam.
3. Kerry was awarded the Bronze Star.
4. Kerry was awarded the Silver Star.
5. After his military service, Kerry fought to end the war and prevent further casualties to American troops.
5. In the Senate, Kerry proposed that the US military should have been used to capture Osama bin Laden instead of outsourcing the job to Afghan warlords who allowed bin Laden to slip away.
David Horowitz:
1. Around the time Kerry was risking his life, David Horowitz published top secret government materials which compromised national security and were a violation of the Espionage Act. (Note: Horowitz is still subject to criminal prosecution.)
2. Prior to publishing the government secrets, Horowitz sought advice from a law professor so that he wouldn't be prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act--allowing Horowitz to engage in no-risk treason.
3. When John Walker Lindh was sentenced to prison for being a Taliban fighter, Horowitz said he wished that Lindh "had been shot."
4. Shortly after Horowitz made this statement, I pointed out the following: 1) both Lindh and Horowitz were traitors; 2) Lindh, unlike Horowitz, was willing to risk his life and freedom for his Islamo-fascist goals; and 3) by Horowitz's own logic, he called for his own execution.
5. In response, Horowitz made accusations against me that was similar to the charges he made against John Kerry; that I "live to betray my country"; my "heroes" are people like Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden; and my "friends" were the people who slaughtered millions in Indochina. All of these accusations are without any factual merit.
5. Before and during the Iraq invasion, Horowitz smeared the patriotism of people who questioned the wisdom of invading Iraq.
6. During the 2004 election campaign, Horowitz gave credence to the false charges made against John Kerry's military record by the Swift Boat liars. Horowitz accused Kerry of being "a traitor" and "a coward."
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Plaut's Complaint notes that Reagan pardoned ("exonerated") Mark Felt for his involvement in illegal searches by the FBI, but fails to mention that Felt was convicted of this crime.I wonder if Plaut's Complaint thinks the same principle -illegal but right- could apply to the present, at least if the person or people in question are on the right side of God's struggle for the eternal right of freedom against the forces of evil violence and such.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Is This a Joke?
D. Ho's new book
Monday, May 16, 2005
A Belated Link
A belated link from those of us here at HorowitzWatch to “David Horowitz’s War on Rational Discourse,” by Graham Larkin, published at Inside Higher Ed on April 25.
A mere, though that’s not quite the right word, excerpt:
Enter L.A. tabloid editor David Horowitz, liar extraordinaire and author of the incomparable [expletive deleted] manual, The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits (Spence Publishing, 2000). This book, much applauded by Karl Rove, promulgates a political endgame in which brute force triumphs over any notions of intelligence, truth or fair play. The author contends that “[y]ou cannot cripple an opponent by outwitting him in a political debate. You can only do it by following Lenin’s injunction: ‘In political conflicts, the goal is not to refute your opponent’s argument, but to wipe him from the face of the earth.’”
What, exactly, is he getting at in this passage? Since, on the home front, it would be illegal to actually liquidate the enemy, Horowitz does not want us to take Lenin’s apocalyptic injunction too literally. Instead, he believes you should drown your political opponents in a steady stream of [expletive deleted], emanating every day from newspapers, TV and radio programs, as well as lavishly funded smear sites and blogs. He also thinks you should go on college lecture circuits where you can use incendiary rhetoric to turn civilized venues into the Jerry Springer show, and then descend into fits of indignant self-pity when someone responds with a pie to your face.
To be honest, I’m not really into the whole pie in someone’s face thing, but when the phrase is used so adroitly, as here, it truly fits, don’t you think?
Read the rest of Mr. Larkin’s post for more whipped cream of the good stuff.
posted by The Rittenhouse Review / 8:10 PM
Saturday, April 30, 2005
David Horowitz and Academia: An Overlooked Lawsuit
In all the debate over David Horowitz's assaults on academia (Graham Larkin recently wrote a pithy summary of Horowitz's mischief), one damning piece of evidence against Horowitz has been overlooked by many of his critics: Horowitz's completely frivolous lawsuit against the University of California at Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism in behalf of manifestly unqualified job applicant and raving lunatic Michael Savage.
I wrote a brief outline of the suit a couple years ago. Since the lawsuit, the man Horowitz sued to install as dean of UC Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism has written a completely incoherent and racist book and was fired from MSNBC for an on-air rant against a caller--calling the man a "sodomite" and wishing that he die of AIDS and/or choke to death on a sausage. On his radio show, Savage routinely engages in racial epithets, referring to Asians as "soy eaters" and Arabs as "non-humans." Savage's most recent book argues that liberalism is a mental disorder.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Front Page Magazine: A Real Class Act
From Salon's War Room: "Spitting on Marla Ruzicka's grave."
The Two Faces of DavidStanford Professor Graham Larkin writes that David Horowitz is continuing to peddle two lies despite his knowledge of their falsity. First, Horowitz claims that academics Stanley Fish, Todd Gitlin and Michael Berube all endorsed his Academic Bill of Rights when they did not do so. Horowitz made the claim at or during a taping of Uncommon Knowledge, the Peter Robinson/Hoover Institution roundtable program on the SCLPBS: Last Friday, in a lame provocation following a debate with me on PBS’s Uncommon Knowledge (a show destined to air, in a trimmed version, around June), Horowitz actually told the moderator Peter Robinson, in my presence, that the Academic Bill of Rights had met with the approval of Fish, Gitlin, Berube and Volokh. (Really? Robinson asked incredulously. No, not really, I said; I'll send you a web link. Horowitz settled into his customary rage.)
