Protest warrior

Annoyed by a Chomsky-loving teacher, 18-year-old Bryan Henderson launched Operation Tiger Claw: He put up satiric signs in the halls of his Princeton, WV high school expressing his conservative views. For example: “Except for ending slavery, fascism, naziism and communism, WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING.”

On his site, Henderson describes his dogged attempts to defend his right to free expression and to stand up to students who accused him of racism and bias against Muslims. The principal ultimately decided he could hand out flyers but couldn’t post signs, which seems a dubious distinction. The school year ended before the ACLU could make up its mind about getting into the case.

Henderson belongs to Protest Warrior, which is dedicated to making fun of “America-hating leftists.”

About Joanne


  1. Good for him! He should have a guard rail on the PFC Pomeroy Bridge named after him.

  2. This was a brilliant piece of work.

    Bryan includes his principal’s email address near the end of his write-up. I e-mailed the principal to congratulate him — he and his staff are obviously doing something right if their school can produce a student like Bryan.

  3. Agreed all around that the school that can produce and find room for a kid like this is doing something right. Though I absolutely disagree with just about every word he said, that is beside the point. I am thoroughly tired of colorless schools and colorless education that produces another colorless generation.

    That said, I will once again identify myself as a happy leftist. I am 65, pretty smart with way past a master’s degree, and 42 years of teaching experience. I have lived through a lot, seen a lot, learned a lot. I am still a happy leftist. This does not mean that I hate America. In fact, I love America. Most of my friends are leftists. None of them hate America. Let me say this again in case you weren’t listening. None of us hate America. We do disagree with some of the present policies. The war in Iraq would be one.

    On to Noam Chomsky. You can say a lot about him, and I for one think he should get the next Medal of Freedom, but don’t say he is not articulate. His range of knowledge and vocabulary are far beyond anyone posting here.

    OK, I’m done for awhile.


  4. That is an awesome kid! I too will email the principal to let him know I think it’s great that his school does such a swell job of educating people that the young man not only had the facts to see through all the bull his teacher tried to give him — and that he also knew how to learn for himself and think for himself. Good job!

    Crying shame that the PC crowd turned into the burn the witch crowd, but I guess that was the point in the end.

  5. Mark Odell says:

    He put up satiric signs in the halls of his Princeton, WV high school expressing his conservative views. For example: “Except for ending slavery, fascism, naziism and communism, WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING.”

    Ah, so that would be “neoconservative views”.

    atlas wrote: I am still a happy leftist. This does not mean that I hate America. In fact, I love America. Most of my friends are leftists. None of them hate America. Let me say this again in case you weren’t listening. None of us hate America.

    This does not mean that there are no leftists who hate America, however.

    His range of knowledge and vocabulary are far beyond anyone posting here.

    Be that as it may, it is not the same thing as having correct premises or being right.

    The opposite of Chomsky is not necessarily neoconservatism.

  6. “His range of knowledge and vocabulary are far beyond anyone posting here.”

    Sorry Atlas, I can’t agree with such a bigoted elitist statement. Chomsky knows a lot about a very small amount of things just like the rest of us. In everything else he’s just an ignorant idiot. I’m sure he can come up with questions I can’t answer, but I can come up with very simple questions that I doubt he, or you, could answer.

    The attitude you showed there is one I’ve gotten to deal with for most of my life, especially among the more formally educated.

    Chomsky may be able to draw up an historical linguistic diagram (that would be controversial and not agreed as correct by some of his peers) but I doubt he could diagram the wiring in the home he lives in.

    In the words of Will Rogers, “Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.”


  7. “Most of my friends are leftists. None of them hate America. Let me say this again in case you weren’t listening. None of us hate America.”

    Funny, EVERY Leftist I’ve ever known (and there are quite a few) hates America and considers it the root of all evil in the world.

  8. Roy W. Wright says:

    Depends on how you define America.

  9. Kalroy,

    “Chomsky may be able to draw up an historical linguistic diagram”

    Chomsky couldn’t do it. He’s not a historical linguist, and has no interest in historical linguistics.

    What he can do is draw diagrams of structures of supposed mental entities that no one has ever perceived (so they have to be taken on faith).

    I too could draw diagrams allegedly depicting what’s going on in your head, but would you take me seriously? I hope not.

    More here (and throughout my site):

  10. Kudos, Mace. You have just proven Atlas’ point.

  11. Mace, or anyone else of him persuasion. I hear this all the time. someone please explain how it is that we hate America. Is it that pointing out specific places where we think that America is wrong that you translate into hating America?

    This is a serious question. Please be specific.

