Month: April 2010

Biased Sisterhood

by digby

The following was written by the editor of The Las Vegas Review Journal. It is not satire:

Bias is not a good thing. Right? We all agree on that, don’t we?

People and candidates for public office should be judged on the basis of their ideas, stance on the issues, character, experience and integrity, not on the basis of age, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion or disability.

Therefore, we must repeal the 19th Amendment. Yes, the one granting suffrage to women. Because? Well, women are biased.

Just look at the poll results in today’s newspaper.

Men favored the attractive former beauty queen Sue Lowden over the graying Harry Reid by 22 points, while women shunned their gender mate, choosing Reid by a 2-point margin. Which proves women favor Democrats.

Not convinced? Well let’s back it up a week and look at the poll results published this past Sunday.

In a head-to-head match among Reid, Lowden and Tea Party pretender Scott Ashjian, the men favored Lowden by 19 points over Reid and women picked Reid by a 3-point margin. Ashjian was in single digits.

But change the Republican option from Lowden to former basketball star Danny Tarkanian and it is a different tale. Men still favored the Republican by 16 points and doubled their support by Ashjian to 15 points. Women, on the other hand, chose Reid by 16 points, proving they’d rather vote for a woman than a male Republican.

Men are consistent. Women are fickle and biased.

Not convinced?

Then look down the questionnaire to the 3rd Congressional District race pitting Republican Dr. Joe Heck against Democratic incumbent Dina Titus. Men went with Heck 58-36, while women leaned toward Titus 52-40.

Repeal.

Right. Because 13% of the women who would vote for a moderate Republican would switch to the moderate Democrat rather than vote strict party line or teabagger insanity like the male automatons, they are “biased” and should have their right to vote repealed. It couldn’t possible be that they dislike Tarkanian for reasons other than the fact that he has a penis. (You know how those biased women hate those things.)

And in the other race the bitchuz picked the Democratic woman over the Republican man purely because she’s a woman while the men who are favoring the male Republican are obviously basing their votes purely on the issues. Why? Because men aren’t biased.

The fact is that nationally more women vote for Democrats and more men vote for Republicans. That means — in general — women are more liberal and men are more conservative. And I think that really explains why this sexist creep wants to take away their right to vote, don’t you? I would imagine he’d like to remove the franchise from people under the age of 30, blacks and Hispanics too. Then he’d be able to remove a whole bunch of that irresponsible bias from the system.”Those people” just can’t be trusted.

When you strip away everything else,all the prejudice and the bigotry and the arrogant privilege, it all comes down to the fact that these wingnuts just don’t like democracy.

h/t to TJ

Fully Subscribed

by digby

Last night’s Moyers with James Kwak and Simon Johnson was a must see. (You can see the videoat the link if you missed it.) It was a timely discussion of the systemic problem we face. Essentially we are an oligarchy. And it’s getting worse, not better.

I think this comment from Kwak, gets to the nub of it:

BILL MOYERS: How can it be that a Robert Rubin, former Secretary of the Treasury, pulls down $100 million as a senior advisor to Citigroup and claims he doesn’t know the risk that was involved in what he was trying to sell to clients and foreign officials? How can that be?

JAMES KWAK: I think there are two things. There’s a narrow and a broad view of this. The narrow view is I think Rubin is actually not lying. I think it is true that Rubin did not know what the risks were. Although he certainly should have known what the risks were. And that’s because he was fully subscribed to this ideology that free markets are good. That the market will take care of itself.

That, he also suffered from a lot of the blindness that corporate officers and directors have. Corporate officers and directors manage these enormous organizations with tens of hundreds of thousands of people. They have very little idea what’s going on. They’re getting their information from subordinates, who are giving them a filtered view of the world.

On the other hand, when he says, no one could have foreseen this. This is what I call an intellectual cover up. And I say that because it’s very disingenuous. Over the past 20 years, these banks used their economic power and their political power to engineer an unregulated financial environment in which precisely this sort of thing could happen. And in that sense, I think that this was not an accident. It was not a natural disaster. It was not unforeseeable. It was the product of the efforts by the sector over the past 20 years to reshape Washington and to engineer an environment that would allow them to make as much money as possible.