Here's that link. Horowitz then went on to claim that the American Association of University Professors supports campus speech codes, when its position is exactly the opposite: During the filming of that segment, my rabid opponent recycled a much bigger and more dangerous lie about the American Association of University Professors — one already published in the same smear in which he flaunted his imaginary supporters. There he states that "[t]he AAUP ... was silent or collusive in the face of the most brutal abrogation of First Amendment Rights in 50 years, when university administrations in the 1980s and 1990s instituted 'speech codes' to punish students for politically incorrect remarks. The AAUP has been silent on all ... infringements of free speech, or it has lent its support to the political thought police."
This is classic Horowitziana — a complete lie mired in a mighty river of bullshit. Although the AAUP did take a few critical years to develop its policy against speech codes, for Horowitz to say that it supports these codes is no better than calling him a leading exponent of kitsch Marxism because he happened to be one for a decade or two.
By lying about the AAUP, Horowitz hopes to divert readers from the fact that this fine organization came out categorically against all university speech codes in a resolution approved in 1992. That document, reprinted in AAUP's fully-indexed Redbook, unambiguously asserts that "[o]n a campus that is free and open, no idea can be banned or forbidden," and that "rules that ban or punish speech based upon its content cannot be justified." The foregoing should suprise no one who follows Horowitz's career. Horowitz's buffoonery with respect to speech codes is particularly amusing in light of his efforts to muzzle professors in the name of "professionalism and decency." Which is almost as amusing as his claim that the opposition of tenured leftists -- and not his butchery of the English language -- is the only thing keeping him from a career in academia.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Oklahoma City: Ten Years Later and Some People Just Don't Learn
I realize it's totally lame but I read David Horowitz's rag, FrontPage Magazine. I have an excuse: I write for HorowitzWatch and I have to see what Horowitz and his gang are up to.
Ten years after the Oklahoma City bombing, a particularly hoary chestnut was resurrected by FrontPage Magazine writer Don Feder:
In 1995, William Jefferson Clinton (never one to shy away from an absurdity) suggested that the Oklahoma City bombing was in part the product of conservative talk show hosts complaining about high taxes and excessive regulation -- thereby promoting disdain for Washington.
The more common variant is that Clinton blamed Rush Limbaugh for inciting the Oklahoma City bombers. In 1995, I remember seeing Limbaugh on his television show (which was produced by Roger Ailes, who is currently running the fair-and-balanced news network) screaming about how Clinton was trying to blame him for the bombing. In her book Slander: Liberal Lies About The American Right, Ann Coulter wrote, "When impeached former president Bill Clinton identified Rush Limbaugh as the cause of the Oklahoma City bombing, he unleashed all the typical liberal curse words for conservatives. He blamed 'loud and angry voices' heard 'over the airwaves in America' that were making people 'paranoid' and spreading hate."
This is right-wing mind rot of the worse kind. It was a lie then and it's a lie now. Here is the offending quote that caused Feder, Limbaugh, Coulter and the rest of the radical right to attack Clinton:
In this country we cherish and guard the right of free speech. We know we love it when we put up with people saying things we absolutely deplore. And we must always be willing to defend their right to say things we deplore to the ultimate degree. But we hear so many loud and angry voices in America today whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other. They spread hate. They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable. You ought to see -- I'm sure you are now seeing the reports of some things that are regularly said over the airwaves in America today.
Well, people like that who want to share our freedoms must know that their bitter words can have consequences and that freedom has endured in this country for more than two centuries because it was coupled with an enormous sense of responsibility on the part of the American people.
If we are to have freedom to speak, freedom to assemble, and, yes, the freedom to bear arms, we must have responsibility as well. And to those of us who do not agree with the purveyors of hatred and division, with the promoters of paranoia, I remind you that we have freedom of speech, too, and we have responsibilities, too. And some of us have not discharged our responsibilities. It is time we all stood up and spoke against that kind of reckless speech and behavior.
If they insist on being irresponsible with our common liberties, then we must be all the more responsible with our liberties. When they talk of hatred, we must stand against them. When they talk of violence, we must stand against them. When they say things that are irresponsible, that may have egregious consequences, we must call them on it. The exercise of their freedom of speech makes our silence all the more unforgivable. So exercise yours, my fellow Americans. Our country, our future, our way of life is at stake.
Nowhere does Clinton attempt to implicate Limbaugh. Nowhere does Clinton attempt to blame the bombing on "conservative talk show hosts complaining about high taxes and excessive regulation." Clinton was referring to people who were using the airwaves to foment violence against others and government officials. For example, talk show host G. Gordon Liddy recommended shooting government law enforcement agents in the head and crotch. Talk radio jack Chuck Baker is another example (click here and here).