  12. Atlas,

    I don’t know about Mr/Ms. Mace, but I can tell you that the American hating leftists I have met, or have had the misfortune of sitting in a classroom being taught by:

    1) Set up the premise that we were “evil” for opposing their pet ideology,
    2) Exclude all facts from their diatribes that would ever put America in a good light. For example, people who insist that Hiroshima & Nagasaki was only nuked only because Americans are racist, but will never acknowledge the Germans were our competitors for the bomb, that the Germans surrendered, and that the Japanese were still debating surrender even after the second bomb.
    3) Hold America to a completely different set of standards than they would ever dream of holding their favorite countries to (Castro’s Cuba is paradise, for example), and these arbitrary/inconsistent standards will never fail to put America in a bad light. So, for example, the prez is a fascist who is crushing their dissent, but actual fascists who actually put journalists in jail or kill them can be excused or ignored or indeed, praised.
    4)Hold the position that there is no such thing as a country/culture that is better than any other, and if there is such a country/culture it will not be the US/American; if it is possible that a country/culture is bad, the US/American will be the prime example of that badness — only a racist will think differently.
    5)Will claim that American domestic policy is evil for *not* going along with what they claim they want (for example, women’s rights), but will claim American foreign policy is evil for *doing* what they want, (for example, the women who complained first that we ignored the Taliban’s atrocities against women, and then complained when we were destroying the Taliban). No matter what position the US is taking, it is inherently wrong for taking it, any good done by this country can only have a venal motive, the “hey, the Iraqis are being murdered and wiped out for oil!!!” crowd.

    These are just a few from the top of my head. If you are not one of those people, well that is ever so cool: we are not talking about you.

  13. Richard Aubrey says:

    Leftists who claim not to hate America simply hate the fact that the America they love isn’t run like Cuba.
    They don’t hate America. They just hate whatever it is in America which precludes it being run just like Cuba.
    That means, in turn, they have to at least be suspicious of those who don’t want America to be run like Cuba.
    Maybe even hate them.
    Since being run like Cuba is a terrific idea, those in a position to misinform the rest of us–teachers in this case–must brainwash kids so that their dissatisfaction can be channeled toward actions which will lead to us being run like Cuba.
    But, no, they don’t hate America.

  14. JC, thank you for your reply, at least it is a start. I marvel at what different worlds we seem to live in.

    Point one: Setting up the premise that you are evil for opposing their point of view. If that is true, it is terrible teaching. I’ve personally never seen such malpractice myself, but I take you at your word. Is this a single teacher or were they all like this? By what percentage? And does
    this support your point of the person hating
    One more thing. Yes, I do hold America to a higher standard than other countries. If we are great, that is what makes us great. The defence of “well, we are no worse than them/, is beneath us.
    In good will,

    I’ll just pick one more since people tend to not read long posts. Let’s take Cuba. In the last thirty years I have not seen one single word suporting the proposition that Cuba is a paradise. Who is saying this to you?

  15. Atlas,

    This came from a teacher of mine (among others, but I am especially applying this to your question about Cuba, and she is the one who did this), who was supposed to be teaching us about Latin American history.

    She even brought in some Cubans to speak to us about Cuba and tell us about how wonderful it is, and how America is just wicked bad for being opposed to it, and that the only reason America opposes communism is because we want cheap oranges. I wish I was kidding.

  16. First, apologies to all for hijacking this topic. I still support the kid way back there at the top.

    Richard A. Once again, the Cuba thing. I’ve taught in four states plus overseas teaching. My daughter in law is Cuban. I pay attention to there things. I have never heard anything even remotely approaching what you say leftists are saying about Cuba. Please be specific. Who said this, when did they say it, where did they say it.

  17. Back to the actual topic for a sec — the kid. I applaud his efforts based on the story as written.

    However, I do agree with the assistant principal in that, if the kid’s actions become an impediment to the orderly educational process of the school, then there have to be limits. It seems this was done — no more hanging of posters, but allowed to distribute flyers to students in the cafeteria.

  18. Richard Aubrey says:

    For starters, you can check with the advocacy positions, sometimes known as “peace and justice” offices of the mainline (liberal) Protestant denominations.
    I traveled to Central America in 1987 with such a group, and they officially thought Cuba was terrific. One of them later joined the Latin American Working Group whose website when I checked it seemed to be devoted to making sure Cuba and Fidel are not inconvenienced.
    Whether or not people say Cuba is a paradise is not quite the point. The point is whether they want the US to be run like Cuba.

    See the American Library Association’s positive action to avoid speaking about the Cuban detention of Cuban librarians.

    It could go on, and in fact in any week, another example regarding Cuba specifically will surface.