Simon talked earlier about money. And we know that the financial sector, especially Wall Street, has been, has made enormous contributions to both campaign contributions and lobbying expenses. But I think there were, there were two more potent weapons in their arsenal. One is the revolving door. So, we’ve seen an enormous number of people passing back and forth between Washington and Wall Street over the past 20 years. This is not a new phenomenon. It happens in every industry. But there are certain things that make it especially pernicious when it comes to finance. One is that, one is a question of incentives. So, compared to other industries, Wall Street can simply offer enormous amounts of money. I’m not saying that everyone did that. I’m not saying that even the majority of people did that. But that is, that is very clear.

Yes it is. For instance, I had no idea that Mike Oxley — the guy whose name is on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act which was enacted in the wake of Enron to penalize those who obscure publicly reported financial information — is now working as a lobbyist for the financial industry. It just doesn’t get any more obvious than that.

Johnson and Kwak are both big proponents of the Volcker rule which would break up the big banks. They are having a bit of an academic argument with Paul Krugman, who thinks that the size of the banks isn’t the problem but rather the lack of regulation. What I gleaned from this show however, is that the break up of the banks isn’t just intended to prevent TBTF but also to break up some of the political power that’s pooled in these huge institutions. I think it may be the more important element.

In any case, watch the show if you missed it or at least look over the web-site and catch the high points. We’re about to go into intense negotiations on financial reform and if you aren’t up to speed on this, you won’t be able to follow it.

My biggest fear, as I’ve written before, is that this fantasy of bipartisanship is going to lead them to allow the Republicans to water down the bill to uselessness only to have the Republicans vote against it and successfully demagogue it for the fall as another bail out. In other words the worst of all possible worlds.

Of course, if what Kwak and Johnson say is correct, that would be exactly what all the incentives in our system would predict would happen. It’s all win-win for the individuals involved in the game. The rest of us, not so much.

.

Right Is Just Wrong

by digby

Fox news is fair and balanced and everyone else is way liberal, so “the right” has decided that it has no choice but to launch its own network. I’m not kidding:

Boy, they sure have hit upon a winning formula with that one. Fatuous, aging, wingnut frat boys sitting around playing poker and making fun of liberals. Breitbart is a genius.

This is going to be huge. Huge!

h/t to bill

LA Isn’t Blue Dog Country

by digby

I’m sorry, it’s just not right for any liberal district in California to be represented by a member of congress who says she’s “proud to be introduced as the best Republican in the Democratic Party.” Yet that’s what Blue Dog Jane Harman says about herself.

Marcy Winograd is running against her in the Democratic primary this June and she sent every delegate to the California Democratic Convention this weekend this letter:

I need your support to block the endorsement of Blue Dog Jane Harman on the floor of the California Democratic Party convention in Los Angeles this weekend. Harman is a formidable opponent for the 36th congressional district seat (West LA to San Pedro), particularly since she has hired campaign consultant Harvey Englander, notorious for engineering the passage of Howard Jarvis’ Prop 13.

You will hear Harman’s appointees argue that we should not usurp the local caucus’s power to endorse. Our Party’s bylaws, however, provide for exactly this type of challenge because when a candidate is endorsed that endorsement reflects the will of the entire statewide Party, not just local delegates. Moreover, when a corporate Democrat, funded by military contractors and personally invested in those same contractors, takes us to war without exercising her oversight responsibility all of us pay the price.

You may hear that we must respect what Party activists in the 36th congressional district want. Please know that I am proud to be endorsed by the majority of grassroots Democratic clubs in my district, including the San Pedro Democratic Club; Torrance Democratic Club; Progressive Democratic Club (Harbor); Gardena Valley Democratic Club; Progressive Democrats of America-36th District.

Our efforts begin on Friday night when the Progressive Caucus convenes with national radio broadcaster Jim Hightower at the Palm Restaurant, 1100 Flower Street, across from the Marriott Hotel, where the convention will be held. All are welcome to attend and commit to gathering signatures for my petition to overturn Harman’s endorsement in the local caucus Saturday evening.

That local caucus, comprised of many elected officials and their appointed delegates, will undoubtedly endorse Harman, the candidate who once introduced herself to convention delegates as “the best Republican in the Democratic Party.”

Following her local caucus endorsement, we need to collect 300 delegate signatures within a few hours on Saturday night to overturn the endorsement and push this fight to the floor on Sunday morning. Dozens of Winograd for Congress supporters will circulate with clipboards, fanning out to collect the required petition signatures.