In fact, Clinton's words show amazing insight about the harm of speech that advocates violence. Had Coulter heeded Clinton's words instead of trying to score cheap political points, she would have had the foresight not to have made the following comment: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." (as well as the lame explanation for the original comment: "Of course I regret it. I should have added, 'after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters'")
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
"Roger Ebert and Mohammed Atta, partners in crime"
Check out John Gorenfeld's Salon article on DiscoverTheNetwork.org. By the way, one of the headlines on DiscoverTheNetwork's site is "Pink Moonbats Attack John Bolton." Go figure.
UPDATE: David doesn't like the article very much.
Monday, April 11, 2005
Debating tactics of the masters: Michael Bérubé participated in an e-mail debate with Horowitz regarding DTN. Today, Bérubé discovered that FrontPage materially edited out the substance of his comments:
[T]his time, they simply decided to cheat, editing out almost everything I wrote back to them in the “second round,” and then, incredibly, declaring victory because I didn’t reply to them. ... Did they think maybe I wouldn’t notice that fifteen paragraphs of mine had somehow disappeared from the text of the “debate”?
This isn't the first time FPM has played fast and loose with e-mail interviews, but (to judge from the excerpts Bérubé posted), they also managed to take an interesting argument and turn it into a deadly-dull sludge of anti-leftist shibboleths and strawmen. I'm not sure which is the worse sin in this case.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
David got pied at Butler University.
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Pain and SFAFeringOver the past week, we've watched as David Horowitz's integrity and reputation for accuracy have taken quite a beating ... at the hands of David Horowitz. Horowitz runs Students For Academic Freedom ("SFAF") which purports to oppose political indoctrination of college students by their professors. In support of that venture, Horowitz has (at least until this week) repeatedly cited the story of a student who allegedly was faced with an exam question calling George Bush a "war criminal." At Horowitz's website, FrontPageMag, there is an article dated September 13, 2004 entitled "Victory!" which includes the following paragraph: "A bitter political argument ensued. At the request of Colorado Senate President John Andrews, a legislative hearing was held in December of 2003 on a proposed bill to incorporate provisions of the Academic Bill of Rights in a Senate resolution. Many students and faculty members came forward to share their personal experiences of discrimination and harassment on campus because of their political or religious views. Among the evidence presented at this December hearing was testimony from a student at the University of Northern Colorado who told legislators that a required essay topic on her criminology mid-term exam was: 'Explain why George Bush is a war criminal.' When she submitted an essay explaining why Saddam Hussein was a war criminal instead, she was given an 'F.'" (Link in original) The "legislative hearing" link leads to two pages, neither of which includes the testimony Horowitz describes. Horowitz has been telling a version of this academic horror story since at least March 2004. He recently repeated the tale before the Ohio State Senate Education Committee. (Horowitz's rendition of that testimony does not indicate whether he was testifying under oath.) At the beginning of this month, an op-ed appeared in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, noting the lack of details in the story and questioning whether the incident happened as Horowitz described. On March 14th, InsideHigherEd.com got an e-mail response from Horowitz, who claimed that the incident was reported to a Colorado student involved in SAFA. Horowitz claimed the SFAFer (pronounced "Sfafire") was "protecting the identity of the [complaining] student," but that Horowitz would try to provide the student's name. On March 15, 2005, Horowitz, responding to a second article at InsideHigherEd, confirmed that he had not spoken to either the student or the professor, and did not know who the professor was. He also did not dispute the account of his e-mail response as reported in the March 14 InsideHigherEd article, which suggests he did not know the student's name either, even though he had been flogging the story for nearly a year. Horowitz also noted the university had provided the content of the examination question, which was substantially different than the version Horowitz repeatedly described. To recap: In Septmber 2004, Horowitz writes an article trumpeting testimony before a Colorado legislature by a student who had to answer a mid-term essay question "Explain why George Bush is a war criminal." No such testimony occurred, according to Horowitz's proffered link. Six months later, after testifying about the matter before the Ohio Legislature, Horowitz didn't know the identities professor or the student involved. (The mid-term was now a final exam as well.) Now that's attention to detail and devoton to accuracy! At this point, it seemed Horowitz was trying to do the right thing by admitting he was wrong. While arguing that the actual exam question was as bad as the version the student reported, he also "apologize[d] for not having fully checked and corrected this story." But Horowitz couldn't let it go. On March 17, 2005, Horowitz published a further article claiming he was right in all particulars -- except for two points: "We did not know whether the student got an "F" as she claimed and we did not know whether the question itself was required (as opposed to the answer)." Here's Horowitz's original claim again: "...the University of Northern Colorado who told legislators that a required essay topic on her criminology mid-term exam was: 'Explain why George Bush is a war criminal.' When she submitted an essay explaining why Saddam Hussein was a war criminal instead, she was given an 'F.'" Horowitz admits he failed to verify the "F" and the required essay parts. He got the timing of the test wrong. And he got wrong the fact that the woman testified to legislators. That leaves only that the substance of the answer