    But beyond that, we have a broader question where the leftists’ lies about America must have some kind of motivation. If it is not to generate dissatisfaction which can be channeled in an anti-American direction, what is it?

    My kids were taught that the reason the atomic bomb was used on Japan and not Germany was racism. I had them look up the dates of Trinity, VE Day, and the bombing of Hiroshima. This information is not invisible to those who claim to be qualified to teach history. This moron apparently figured he had enough authority and that his colleagues in brainwashing had fixed the kids so nobody would bother thinking about it.
    My kids told their friends in the class, but the kids, being smart, didn’t let on. There were grades to consider.
    You don’t need many examples like this to start to wonder, which is still allowed. Too bad for the left.

  19. Anonymous says:

    I’m having to use my old computer today with a 14.4 modem, very slow and makes for overlap in these posts.

    So, you guys had some awful teachers. JC, when and where was this? But please don’t generalize this to the feelings of the whole left leaning population. Really, you can’t fixate on one bad experience. Heck, I listened to Rush Limbaugh one day. That doesn’t mean that I think all right wingers are arrogant thrice married drug addicts.
    Take that.

  20. Atlas,

    Your comment on your daughter-in-law: it has only recently occurred to me that these people my teacher (this was in college in Chicago) brought in may not have even been Cuban. They were definitely Spanish speaking people, and “looked” so, but I have wondered how anyone who made it to old age (they looked around 60) could have managed to avoid coming to the conclusion that this Castro’s Paradise business is just so much bull. IIRC, they were artists and they showed us photos of their house to show that it wasn’t so bad there, et cetera.

    I had given her (the teacher) the benefit of the doubt, even in spite of her turning the class into an ode to the joys of communism, but now I wonder if she really had the integrity not to try and fool us by bringing in say, a Columbian or someone to pass off as Cuban. The prof did say she had stayed in Cuba, which was why I believed her.

    Anyhow, I had long considered myself a liberal with some conservative beliefs thrown in, and when I finally understood that people like my professor were also supposed to be liberal, I began to feel like one of us was flying under false colors. In other words, do not assume that we are all of us here conservative or neo-con lib hating bashers. (It seemed like you felt that way, if I’m wrong, nevermind).

  21. Richard Aubrey says:

    When teaching world history, do we hear that the brave Soviets stood alone against Hitler?
    Do we hear the Soviets trained the Luftwaffe while the Treaty of Versailles forbade it? Do we hear that the Soviets and the Germans split Poland in 1939? Do we hear that the Soviets had a non-aggression pact with the Germans while Britain was standing alone? Do we hear that the Soviets sold the Germans raw materials up until June of 1941?
    Only the first one is a yes in high school history classes.
    After which we are told how mean the Western Allies were to the Soviets.
    My question is not merely about misinformation, but about the motivation.
    BTW, who killed the Poles at the Katyn Forest?

  22. Bob Diethrich says:

    uh back to the topic.

    I just loved the way this kid held his ground, kept his cool and refused to get into the name-calling that the other side clearly wanted to goad him into.

    Funny how all they could do is sputter “racist” as their fall back position, when confronted with his arguments, Uh……..I don’t know……it’s just….uh RACIST because it is!”


  23. Richard Aubrey says:

    Agreed, Bob.
    How much more obvious can the bankruptcy of this line of thinking be?

  24. Good idea to get back on topic. It is a great adventure that I am sure he will remember all his life. Good for him.
    We are viewing it through his lens though. He was calm, cool and master of the facts. Everyone else was floundering, ranting, incoherent, etc. I’d like to see at least one more opinion from someone who was there. But anyway, let’s hear it for the action takers like this kid.

  25. Richard Aubrey says:

    I e-mailed the principle noting, among other things, that the publicity about this issue is probably going to spread exponentially.
    I also asked him what he was going to do with the names he tried to get from the kid.
    I’ll let you know if he replies.

  26. Rita C. says:

    Yeah, I’ve had kids like this in my classes. I had one who wrote in an essay that he was going to convince even his “Birkenstock-wearing hippie English teacher” that some war or other was correct. This cracked me up. For one, I’m too young to be a hippie :). I do worry about those who are unable to distinguish between criticism and hate, which is a line I can see a 15-year-old blurring due to his psychological development, but have a harder time accepting in adults. I’m not happy when my child chooses to pick on another child, but that doesn’t mean I hate her. I love her and work to get her to behave better. I don’t hate my country because I think it does unjust things in some cases. I work to get it to quit doing that crap while supporting the good it does. Sometimes it’s hard to distinguish, I’ll readily admit that, and I’ll always err on the side of being a pacifist, but that doesn’t make me a communist or somebody who hates America.