To block Harman’s endorsement on the floor, I will need 50% plus 1 delegate to reject her candidacy. For me to obtain an endorsement, I will need 75% of the floor.

Winograd vs. Harman: What’s the Difference?

I am a proud progressive, a public school teacher on leave from Crenshaw HS in South Los Angeles, and an organizer of the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party.

This is not a contest between two corporate Democrats.

It’s between Our Street vs. Wall Street.

Homes vs. Banks.

Jobs vs. Wars.

At stake are the values and soul of the Democratic Party.

Who are we? What do we stand for?

As a co-founder of Progressive Democrats of America’s Los Angeles chapter, I helped write, along with author Norman Solomon and Progressive Caucus Chair Karen Bernal, the resolutions putting our Party on record calling for an end to the US air and ground wars in Afghanistan. I also put our party on record calling for a cap on usurious bank interest rates, parole and sentencing reform, and an end to unfair trade agreements.

As a leader in the anti-war movement, I organized a 1,000-strong town hall with Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and then led a delegation to Washington to introduce our representatives to wounded veterans with Iraq Veterans Against the War. On the election protection front, I worked hard to elect SOS Deborah Bowen and to make sure she stayed in office to enforce her ban on most touch screen machines. In the labor movement, I organized with Cesar Chavez and became active in my own union: United Teachers of Los Angeles.

I support clean money, both in word and in deed. I am not taking a dime of corporate
contributions because I am the People’s Candidate for the People’s House.

My opponent is smart and tough. Unfortunately, she has used her strengths in the service of:

• big banks and military contractors;

• supporting a bankruptcy bill that makes it easier for banks to hike your credit card rates, punish you for medical bankruptcy, and foreclose on your home;

• voting to deny you affordable generic medications for breast and brain cancer, HIV, and Parkinson’s disease;

• defying a majority of House Democrats to take us to war in Iraq, then escalate in Afghanistan;

• working to re-elect George Bush by pressuring the New York Times to suppress the story of Bush’s massive illegal wiretapping program;

• finally, becoming the subject of an FBI investigation after being caught in an NSA wiretap allegedly offering to use her influence on the House Intelligence Committee to get spying charges dropped against AIPAC analysts – this in return for their reported promise to defund House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party if Pelosi did not make her chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

Enough.

I am not in the pocket of any lobby group– and am deeply committed to the pursuit of peace with justice in the middle east.

It’s time for a change– and a commitment at home to transforming our war economy into a new Green economy. We need a Green New Deal along the lines of the Works Progress Administration. Together, we can put Americans back to work repairing our infrastructure, strengthening our public school system, developing new energy, and building mass transit.

Enough of perpetual wars and occupations that create greater instability and rob our treasury of trillions needed for health care, education, and housing.

The ILWU Southern California District Council, University of California AFT, Mexican American Bar Association, Progressive Democrats of American, and the Armenian National Committee are among my endorsers.

I ask all delegates and grassroots activists to help me challenge Jane Harman to a floor fight at the California Democratic Party convention. Thus far, my opponent has refused to debate me, but rumor has it she will make a rare appearance at the annual convention.

I look forward to the challenge– and to the moment on the floor when delegates will have an opportunity to stand tall.

Thank you,

Marcy Winograd
36th Congressional District Candidate

Politico reports:

Winograd told POLITICO Friday she was planning a concerted push at the convention, beginning with a meeting of her allies in the Progressive Caucus. Liberal radio host Jim Hightower will be assisting Winograd’s effort, and she is organizing a robocall effort to target the delegates who will be attending the convention. The effort comes a little more than a week after Winograd staged a successful petition-gathering campaign to strip Harman of the pre-endorsement she had won at the 36th District’s March 20 caucus meeting – a move that set this weekend’s expected floor fight in motion. “It means something when a party endorses a candidate. It’s worth fighting for,” Winograd said in an interview. “The bylaws allow this kind of challenge. If it wasn’t allowed, it wouldn’t be in the bylaws.” The convention’s first skirmish is set to take place Saturday evening, when the 36th District Caucus meets again to vote on a pre-endorsement. Should Harman win the usually pro forma pre-endorsement, Winograd will have until 11 pm that evening to collect 300 signatures from statewide delegates in order to strip Harman of the endorsement. If Winograd succeeds in collecting the 300 signatures, the battle will move to the convention floor on Sunday. Whomever receives the vote of a majority of delegates will win the party’s endorsement in the district for the June 8 primary. Harvey Englander, a Harman consultant, said Winograd was waging a fruitless fight that threatened to divide Democrats in a heavily Democratic seat. “I expect Congresswoman Harman will get an overwhelming show of support,” said Englander. “It’s unfortunate that Winograd is shooting inward in a safe seat.”