the student supposedly supplied, and the words of the exam question. Horowitz now claims that the professor destroyed all copies of the exam, suggesting a cover up. The apparent basis for that assertion is this document from SFAF, which appears to recount what the complaining student told SFAF a "couple of days" before 3/14/05. But the University has produced a copy of the test, which would mean that significant portions of the school, including its administration, would have to had conspired to create a forged document which differed from the original examination. Horowitz smells a rat: "If you look at the question as supplied by Dunkley it is somewhat incoherent as though it had been tampered with." (Incoherent like the concept that a question had been "tampered with?") On Friday, Horowitz continued to claim a university conspiracy, asserting as fact that "all the exam papers were destroyed." On Friday, Horowitz also shared an e-mail purportedly originating from the complaining student. It states: "I did fail the final exam, at least that is what I was told, however based on Dunkley's and the schools comments you never really know what is truthful. It has always been my understanding and my story that I got an 'F' on the exam but a B in the class. I don't think Dunkley disputed that but he is such a manipulative person you never really know."I still feel at peace with my decision, I think Erin [our original student interviewer] is upset with me as she keeps calling and emailing me to share [more of my] perspective, but I need some time away from this. It has put unnecessary stress on me and put a damper on my Spring Break. I hope you understand my decision and in talking to you it doesn't seem like you are upset with me, but I need to do what is best for me in this situation." (Bracketed material added by Horowitz.) Well, that clears things up. The complaining student still doesn't know what grade she received originally on the final examination, despite the fact that she went through an appeal process to challenge that grade. (And she feels at peace with some decision about something, so stop pestering her!) Horowitz allows his SFAF flunky, Ryan Call, to elaborate on the student's e-mail: "The student confirmed, as she told us originally, that she received an 'F' for the final exam, but that her grade for the course overall ended up being a 'B.' The student gave me the impression that her grade for the course had been moved up to a 'B' as a result of the appeals process." But's that's not what she says in the e-mail. She said that "it has always been my understanding and my story that I got ... a B in the class." If the grade changed (or "moved"), how could she have always understood that her class grade was a B? Horowitz charges that the professor and the university have "on the face of their own testimony and behavior ... shown themselves to be secretive, manipulative and deceitful?" If so, he should demand that the university be allowed to address his charges, and demand that the complaining student waive her privacy rights so it can do so. It's time for your final grade, Davey. (More at Media Matters and Pandagon.net.)
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Horowitz Gets Berube'd
This just in from the Fish in Barrels Department: David Horowitz has been making an even bigger ass of himself than usual with a McCarthy-esque gallery of "Leftists". Having llistened to Horowitz on the radio here in LA many years ago when he was still making some sense, it is usually with some sadness that I read his bizarre, weakly-argued rants. This time, however, Michael Berube takes him apart with such style that I'm just getting a good chuckle out of it.
Cross posted to AintNoBadDude.
Friday, February 18, 2005
I'm glad David Horowitz is keeping an eye on Paul Robeson.
posted by micah holmquist / 1:17 PM
Thursday, February 17, 2005
David's New Web Site
David started DiscoverTheNetwork.org, a site that "identifies the individuals and organizations that make up the left and also the institutions that fund and sustain it; it maps the paths through which the left exerts its influence on the larger body politic; it defines the left's (often hidden) programmatic agendas and it provides an understanding of its history and ideas" (read the entire mission statement here). In short, DiscoverTheNetwork.org is a right-wing version of Media Transparency.
I noticed that I wasn't included in the network of leftist operatives. No problem: Horowitz included an area in which readers can "submit a search-name, which you want us to research, compile and add to our resource." I submitted my own name to be included on the database and included the following information:
Davis embarrassed David Horowitz by exposing him as a hypocritical phony and self-confessed traitor who is still subject to criminal prosecution for violation of the Espionage Act but who wanted John Walker Lindh to be executed for being an enemy combatant. This move by Davis provoked a hissy fit from Mr. Horowitz. Davis' next move is to contact the local U.S. Attorney to have Horowitz indicted for violating the Espionage Act.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
David Corn: "Is David Horowitz a 'Lunatic'?"
Monday, February 14, 2005
Check This Out
Media Matters just did a post on David's unsavory consultants.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Alan, Meet Daniel
Alan, Meet David
Daniel, Meet Alan . . .
Oh, Please, As If You Don't Already Know Each Other
Alan Dershowitz, a known, self-proclaimed even, and of course highly vocal, as is his wont, advocate of torture, provided the targets thereof are, well, you know, appears to have signed on with fellow whackos Daniel Pipes and David Horowitz, and more specifically their ongoing opposition to anything resembling academic freedom, especially when their targets thereof have the temerity to appreciate and recognize the humanity of, well, you know.
[Note: This post previously was published at The Rittenhouse Review.]
posted by The Rittenhouse Review / 1:27 PM
Monday, February 07, 2005
Red Whines are so Difficult to Clean
David Horowitz Writes
Earlier today I received an unsolicited e-mail message from David Horowitz, a surprisingly tardy -- Has Horowitz no interns? -- response to my January 8 post, published here and at The Rittenhouse Review: "John Paul II: Anti-Communist Commie Sympathizer?"