    FWIW, I was married to a Cuban and I’ve never heard the idea of Cuba as paradise. Those I knew certainly missed their homeland, but there was a reason they lived in the U.S. and not Cuba. Of course, this is argument by anecdote. I believe you had an instructor who believed this, but I think you’re incorrect in extrapolating from this experience that all liberals love Cuba to distraction.

    Due to being a teacher, I’m pretty much required to attend college for most of my life. I’ve had some teachers who shared their political beliefs with the class, but I’ve never had one who ran the class like a political party meeting. I’ve had really lousy college instructors, but never any that completely ignored what was supposed to be taught in class (just one who came close, but she was more interested in sharing her love life with us).

  27. Richard Aubrey says:

    Of course most liberals don’t love Cuba to distraction. But few of them can think of much bad to say about it unless they’ve had to live there, which most take care to avoid.
    Liberals/progressives/radicals always believe that, come the revolution, they’ll be in charge. The restrictions which are inevitable in order to promote social wonderfulness will not apply to them.
    Liberals, for example, promoted low-cost public housing in Yonkers some years back, while taking care to live elsewhere, and called those who lived in Yonkers racists for objecting. So the fact that Cuba, or any other place liberals approve of is not a paradise is irrelevant. The non-paradise parts won’t apply to them.

  28. Walter E. Wallis says:

    “However, I do agree with the assistant principal in that, if the kid’s actions become an impediment to the orderly educational process of the school, then there have to be limits.”
    The problem is that people who tear down posters and disrupt discourse are not immediately and firmly punished for their disruption. The teacher who tore down posters should be in jail, stripped of any right to ever enter a school again. Administrators who allow wholesale theft of conservative newspapers without punishment should forfeit all pay and allowances. Whatever standards that are established must be applied equally to all, and they must be defensible standards, not just stupid zero whatevers.

  29. Rita C. says:

    How do you “take care to avoid” living in Cuba? Wouldn’t you have to go through a great deal of effort to emigrate to Cuba? You make it sound like not moving to Cuba is the same as picking my way around the goose poop at the local parks, that if I’m not especially careful, I might end up stepping onto a Cuban beach and cursing my luck.

  30. Richard Aubrey says:

    What world are you living in, Walter?
    The restrictions are only supposed to go one way.
    The disruption-of-education question is actually the government supporting the heckler’s veto. But only one kind of heckler.
    And schools, whose arrangements give the staff substantial power over the students, are particularly prone to one-waying it.

  31. Regarding the professor: She is not the sole basis for my view of the lib/lefty people who love Cuba tangent, but rather is the most extreme and egregious example in my life with regards to Cuba and communism. There are other people who provide the general America-hating perspective that I wrote about to Atlas. I am not so irrational that I would just assume anything about a group based on one person, but rather I was exposed to so much of this junk from so many different corners, and what really ticked me off is the sheer dishonesty in it: few would just come out and admit where they were coming from it was just supposed to be understood that anyone who disagrees with them is racist, fascist, evil, et cetera.

    I am glad that the rest of you teachers do not think that this was acceptable for my prof, but I have to say as a student it has soured me on the idea that I should ever attempt to learn history in school at all: I’ll just read about it on my own. I don’t have the time to find out if future profs are indoctrinators or educators.

  32. Richard Aubrey says:

    Rita, it’s a figure of speech. As in, “the people who pushed bussing in South Boston took care not to live in South Boston”, or the legislators who oppose school vouchers take care to put their kids in private schools or move to the wealthy suburbs”. In the latter case, there is some positive action involved, so it is perhaps not the best example.
    But you get the point.

  33. I do get the point, and I disagree with it. Do you really believe all liberals prescribe for others what they are not willing to live with themselves?

  34. Richard Aubrey` says:

    Precisely. There may be exceptions, but the unpleasant prescriptions generally do not apply to their liberal advocates.
    Do you really think everybody who moved out of Detroit in the last twenty years was a conservative?
    See Edsall and Edsall on liberalism. They are liberals who think, AFAICT, that the problem with liberalism is inadequate marketing. I will get the name of the book.
    They have a paragraph which tells more than they know.
    They refer to the policeman passed over for promotion by a black with lower scores. They refer to a third-shift worker raped by somebody let out of jail early. They refer to the early commuters on the subway who have to deal with the deinstitutionalized demented. They refer to the single mother of two whose children are bussed to distant and unfamiliar schools.
    This, they say, shows that, to many, liberalism’s promises have failed. What they either missed or don’t think worth mentioning (possibly because it’s so obvious, but given their orientation I doubt it) is that the victims in these cases are all the powerless, while the libs are not working third shift at a downtown hospital, not cops, not riding the early bus with the mental cases, and not finding their children bussed to distant and unfamiliar schools.
    So, to answer your question; almost entirely.