This excuse is common among incumbents and it’s nonsense. Primaries are perfectly legitimate in all cases and completely necessary in seats in which the incumbent is not representing the district as in Harman’s case. The fact that it’s a safe seat is not due to Harman’s Blue Dog sensibilities but because it’s overwhelmingly Democratic. We’re talking about the Westside of LA, here, two blocks from where I live. Believe me, it’s not a Blue Dog bastion. Harman wins here in spite of her record, not because of it.

As Howie says:

I don’t know what the delegates will decide tonight, but I do know what progressive activists must do to elect the most outstanding candidate running for election to the House of Representatives this year. Blue America has Marcy on our main endorsement page, on our Sending Democrats A Message page and on our page dedicated to fighting against the Blue Dogs. Can I ask you to pick one and contribute what you feel comfortable giving, even if only $5 or $10? Like I said, Harman is the wealthiest Democrat in the House, and she will spend whatever she thinks she has to to hold onto her power base. Marcy could never match her– but she doesn’t need to. All she needs to do is get enough grassroots contributions so that she can get her message out to the people of the 36th District.

There is anti-incumbency in the air and Winograd’s in a district that could very well toss out the woman who says she’s proud to be the Republicans’ favorite Democrat in a year of teabags and militia nuts. She got nearly 40% against her in 2006. It would send a shock wave through the Democratic establishment if she did it. If you can help, please do. (And if you know any delegates to the convention, buttonhole them today as well.)

.

Just Like Your Neighbor

by digby

‘Average citizens’ find voice in Tea Party ideals

Tea Party tax rallies occurred all over the nation on Thursday. Members oppose high taxes, government spending, and what they see as a lack of adherence to the Constitution by a Democrat-led Washington. Members of the Tea Party say they represent the “average citizen.”

“Look around,” said Ernest Comisac, a retired engineer from Pennsylvania. “When you walk up to people here, they are like your neighbor. They go to work, pay their taxes, try to put their kids through college.”

Joe Vinskey, an employee of the federal government in Dayton, Ohio, said that one of the things that made him become involved with the Tea Party was that it’s a nationwide movement with no leader in Washington to make it “D.C.-centric.”

“They’re not trying to start another government party,” Vinskey said. “They are trying to fix what we already have.”

Raymond Tignall, an estimator for a mechanical contractor in Eldersburg, Md., said he and his wife heard of the Tea Party through conservative talk radio.

“I don’t want to be a government-controlled country,” Tignall said. “We’re all leaders. We give the government its power. And the Tea Party embodies that.”

“I’m here primarily to support the idea of small government,” added Comisac. “You can’t depend on your politicians so how can you allow the government to have this much control?”

Comisac cited the recently-passed health care overhaul bill and the Wall Street bailouts as examples of the government’s over-intervention in citizen’s lives and the country’s economy.

“I want to see non-partisanship in our government,” he said. “Non-partisanship to the point that barely any legislation will be passed, because I hate to say it, but when anything happens in Washington, it’s bad.”

Carowick, echoing a sentiment held by many party members, said she thinks the welfare system is out of control.

“I think we do need to help those who have less,” she said. “But the taxes are too much and we aren’t seeing any difference in the situations of those less privileged.”

Members at Thursday’s Washington rally decried politicians for failing to listen to constituents.

“The way health care was pushed through was potentially a constitutional crisis,” Vinskey said. “Our elected representatives today aren’t respecting the Constitution.”

It’s all been said and I don’t have the energy this morning to say it again. But suffice to simply reiterate that it isn’t unconstitutional to pass legislation with a majority under the rules of both houses of congress. It just isn’t.

Now, calling the Vice Presidency a fourth branch of government and holding that the President has unlimited powers during what he alone defines as “wartime” actually is an assault on the constitution, but these people don’t mind that because they are quite sure no president will ever use such powers against them. Considering their loathing of Obama, I wonder if they’ve thought that through?