I wrote in that post, in full:
Something tells me the scary -- and heavily subsidized -- red-diaper baby David “There’s More Money on the Right” Horowitz is at this moment seething, breathing heavily (if at all), and frothing at the mouth over Pope John Paul II’s latest remarks about Cuba and our ridiculous (and sinful, if you’re into that kind of thing) economic embargo aimed at the island’s governing regime, an embargo that hurts no one more than poor Cubans who couldn’t care less about Fidel Castro, his opponents, and Miami-based donors to the great Republican delusion.
According to the Associated Press, the Pope today said, “The Holy See wishes ardently that the obstacles that currently impede free communication and exchange between Cuba and the international community may be overcome as soon as possible, thus consolidating, by means of a respectful and open dialogue among all, the conditions necessary for genuine development.”
You know, if I were president, one of the first items on my agenda would be lifting the Cuban embargo, immediately and in full.
There, Dave, I said it.
Have at me.
"Have at me," I suggested. And Horowitz did, though as I said, only today, nearly four weeks after the post, in a message that read, in its entirety:
"the scary -- and heavily subsidized -- red-diaper baby David "There's More Money On The Right" Horowitz...."
For someone who spent a couple of hours with me at a lunch I treated him to, this is pretty shameful stuff. You invented my quote and my thoughts. What else are you going to invent? A life for yourself maybe.
The gastronomic reference in Horowitz's missive was to an until-now off-the-record lunch he and I shared in December 2002 at the Sansom Street Oyster House in Philadelphia on the afternoon of his scheduled evening appearance at Swarthmore College.
Now, I'm not sure how things work on the right wing, but perhaps way over there on the fringista edge, a 40-dollar lunch implies, or requires, something akin to indentured servitude (like slavery, forever to be uncompensated, let alone something for which an apology might be in order).
Yes, I concede, Horowitz picked up the tab, despite my polite protestations.
And I reproduced Horowitz's correspondence above its entirety so readers unfamiliar with his stilted prose, at least the unedited venom he and his cronies-in-crime, including Ann Coulter -- "She's only joking," Horowitz assured me at the aforementioned luncheon -- and Tammy Bruce -- "A pussycat," he purred, at the same event -- spew with such disregard for veracity and civility, might get the full and wholly diluted flavor of his purported intellect.
Red-Diaper Whiner
In any event, to the pundit's overwrought message I wrote, in full:
I didn't realize the funds for our modest lunch came from your own pocket. I assumed, in part because you were staying at the Four Seasons, you were traveling on someone else's dime.
If not, please advise me so that I may transmit my "half" of the bill to you at the earliest available opportunity.
A receipt would be appreciated greatly.
Listen, I'm nothing if not a good sport.
And yet, to that, Horowitz responded today, at 11:24:22 a.m., Pacific Time: "[Expletive deleted] you[,] Jim."
And again, since Horowitz is prone to repetition, at 11:24:23 a.m., Pacific Time: "[Expletive deleted] you[,] Jim."
Well, I guess I've had my head handed to me, haven't I?
I'd say that almost hurts, but, truth be told, it really doesn't.
[Note: This post was published earlier, in slightly different form, at The Rittenhouse Review.]
posted by The Rittenhouse Review / 3:43 PM
Saturday, January 08, 2005
John Paul II: Anti-Communist Commie Sympathizer?
Something tells me the scary -- and heavily subsidized -- red-diaper baby David “There’s More Money on the Right” Horowitz is at this moment seething, breathing heavily (if at all), and frothing at the mouth over Pope John Paul II’s latest remarks about Cuba and our ridiculous (and sinful, if you’re into that kind of thing) economic embargo aimed at the island’s governing regime, an embargo that hurts no one more than poor Cubans who couldn’t care less about Fidel Castro, his opponents, and Miami-based donors to the great Republican delusion.
According to the Associated Press, the Pope today said, “The Holy See wishes ardently that the obstacles that currently impede free communication and exchange between Cuba and the international community may be overcome as soon as possible, thus consolidating, by means of a respectful and open dialogue among all, the conditions necessary for genuine development.”
You know, if I were president, one of the first items on my agenda would be lifting the Cuban embargo, immediately and in full.
There, Dave, I said it.
Have at me.
(Note: This post previously was published at The Rittenhouse Review.)
posted by The Rittenhouse Review / 11:23 PM
Monday, December 27, 2004
A Reader Writes
We get mail!
A reader writes:
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:40:12 -0800 (PST)
From: “Yevgeny Rusikoff” israelshalmov@yahoo.com
Subject: My goodness
You couldn’t wipe David Horowitz’ [sic] ass. Often the “[W]atch” sites [sic] make [sic] good points but you’re just a bunch of ranting idiots. Bush evil, Horowitz bad, we good. Don’t quit day job [sic] for blogging.