  35. Ah Richard, can’t let you have the last point. The one about the third shift at the hospitals. That work is socially responsible, poorly paid, carries little status. This means that it is the almost exclusive domain of the liberals.

  36. That explains a great deal. We run in very, very different circles. Since you’re a conservative, are YOU working third shift in a hospital, a cop, or a school teacher in an urban school district? And if not, on what do you base your solutions to the problems of the inner city and poor? And do yours work? I know liberals who are all those things your book mentions (members of my family, actually). Maybe we’re all just unempowered victims of the system, as your authors imply.

    BTW, my understanding of the emptying of the mental hospitals is that it wasn’t a liberal idea, but a conservative one — ie., let’s cut taxes and the budget by closing these places down. And yes, I’ve ridden the bus and train with them, stepped over them on the way out of my apartment in the morning, etc.

  37. Bob Diethrich says:


    You touch on an idea that I have had for some time. One of those “If I ran the world” utopian, fantasies that I come up with periodically.

    For instance:

    * Every person that donates time to pro life organizations should spend at least six hours a week volunteering to take care of the child of a single working Mother (once shut my pro life Dad up suggesting he do that one)

    * Every lawyer for the ACLU must either: live for a year in the South Bronx, East St. Louis etc. or spend time in an enlightened country like Sudan or Zimbabwe

    * Every politician voting for war should have at least one child under arms

    * Every person criticing teachers and educators should spend at least six months with a teacher in a poor school district.

    Ah, if I ran the world…. 🙂

  38. In response: “Mace, or anyone else of him persuasion. I hear this all the time. someone please explain how it is that we hate America. Is it that pointing out specific places where we think that America is wrong that you translate into hating America?”

    I’ve listened to a fair a number of rants by Leftists (one being a former college teacher of mine – no surprise) where the sole topic was how much they hated the whole concept of America (definition – the U.S.). Pure, vicious, hateful invective for 30+ minutes with lots of Noam Chomsky (a medal for what?) references about our evil effect on the world, social injustice (that can only be cured via Socialism) and comments like “Nobody should make over $50,000 per year”, “Capitalism promotes greed and corruption”, etc, etc. Lots of stuff right out of the Manifesto.

    My observation is that these folks believe in the superiority of Socialism, i.e. Utopias, the nanny-state, equality of outcome, and that there’s no such thing as personal responsibilty. America was founded on quite different principles and its demonstrable success in achieving “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” represents serious competition to a Socialist “heaven on Earth.” That, I suppose, is why they hate America, the ideology of the Left is substantially at odds with the principles of this country.

  39. Richard Aubrey says:

    Atlas, the nurses on that shift may be liberals, but my guess is that, certainly after if not before one of their number is raped, they’d have a different view of letting rapists out of jail than the chattering-class liberals who would never work there.
    Emptying mental hospitals was a joint effort. It started with looking at abuses. It continued with trying to save money. It got worse when the folks were, by liberals who thought, for example, that schizophrenia is a lifestyle choice, relieved of being forcibly medicated. No solution possible can pass the liberals. Some years ago, when it got really cold one week in New York, the mayor sent out busses and had cops hauling the demented to shelters. Rights groups ran along side yelling to these poor, confused folks, “You don’t have to go.” which is an idea they would apply to anything that might solve the problem.
    Bob, I am not sure I share your fantasy.
    We don’t criticize teachers as much as we criticize the output. The difference is that, if we don’t like GM because they make lousy cars, we can freely choose Fords. The liberals make such choices particularly difficult in the area of education which leaves us with no recourse but to criticize the educrats. We don’t critcize GM’s workers. There’s no point. We just buy a different car.
    Your fantasy about war presumes it’s all voluntary. What about our being attacked?
    I do like the ACLU bit, though, because that’s a more direct connection.
    How about everybody who thinks violent criminals should have shorter sentences put one up in the spare bedroom? Just until they get on their feet.
    For the record, I’m in the insurance business, am a vet, sit one evening a week with a retarded kid (actually autism plus bad stuff) so the parents can get destressed, and have two grown kids. Wife, daughter, daughter in law and her sisters, are teachers.
    Education folks pretend that any criticism of education is a criticism of teachers, which is a Very Bad Thing because all teachers are dedicated, competent and caring. In fact, much criticism has to do with administration, discipline, organization, and so forth. It suits the educrats to go along with the pretense that all criticism is a criticism of teachers.
    So putting a critic of education into an inner-city school wouldn’t address the issues. I’d say, put a superintendant into a locked room with a couple of dozen parents.