Here are your “average citizens” according to the NY Times poll last week, graphically illustrated by Charles Blow:

It’s pretty clear they are anything but “average.”

.

Iceland’s Volcanoes And Climate Change

by tristero

I’ve been wondering whether there might might be some kind of link between volcanic eruptions in Iceland and global warming. Apparently not. Yet.

They said there was no sign that the current eruption from below the Eyjafjallajokull glacier that has paralysed flights over northern Europe was linked to global warming. The glacier is too small and light to affect local geology.

“Our work suggests that eventually there will be either somewhat larger eruptions or more frequent eruptions in Iceland in coming decades,” said Freysteinn Sigmundsson, a vulcanologist at the University of Iceland.

“Global warming melts ice and this can influence magmatic systems,” he told Reuters. The end of the Ice Age 10,000 years ago coincided with a surge in volcanic activity in Iceland, apparently because huge ice caps thinned and the land rose.

“We believe the reduction of ice has not been important in triggering this latest eruption,” he said of Eyjafjallajokull. “The eruption is happening under a relatively small ice cap.”

Carolina Pagli, a geophysicist at the University of Leeds in England, said there were risks that climate change could also trigger volcanic eruptions or earthquakes in places such as Mount Erebus in Antarctica, the Aleutian islands of Alaska or Patagonia in South America.

Yeah, but wadda they know? Check out the comments. There you’ll find the truth! That’s because people who took some high school chemistry once are much better able to evaluate complex problems in geology, climatology, and meteorology than scientists who have devoted their entire lives to studying the science.

(This post is dedicated to my friends JB, JS, and BM, volcanoed in London, London, and Amsterdam, respectively. See you all soon, I hope!)

UPDATE: Very cool shots of volcanoes from around the world set to Hekla, by Jón Leifs:

h/t The great Alex Ross.

UPDATE: This link provides a somewhat different set of insights into the science:

the key to this problem (in my mind) isn’t melting point but rather the volatiles dissolved in the magma. Most magmas can dissolve more volatiles (from the source of the magma, not a surface source of water) under high pressure than low pressure. If you release that pressure, then the volatiles escape in the form of bubbles and you can get an explosive eruption (like popping the top of shaken soda can). If you happen to have shallow magma chambers with volatiles near the surface and deglaciate (remove the ice), you might be prompt a reaction of the volatiles (gases) coming out of solution with the magma. Now, if you combine that with even a small amount of additional melting from lower pressures brought by deglaciation, then, maybe you could produce a temporary, larger supply of eruptible magma. Magma does not need external water to produce explosive eruptions (such as an ice cap/glacier) – and it seems that the current eruption is silicic enough to produce its own explosivity due to its viscosity and water content – so the lack of an ice cap should not preclude more explosive eruptions in Iceland.

Klemetti goes on:

Now, this is all just speculation on my part and I’m not trying to connect it to global warming, global cooling or the Red Sox subpar start to the season. However, what I can say is that we need to stop trying to look at every study with the lens of climate change – and especially stop treating each side of the issue as adversaries if you don’t agree with them. Science is about discussion not confrontation, but a lot of this debate becomes “Jeez, the other guys are idiots because they don’t agree with me!” A little civility and open-mindedness goes a long way.

Sorry, Dr. Klemetti, but you share the naive attitude of many scientists who have failed to follow carefully the cultural war about evolution. You should read the comments to the previous link. The rightwing insists on confrontation instead of discussion. It’s not going to change until all us, scientists included, are prepared to be confrontational right back and push them to the margins of public discourse, where they clearly belong.

Eventually, you will have to be confrontational if you wish to preserve truly independent inquiry within your discipline. You might as well start now as it will be much easier.

h/t shirt in comments

Rove Nearly Handcuffed, Again

by tristero

Full disclosure: I have a good friend who is deeply involved in Code Pink. As I wrote Digby privately yesterday, many of their actions are not to my taste, but this one most certainly is:

Earlier this week, for the second time on his book tour, former White House adviser Karl Rove was faced by an antiwar activist determined to arrest him for “war crimes.”

Rove and activist group Code Pink cofounder Jodie Evans first met last month in Beverly Hills, Calif., when Evans confronted Rove in the theater where he had planned to take questions about and autograph copies of his memoir, “Courage and Consequence.” In that encounter, Evans approached Rove with handcuffs, announcing that she was performing a citizen’s arrest.