Jim Capozzola responds: Don’t worry. I no quit day job. I got no day job.
posted by The Rittenhouse Review / 10:45 PM
I actually agree with Thomas Sowell ("The Joseph Goebbels Award," December 27) that what Bush Did in the National Guard shouldn't have been much of an issue in 2004, but as for the rest, it is laughable. There's his problematic implicit belief that a journalist can just dispense information and I would like to know how Sowell can look into Dan Rather's heart with so much ease, but most of all there's this:...this column announces the first annual Joseph Goebbels award for that journalist who best exemplifies the spirit and the practice that Dr. Goebbels pioneered...Had there been such an award in 2003, "Baghdad Bob" would have been the clear winner for his repeated bold assurances that American troops were nowhere near Baghdad and never would be. That man could have had a great career in advertising. Holding the same official position as Dr. Goebbels, Baghdad Bob would have been the perfect first winner of this award. But such are the lost opportunities of history. What kind of messed up standard makes former Iraqi information minister Mohammed Saeed al-Saha a journalist? That's like saying his close contemporary George W. Bush is a journalist.
posted by micah holmquist / 8:33 PM
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Today FrontPage passes along with this bit of brillance from WorldTribune.com:
A senior U.S. official said Iran and Syria have developed ballistic missiles that can destroy U.S. targets in Iraq as well as in nations aligned with Washington. "Iran and Syria can currently reach the territory of U.S. friends and allies with their ballistic missiles," Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control Stephen Rademaker said. "Ballistic missiles from Iran can already reach some parts of Europe, and, of course, Iranian and Syrian ballistic missiles threaten our coalition forces deployed in the Middle East," he said. By this standard, the United States threatens the entire world, but I don't expect to see that headline on FrontPage any time soon.
posted by micah holmquist / 2:30 PM
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Dick Morris sings the praises of non-"elite media" for supporting Bush in "How FrontPage Beat George Soros" (FrontPage, December 15), which elsewhere, namely The Hill was known as "Elites lost to people power."It is truly wonderful that so many salt of the earth people could get together and support a manipulative and hawkish asshole like Bush.
posted by micah holmquist / 1:06 PM
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
I agree with the main point of Benjamin Kerstein's "Chomsky's Myth of the Leftist Silent Majority" (FrontPage, December 14, 2004) - there is little evidence that there is any sort of "leftist silent majority" in the United States, at least in terms of the way "majority" is usually meant to mean in electoral politics.However, Kerstein's makes some problematic assertions, including: -Noam Chomsky, the author of a 1986 article entitled, "The Soviet Union Versus Socialism," is one of the "foremost advocates" of "authoritarian socialism." -Ronald Reagan's actions lead to the downfall of the Soviet Union. While this is something that can neither be proved nor disproved, it is worth noting that Moshe Lewin and others have provided compelling counter-explanations. -"[T]he majority of the American people in fact voted in a convinced and reasonably well-informed manner" in last month's elections. The fact that the Bush v. Kerry was widely considered a choice worth caring about shows there is something along with the electorate. -"[O]nly 10% of under-25s actually went to the polls" last month. Kerstein doesn't give his source, and good information is hard to come by, but commonly citied statistics say that 10% of all voters were under 25 with the percentage of those aged 18-24 who voted being higher.
Thursday, December 09, 2004
As is all too often the case, I don't have time to write a response but this from frontpagemag.com made me laugh:Leftist Lies about Gitmo
By Charlie Daniels
Fresh from visiting the troops in Guantanamo Bay, the music icon speaks his mind. More>
In fairness, I've never hear FrontPage claim to know much about music.
Sunday, December 05, 2004
Welcome Roger Ailes
Please join everyone at HorowitzWatch in welcoming our newest contributor, Roger Ailes of the wildly popular and indispensable weblog Roger Ailes.
I know you will enjoy his contributions to HorowitzWatch.
posted by The Rittenhouse Review / 1:12 PM
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Yeah, Horowitz is a Racist
Check out the ham-handed attempt by Horowitz to needle Al Franken for calling him a racist. Back in July 2002, I wrote about Horowitz's ties to white supremacist Jared Taylor (quick note: read the current issue of Taylor's rag on the Nicolette Sheridan/Terrell Owens flap).
Monday, November 22, 2004
Pass the Microphone to Roger Ailes
Let's allow Roger Ailes, the brilliant blogger at Roger Ailes and not the Nixon-Reagan-Bush-Fox hack, an opportunity to comment upon the treacly tribute David Horowitz recently offered upon the passing of Reed Irvine, the ultra-conservative "media critic" who eagerly slopped at the troughs laid out by Richard Mellon Scaife.
Irvine, as you are surely aware, is best known for his poorly AIM-ed 16-year campaign, still unsuccessful by the date of his demise, to "Can Dan," a reference to CBS News anchorman Dan Rather.
Ailes's reflections on the infamous call Horowitz, the progeny of Communists, made to softball tosser Larry King in an effort to discredit, shame, or otherwise annoy his fellow red-diaper baby Carl Bernstein, are priceless.
I mean, really, who else but Horowitz would get a hang-up when calling in to "Larry King Live"?
posted by The Rittenhouse Review / 7:30 PM
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Attention Attorneys: Help Me Get David Horowitz Indicted
My first post as a member of HorowitzWatch was one that Horowitz was a hypocrite for wishing that American Taliban member John Walker Lindh be executed. I pointed out that Horowitz himself was a self-admitted traitor who violated the Espionage Act. [Note: the original HorowitzWatch article is not accessible but here's a similar article from SDO).