  40. I have to agree with Richard on this one, Rita. Many of the most fervent, all-the-way-to-the-left folks are putting lots of energy into passing laws and making rules that require everyone to behave and think as they do.

    Dissent must be stifled, because it makes people feel bad. Can’t express an opinion that differs from that of the left, or the raised voices immediately start yelling. “Racist!” “Bigot!” “Uncle Tom!” “Zionist!” “Imperialist!” For evidence, see all the continuing focus on speech codes and ‘hate speech’. It started in the universities, spread to the lower schools, and hence outward into the rest of America. A black kid can pick out a random white kid that he doesn’t know and start yelling things like “You white m-rs are always trying to screw us blacks! You hate us and you’re conspiring to keep us down and keep us from having our piece o the American dream!” Liberals stand around and smile and nod sagely; the young black is just verbalizing their own beliefs and feelings. Then the young white boy responds: “You blacks just want something for nothing! That’s all affirmative action is – gving you something you haven’t earned, just because of your skin color!” Watch the liberals’ mouths drop open and the frowns begin. They will then immediately begin to hush up the white boy, and may even threaten him with punishment, expulsion, or legal action. After all, he said words that are hurtful to the black boy’s sensibilities. But no one ever worries about the insults to the white boy, or whether his feelings are hurt. The white boy was born long after slavery ended, long after the Civil Rights Act. He’s never personally done anything to this black boy, or to any other blacks because of their skin color. ‘Irrelevant’ say the liberals. ‘His skin is white; therefore, he is guilty just because people who had the same skin color as him did terrible things to other people who had the same skin color as this poor black boy here. We must protect the black boy’s feelings because they’re fragile and he can be easly harmed for life.’ ‘But what about the white boy’s feelings?’ you ask. ‘Irrelenvant’ the liberals reply, ‘White are supposed to suck it up. They have everything handed to them, and their feelings don’t matter. They’re the oppressors.’ The black kid is free to say any hateful things he wants to the white kid, but the white kid isn’t allow to say anything back, or even allowed to express disagreement with the black kid for fear of being labeled ‘racist’ or ‘bigot’ or whatever. I’ve seen it many times, and so have many, many of you.

    This scene plays out many, many times all over the U.S. Liberals don’t seem to see a problem with it, in any of its variations.

    What’s worse, most of the left can’t seem to distinguish between hateful insults and rational, objective discussion of issues. For a white to even say the word ‘nigger’ is cause for a tremendous outcry, even if the context is that the white said ‘One of the most hateful, hurtful words anyone can say is ‘nigger’, and I never want to hear any of you students say such a terrible word.’ Nope, the word got said by a white; doesn’t matter the context, let’s go lynch him. Black guys says it to his buddies on national television? That’s different – cultural differences. Can’t criticize that, especially if you’re white. You have no right to criticize black people’s behavior, even if they loudly and repeatedly criticize yours.

    I think they call it ‘double standards’.

    So does that answer some liberals’ questions as to why conservatives tend to get a bit hostile toward them sometimes? Bigotry is hard to swallow; sanctimonious bigotry masquerading as self-righteousness is nauseating and infuriating.

    Sorry to rant, but it’s been that kind of day. My company’s going through a downsizing, and several folks were let go for poor performance. They knew it, they’d been warned about it and coached about it for 2-3 years. Yet they’re yelling ‘racism’ and running off to file grievances and lawsuits. It could never be their performance that wasn’t acceptable; after all, they’ve actually been showing up to work. Quality of work? What’s that, some kind of right-wing conspiracy? I’ll go away quietly and take my Prozac…

  41. Mace and Aubrey,

    First, capitalism does promote greed and corruption. Are you saying it doesn’t? Read the newspaper. This is why you can’t just let it run wild. We have to have a few laws addressing the subject. I am certainly not against capitalism, but I am not blind to the fact that it does indeed promote greed and corruption.

    Next, I do run in these circles and never heard a single one of them press for letting rapists out of prison. Please forward the name of an actual human being who said that. And quote them exactly please.

  42. You have a right to think that way, Claire, but your reality doesn’t match mine. I’ve never heard anyone say that rapists should be let out of prison early, and least of all my fellow lefties volunteering in prison programs.

    Do people cry racism when none exists? Absolutely. See my post in the institutional racism thread. I deal with it on a regular basis.

    To your cries of “Bigot!” “Racist!” etc., I’ll add the cries of “America Hater!” Do you not think that makes my skin crawl? Do you want to hurt my sensibilities, make me angry at you? I won’t defend insults hurled by liberals. I don’t think they’re right either, but I also don’t buy the line “but they started it!” Then you end it. Take some personal responsiblity.