The incident rattled Rove enough that he did not stay behind to sign any books.

Then, this week in a Las Vegas bookstore, Evans approached Rove again. She had waited in line with a copy of his book, along with other autograph seekers. When she reached the head of the line, however, she again announced that she intended to arrest Rove.

When she pulled handcuffs from her sleeves, however, Rove recognized her and let nearby security officers know that she was the same woman who had approached him in Beverly Hills. Evans was rapidly escorted from the store.

On the other hand, let’s not throw things, people. The absolutely last thing we need is a Sarah Palin who can claim martyrdom for anything. What’s the diff?

A picture of Karl Rove in handcuffs? A priceless image.

Pelting Palin with tomatoes? You’ll make people feel sorry for her. Only a righwing agent provocateur, or a crazy person, would want that. Don’t do it.

A Rout?

by digby

I keep hearing that it’s inevitable that the Democrats are going to be wiped out in November because everyone hates them so much. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that they will lose big if everyone hates the other side just as much:

The Republican Party may have a big election year anyway, but Americans sure don’t think much of it or its leadership.

Only 28% of voters in the country say they approve of the current direction of the GOP with 51% disapproving. Even among voters who identify with the party just 54% say they like where it’s headed. It’s predictable that Democrats would give it very low marks but even among independents just 18% think the Republicans are headed in the right direction while 49% dissent.

Not that the Dems are looking any better. But here’s the thing — every voter ends up having to choose among the candidates who are running. It’s just the way it is. Turnout matters, of course, especially in mid-terms. And maybe the hardcore right is more motivated and will prevail (although I would guess that if it’s only the 18% that identifies as teabaggers that the Dems can match them.) But since the Republicans are behaving like such asses, I’m not sure it’s going to work out the way people think.

Sure, the Dems will probably lose some seats. Just as Al Gore lost the members that came in his coat tails in 2002 (even though he was denied the presidency) Obama will probably lose some this fall as well. But it may not be rout that everyone’s predicting. If nobody likes either party, then it implies that we will get more or less the status quo.

On the other hand, there’s this. So who knows?

.

Today’s Miraculous Factoid

by digby

And the quarterly fundraising reports show that the GOP’s top national target, Rep. Alan Grayson from Orlando, who takes no money from lobbyists, banksters or anyone with business before his committees, raised more money— almost entirely from small grassroots donations— than anyone else running for Congress in the United States, his second quarter in a row with over $800,000.

Wow.

Lot’s of other fascinating stuff from Florida in this DWT post.

.

Threats And Coverage

by digby

After the all day teabag news orgy yesterday I thought I’d do a little research on the coverage of the antiwar rallies before the invasion of Iraq to see if I remembered the blase attitude correctly. I did. The New York Times, for instance, didn’t just fail to publish in-depth polling of the movement above the fold on page one, they just put a small story about the marches (which featured hundreds of thousands of people all over the country) on page 8 claiming they were smaller than the organizers had hoped for.

But I had forgotten about this from 2003:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 22— The Federal Bureau of Investigation has collected extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators and has advised local law enforcement officials to report any suspicious activity at protests to its counterterrorism squads, according to interviews and a confidential bureau memorandum. The memorandum, which the bureau sent to local law enforcement agencies last month in advance of antiwar demonstrations in Washington and San Francisco, detailed how protesters have sometimes used ”training camps” to rehearse for demonstrations, the Internet to raise money and gas masks to defend against tear gas. The memorandum analyzed lawful activities like recruiting demonstrators, as well as illegal activities like using fake documentation to get into a secured site. F.B.I. officials said in interviews that the intelligence-gathering effort was aimed at identifying anarchists and ”extremist elements” plotting violence, not at monitoring the political speech of law-abiding protesters. The initiative has won the support of some local police, who view it as a critical way to maintain order at large-scale demonstrations. Indeed, some law enforcement officials said they believed the F.B.I.’s approach had helped to ensure that nationwide antiwar demonstrations in recent months, drawing hundreds of thousands of protesters, remained largely free of violence and disruption. […]

The memorandum, circulated on Oct. 15 — just 10 days before many thousands gathered in Washington and San Francisco to protest the American occupation of Iraq — noted that the bureau ”possesses no information indicating that violent or terrorist activities are being planned as part of these protests” and that ”most protests are peaceful events.”…The memorandum urged local law enforcement officials ”to be alert to these possible indicators of protest activity and report any potentially illegal acts” to counterterrorism task forces run by the F.B.I. It warned about an array of threats, including homemade bombs and the formation of human chains. The memorandum discussed demonstrators’ ”innovative strategies,” like the videotaping of arrests as a means of ”intimidation” against the police. And it noted that protesters ”often use the Internet to recruit, raise funds and coordinate their activities prior to demonstrations.”