I knew my constant harping got under Horowitz's skin. Finally, about a year ago, he asked me not to bring it up anymore. I agreed out of principle--it was a long time ago, etc.
The truce is over. Actually, it was over when I read that Horowitz invited the head Swift Boat Liar John O'Neill to speak before his Wednesday Morning Club in September.
After reading the subtitle of Horowitz's paean to the Swift Boat Liars ("The traitor has been vanquished and the Vietnam war is now over for those who fought it"), I have decided to declare war on David. I say we should smoke his lame ass.
In multiple writings (the aforementioned article and the books Radical Son and Destructive Generation) Horowitz admitted to violating the Espionage Act. There is no statute of limitations on violations of the Espionage Act. Could some thoughtful attorneys out there help to bring an indictment against Horowitz?
The benefits:
1. Justice
2. George W. Bush invited Horowitz to his Crawford prop ranch for political advice back in 2002. If Horowitz is indicted (or if there is publicity about a possible indictment), it could lead to some bad publicity for Bush.
3. It would be fun.
Quick Swift Boat Liar Note: Tonight on MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Scarborough and other panelists such as Pat Buchanan were saying that the Swift Boat Liars were the key to the election and portrayed John O'Neill as a hero. I got very angry until I realized that I was about the only person watching it.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Who's the Real Puppetmaster?
The subtitle for the David Horowitz/Richard Poe screed against George Soros is "The puppetmaster and his goals." That's a laugh since both men have been the beneficiaries of paranoid nut job Richard Mellon Scaife.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
As smart as George wantsDavid Stolinsky argues in today's FrontPage, "Bin Laden and Marx – Strange Bedfellows," that "communists" and "Islamic extremists" both believe that that the actions of people are pre-determined by outside forces -i.e. that "free will" does not exist- and that this had lead both to support brutal and oppressive actions, whereas those who believe in "free will" have created, as a result of this belief, a far superior country in the United States. The piece is so full of misleading statements, overgeneralizations and undefined terms crying out for demarcation that it would be possible to do a line by line correction with very few paragraphs being left out. For example, Stolinsky writes, "Religious people believe we each have a God-given soul and free will." I suspect that many "religious people" would either disagree with this statement or feel uncomfortable agreeing with it without qualification. Furthermore, since a central argument of this piece is that "Islamic extremists" -a group that Stolinsky does not define- do not believe in "free will," Stolinsky must be using an unconventional definition of "religious," which he fails to provide. A lot of things can be said "Islamic extremists" offhandedly, but disputing that they are "religious" isn't one of them. Stolinsky also fails to understand that predicting an outcome for a specific person, or other entity, based on the circumstances is much different and much less of a science than predicting what outcomes are more likely than others to happen amongst large groups of people that share a common set of circumstances. For an extremely simplified but quantifiable example, a single person (warning, do not do this at home) playing the one empty chamber version of "Russian roulette" and surviving does not prove that all would survive if six people played the game. Stolinsky's logic, however, would have you believe that the first outcome discredits predictions that such a game will likely result in death. Most importantly, Stolinsky fails to look beyond "communists" and "Islamic extremists" for anything that might provide a counter example to his main contention. Stolinsky writes: America was founded by people who believed – and proclaimed loudly – that all human beings are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. What resulted from these beliefs? A nation resulted that, despite its flaws, is freer then any nation in history. A nation resulted that, despite missteps, champions individual rights throughout the world – and is both admired and hated for it. Stolinsky quotes from one of the founding documents of the United States of America -one of the documents that, more or less, guides and guided the form of government in existence- and goes on to claim that this resulted in the United States known, loved and hated today. Does he not see that he is effectively saying that government structures help determine the collective actions of people?The author makes this point more clearly in a February 16, 2004 piece entitled "Thugs in Black Robes." As part of a polemic against courts making policy on issues such as gay marriage, Stolinsky writes, "What is decided may affect our view of the family. But who makes the decisions will surely affect the future of our country" [italic in original]. It appears to me that Stolinsky recognizes that government plays a role in shaping people and that it is not all "free will." What accounts for this flaw? I've never met or interacted with Stolinsky and do not believe I have read any of his work prior to today, so I have no way of knowing exactly. It could be dishonesty in pursuit of a political point. It also could be that it never occurs to him that are similarities between the country he loves and "communists" and "Islamic extremists." If the latter is the case, Stolinsky is perhaps the perfect example of what a certain George W. Bush needs in his followers. Bush needs people who love broad and/or unclear terms, but never do any critical thinking. Those who think "Bin Laden and Marx – Strange Bedfellows" should sign right up, if they haven't done so already.