  43. Claire, Cutting you some slack. Letting people go under any circumstances is an ugly task, ruining everybody’s day. No one with a heart can take pleasure in it. Take care.

  44. Richard Aubrey says:

    Atlas, look at liberals and sentencing guidelines, truth-in-sentencing, three-strikes. In all of those issues, liberal activities are aimed at reducing the time criminals, including violent criminals, spend in jail.
    Corruption is a matter of definition. What we would consider normal economic activity is illegal as blackmarketing, or worse, in China, for example.
    Capitalism does not “breed” corruption or greed. Capitalism provides an arena for the corrupt and greedy to work out. So do all other systems. Capitalism is the system which provides the quickest fixes. In some systems, complaining about corruption could be hazardous to your health. See Saddaam Hussein.
    “Greed” is legal. Your objection to it is esthetic. It may, or may not, generate illegal activities, but you have no right to mess with somebody’s head. Only their activities. And even then, your esthetic sense is irrelevant.

  45. We’ve certainly torn up a lot of turf today. I’ve enjoyed it. Made me consider my positions and marshal my thoughts.
    Forward cried the voices and of the many one was mine.

  46. “First, capitalism does promote greed and corruption.”

    So does Socialism – people by their very nature will be corrupt and greedy. Not all people, but enough. I just something about the local goverment corruption in San Jose, Ca. This kind of corruption goes on all the time.

    One of the inherent differences between the Left and the right is the view of the inherent nature of mankind. The Left seems to think that humans can be “conditioned” to behave properly (usually by force). The Right understands the nature of mankind as an imperfect being. Laws and incentives must be designed appropriately.

    I’ve worked both in the public and private sectors and I maintain that you can not tell the senior managers apart – they’re both into BIG power, perks, and money. Corruption exists in both places.

    I think of Socialism as being one LARGE corporation that controls everything (talk about monopolies!) and has the legal right to kill you if it so deems. At least corporations can’t kill you legally. I’ve often thought of the history of mankind as the struggle of many groups trying to exercise their control over the remainder of society. I think my chances for freedom are much better in a de-centralized political/economic system. When the sole governmental entity is corrupt, what do the people do? In the former USSR, they’re sent to the gulag. In North Korea, they starve. With the current U.N., you have bribes courtesy of the oil-for-food program. There’s a pattern here.

  47. Michael says:

    I’ve never met a liberal who wasn’t a patriot. I’ve met a number of conservatives who were patriots, but I’ve also met conservatives who hated the constitution, and hated any vision of America that wasn’t their own. The latter truly hate America.

  48. Or in the United States where at the whim of the president you may be declared an enemy combatant or an illegal combatant and vanish forever. Hey this is only for the despicable America haters. Nothing to worry about for us patriots, right?

  49. Richard Brandshaft says:

    “America-hating leftists.”

    Ah, conservatives. Which is more anti-patriotic: criticizing one’s country or balking at war taxes?

    Conservatives are the shallowest patriots. Big on the flag, big on the Pledge of Allegiance, big on calling anyone who disagrees with them unpatriotic, big on sending other people off to die.

    But they will not accept the slightest inconvenience to themselves, including paying taxes in war time. Conservatives give new meaning to the notion of the rich, whining spoiled brat. What’s it going to take before we give them exactly the respect they deserve? A 9/11 with nukes?

  50. carol sm says:

    Ay carumba. To paraphrase a line you used in an earlier post: Name one person (who did not work to commit, or help to commit, some kind of act of aggression/hostility/war against the US) who was declared an enemy combatant/illegal combatant and has vanished forever? Just one.
    Yes, this patriot(who is a vet and was a liberal at that time) has nothing to worry about and neither does any other patriot or America-hater of the left or right persuasion.

  51. Hey, fine so far Carol. I’ve just seen too much mission creep in my time. Today we have a couple of obvious bad guys. Next time maybe it is probably bad guys Then their relatives. Am I just being paranoid about this? We have a White House filled with draft avoiding super hawks whose first impulse is blow places up, just in case. Iraq comes to mind.
    More to say but wife calling

  52. Anonymous says:

    My prediction: Yes atlas you are just being paranoid. Mark the date and time. Meet me here in a few years—-if you’ve not become one of the disappeared, lol.

  53. Come hide in the mountains of NH with me.
    I’ll never let ’em take you alive.

    Seriously you are most probably right. Hope so. It is just that the stakes are really high.

    My god, it is now us liberals that are warning to watch out for the government. What’s wrong with this picture.