The teabagger rallies don’t seem to have activated any of these alarms despite the fact that we know for a fact that sympathetic members of the far right are currently plotting violent activity, which the anti-war marchers had no history or intention of doing. Hell, the antiwar protesters didn’t even get any coverage in the press despite having millions take to the streets all over the world. The teabag extremism doesn’t seem to bother anyone much. Perhaps it’s because they are all lumpy,middle-aged white people who spend more time watching beck than sharpening their guerilla warfare skills. But, you have to wonder what the government thinks about this:

[T]he extremism of the Tea Partiers will be far eclipsed on Monday when another band of American patriots rides into town to demonstrate against the government. On April 19, an assortment of gun-rights groups will mount the Second Amendment March at the grounds of the Washington Monument. On the Web site for the march, its founder, Skip Coryell, calls it a “peaceful” event. But these folks, as the Violence Policy Center points out in a new report, are pushing a virulent strain of anti-government extremism that certainly could drive a body to take violent action.

Last month in an article for Human Events, a conservative magazine, Coryell noted that one aim of the march is to imply the threat of violence:

My question to everyone reading this article is this: “For you, as an individual, when do you draw your saber? When do you say “Yes, I am willing to rise up and overthrow an oppressive, totalitarian government?”

Is it when the government takes away your private business?
Is it when the government rigs elections?
Is it when the government imposes martial law?
Is it when the government takes away your firearms?

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not advocating the immediate use of force against the government. It isn’t time, and hopefully that time will never come. But one thing is certain: “Now is the time to rattle your sabers.” If not now, then when?

… I understand that sounds harsh, but these are harsh times. …

I hear the clank of metal on metal getting closer, but that’s not enough. The politicians have to hear it too. They have to hear it, and they have to believe it.

Come and support me at the Second Amendment March on April 19th on the Washington Monument grounds. Let’s rattle some sabers and show the government we’re still here.

Notice that Coryell says he’s not advocating the immediate use of force against the government. That sure makes it sound like he’s revving up the gun-rights troops for possible rebellion down the road.

At the march, he will be in good company. One scheduled speaker for the rally is Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America. In 1992, Pratt participated in a Colorado meeting of neo-Nazis and self-proclaimed Christian patriots that marked the birth of the modern militia movement. Another speaker at this pro-gun hoe-down will be Sheriff Richard Mack, who states on his Web site that the “greatest threat we face today is not terrorists; it is our own federal government. If America is conquered or ruined it will be from within, not a foreign enemy.”

And the Oath Keepers are sponsoring the march. This is a group of right-wingers — many of whom serve in the military or police forces — who pledge to disobey what they regard as “unconstitutional” orders from an increasingly repressive government. Their view of the government is rather dark. They vow not to “obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps” and not to “obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps.” As if the Obama administration is on the verge of declaring martial law and rounding up the citizenry.

These will be very peaceful rallies, I’m sure, because few citizens would venture into a crowd like this to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech. After all, they might get shot. So, in a practical sense, their right to speak ends at the muzzle of a gun — ironically especially when the gun is held by a constitution revering, gun-toting libertarian. (“Sure go ahead and speak up. Better hope I don’t lose my concentration or somebody might get accidentally capped.”)

I suppose the bigger risk is that these armed zealots might shoot each other. It could end up in a shootout if passions run high as they often do at these things and there’s a misunderstanding or a case of mistaken identity. And certainly police would be in danger if these armed anti-government types feel threatened.

But there will not likely be any trouble with the liberals. They’ll get the message and stay far away. That’s what gun toting political rallies are all about — suppressing dissent.

But I do wonder how the government feels about this. Perhaps they are sanguine because these are all good Real Americans instead of rambunctious young people who break windows and taunt the police. They just pack heat in a crowd. And anyway, if anything happens, they’ll just blame it on infiltrators.

.