posted by micah holmquist / 7:13 PM
Monday, September 27, 2004
Partisan politics and flawed arguments can be fun!Bobby Eberle's "Lies about Iraq," from today's FrontPage, appears to be an attempt to inoculate George W. Bush against charges that he was dishonest about the threat posed by Iraq. The piece, which also appears under the title "Did the President Lie about Iraq?" today at the website of GOPUSA, an enterprise that Eberle is President and CEO of, shows the hypocrisy in charges coming from some leading Democrats that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by using a series of quotes from Bill Clinton where Clinton says weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein are a threat and that military action against Saddam is therefore justified. Surely the likes of Terry McAuliffe wouldn't argue with Clinton on this matter, but so what? This line of argumentation ignores the possibility that both Bush and Clinton were dishonest about WMDs in Iraq in order to score a partisan political point. The strange nature of this argument is revealed by the odd presentation of Clinton as a trustworthy figure. Why not get at the more important point of actually trying to figure out the truth? Eberle and friends can attack Clinton all they want, and for the record I will likely agree, at least in part, with much of what they say, but he comes across as nothing more than an enthusiast for gotcha games when he ignores, for example, the very real question of, if Bush was genuinely worried about WMDs from Iraq, why wasn't much effort put in to finding them? Could it be that looking at Bush's record on its own terms isn't as effective of a campaign commercial? "Lies about Iraq" also continues the unfortunate trend of assuming that WMDs in Saddam's hands posed a threat. The best justification for this premise, which Eberle does point out via a quote from Mr. Integrity William Jefferson Clinton, is that Saddam had used WMDs in the past, which exhibits an inclination on his part to use them. This ignores that Saddam's use of these weapons happened as part of an ongoing war (kind of like one other country that still has WMDs) or to put down an internal rebellion. This doesn't mean that the result wasn't horrific, but Saddam was hardly using WMDs in unprovoked, out of the blue attacks. It is true that one could argue that Saddam using chemical or biological weapons against the United States would fit this patter because it could be in response to years of bombings and sanctions, but supporters of the invasion of Iraq have a tendency not to say that and, according to my personal experience, react in an angry manner to the idea. The absurdity of the idea that Saddam aimed, directly and/or indirectly, to use WMDs against the U.S. steps into the limelight via the fact that his regime took over a decade of bombings and sanctions without a military response, as if Saddam just couldn't get around to it but any day now he was going to break out and start accomplishing his dreams. So, does Eberle's "Lies about Iraq" meet, what I presume to be, its goal of arguing that Bush couldn't have lied about WMDs in Iraq (posing a threat)? Yes, when combined with the current lack of critical thinking and an idiotic political discourse, it does.
posted by micah holmquist / 5:59 PM
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Outrage: John O'Neill Guest of Admitted Violator of the Espionage Act.
Today's FrontPageMag made the following announcement, "The Wednesday Morning Club presents Unfit for Command author John O'Neill September 8th. Phone 800-752-6562 for details." The Wednesday Morning Club was founded by David Horowitz, an admitted traitor who is still subject to criminal prosecution (for a chuckle, read Dave's response to my aricles about his treason). Let me get this straight: O'Neill and his gang of Swift Boat Liars smear John Kerry as unpatriotic but O'Neil is rubbing shoulders with a man who is still subject to prosecution for violation of the Espionage Act. As William Bennett might say, "Where's the outrage?"
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Read one piece on FrontPage today and found...NewCriterion.com commenting on "moral equivalence," a term that is basically just a more subtle way of saying DO NOT COMPARE US, THE GOOD GUYS, TO THE BAD GUYS. It is really a quite impressive piece except for the part about blaming a reporter for quoting other people saying things that we can now see were not true, the implication that some reporters being duped is more important than the actual story and this bit of brilliance: Of course, [media types] don’t say that it was only a handful of low-lifes perpetrating the outrages [at a certain prison in Iraq]. Let's see...The Center for Economic and Social Rights and Human Rights Watch have said that more than few people are responsible for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at the hands of those "standing for the cause of freedom." A story by Julian Coman in Sunday's Telegraph says: The Telegraph understands that four confidential Red Cross documents implicating senior Pentagon civilians in the Abu Ghraib scandal have been passed to an American television network, which is preparing to make them public shortly.According to lawyers familiar with the Red Cross reports, they will contradict previous testimony by senior Pentagon officials who have claimed that the abuse in the Abu Ghraib prison was an isolated incident. "There are some extremely damaging documents around, which link senior figures to the abuses," said Scott Horton, the former chairman of the New York Bar Association, who has been advising Pentagon lawyers unhappy at the administration's approach. "The biggest bombs in this case have yet to be dropped." Damn those bad apples!
posted by micah holmquist / 3:34 PM
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
If we talk intelligently, the terrorists have wonI really should stop watching t.v. news. As a way of putting the killing of Nick Berg into perspective, today's DaySide on the Fox News Channel featured a reporter saying that "the terrorists" have done terrible things in the past -shocking!- and then featured Linda Vester reading a viewer's email, which said that the killing of Berg could not have been in retaliation to the abuse of Iraqi prisoners because terrorists beheaded Daniel Pearl two years ago. Guest Stephen Schwartz agreed. I assume that Schwartz also believes, despite what he has written, that the United States' bombing of Iraq had nothing to do with democracy, freedom, human rights or weapons of mass destruction, because the U.S. bombed Germany and Japan before any of these issues arose in relationship to Iraq. Taking the position described in the previous paragraph would mean Schwartz is a consistent idiot. He isn't , however. Schwartz, like most hawks, will merely agree with any idiotic statement if it fits their agenda. As David Cross says on his latest disc, | |