  54. Richard Aubrey says:

    What’s wrong, Atlas?
    It’s not your government to do with as you wish.
    Keep in mind that most of what you pretend to fear as a tactic of slagging the Republicans is a result of liberal expansion of the state. It didn’t occur to the liberals that, having invented the mechanisms, they wouldn’t be forever in control of the levers.
    Dumb. Really dumb.

  55. Richard, it is insulting to say that I am pretending to fear something as a tactic to slag the Republicans. We disagree on some things, but I take your thoughts as honest thoughts. Please do the same for me.

  56. Richard Aubrey says:

    Okay, Atlas. You really fear it.
    The rest of the post stands. The levers aren’t in your hands and it scares you. It ought to, considering the power the levers control.
    Should have thought of that earlier.

  57. Mark Odell says:

    atlas wrote: My god, it is now us liberals that are warning to watch out for the government. What’s wrong with this picture.

    Are you familiar with the saying that “A government that’s big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have”? Are you just now realizing this? If so, welcome to the party — a bit late.

  58. You guys seem to be confusing me with someone who voted for Mr. Bush. He and his chicken hawk cadre and the entire United States congress have been in power for four years. The government has screamingly more power now and is more than anxious to use it now.

  59. Richard Aubrey says:

    Atlas, you wanted to be credited with honest thoughts.
    I don’t know that that’s a good idea. Your implication that the power of the government only started to get intrusive with Bush can only be honestly believed by a moron.
    So I’ll revert, instead of calling you a moron.
    You know better. We know better. We know you know better. You just found out we know better.
    Now what?

  60. Richard, you are determined to hear only what you want to hear. I said that the government has more power after four years of control of the legislative and executive branches. I didn’t say that it started four years ago. In fact I don’t think it had a specific starting point.
    Can we be a little less mean spirited while discussing this?

  61. Richard Aubrey says:

    Got anything since Bush came in like Waco or Ruby Ridge?
    Did you follow the subsequent hearings? They did that stuff because, like Clinton, they could. Nothing else to it.
    It was the liberals who made sure that the concept of due process, in matters of speech codes and sexual harassment on campus, was pitched overboard as an inconvenience.
    It’s the liberals who want a federal registry of gun barrel markings so the ATF can raid the last known legal owner of a gun used in a crime.
    Now, do you have any examples of screamingly dangerous government intrusiveness SINCE Bush came in?

  62. General Lee says:

    I’m seeing a lot of “code words” in these comments.

    draft avoiding super hawks
    shallowest patriots
    personal responsibilty
    bigoted elitist
    orderly educational process

    I’m definitely detecting a lot of self righteousness. You know who you are.

  63. “The government has screamingly more power now and is more than anxious to use it now.”

    Atlas, perhaps a little historical perspective will set your mind at rest. Review the status of civil liberties during WWI and WWII (neither of which involved an attack on the American mainland). I think you’ll feel better.

  64. Please forgive me for straying off on a tangent and addressing a posting from several weeks ago, but I’m new to this forum and found something that really bugs me. Atlas, on June 23, you described yourself as “65, pretty smart with way past a master’s degree, and 42 years of teaching experience.” The next day, you wrote “My daughter in law is Cuban. I pay attention to there things.” I’m incredulous that someone who has so much teaching experience still cannot distinguish the difference between “there” and “their.” Such a mistake can only be expected of elementary school students, and for that reason I have to seriously doubt the merit and value of anything that comes out of your mouth. You may argue that it was simply a careless mistake, but I will argue that after 42 years of teaching and earning something “way past a master’s degree,” an educated individual would not make such a rudimentary yet obvious error.

  65. I think only the way far left hate America but it’s awfully hard for a socialist to love America. It seems the left wants to turn the US into one, big France. They also have a totalitarian, collectivist mind-set that flies in the face of this nations ideals. Right now, it is the left that is the most reactionary, unreasonable, self-righteous and intolerant group in America. Forget about honest discourse – the left will have none of it. The “intellectuals” on campus get all the respect from the average American that is given to a bucket of nails. They are so steeped in leftist ignorance and stupidity they can’t understand that Hitler was, of course, a socialist. Free enterprise and democracy are totally incompatable. Not to mention the USSR and China under Mao murdered countless millions. No matter to the left. The end justifies the means of their Marxist fantasies. I believe what Ayn Rand believed: Leftists are evil people propounding a sick, evil philosophy (collectivism) that the 20th century proved to be evil and murderous. No matter to the left. It never has been and never will be. The left simply does not believe in the right of the individual over the so-called “rights” of the collective. The 20th century vividly illustrated the results wether it was Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or Castros island-prison makes no difference to them.