Another Day, Another Shameless Smear of Breitbart
PJTV was at the RightOnline conference in Minneapolis this past weekend: Stephen Kruiser and I were there to hear from bloggers and presidential candidates and to present a panel of our own.
In the same city — and the same hotel! — the left-leaning Netroots Nation conference was also happening.
You may have heard that Andrew Breitbart had an incident when he walked over to the NRN conference. Before he could comply with security requests to obtain media credentials or leave the floor, he was surrounded by NRN bloggers asking him a host of questions. The most prominent questioner was Ryan Clayton, founder of USUNCUT.org — an organization focused on closing loopholes for corporations as a way to get them to pay more taxes.
He asked Breitbart: “Do you still use cocaine?”
He then asked Breitbart about a “right-wing blogger” who allegedly screamed “go home” to a group of Muslim women on Thursday night. Clayton claimed that the “blogger” in question was associated with Andrew Breitbart. (Click here for video.) When pressed by Breitbart for the name of the blogger, Clayton did not have it.
This was not the end of attempts to smear using this story.
On Saturday, I was finishing up an interview with Michigan Representative (and potential presidential candidate) Thaddeus McCotter when a group of about 15 women in hijabs gathered behind us.
They began a “press conference” denouncing Clayton’s accused “right-wing blogger.” Others came from the NRN event to witness the theater: someone dreamed up this spectacle to shame attendees of the RightOnline conference with an unproven, unsubstantiated event.
Soon into the press conference, I started asking the women questions.
Was there a police report? They said “yes.” I asked if they had the report, or the name of the alleged blogger: “no.”
By my third question, the women were obviously flustered that their press conference had attracted … questions. A man in an orange shirt wearing a Netroots Nation registration tried to calm the women and focus them on the stunt.
I asked if the man in the orange shirt was in charge of the press conference, but the women had decided to leave. Security had begun asking them to go, and they were well on their way down the escalator and out the door.
The full video can be found here.
Later that night, PJM learned that a blogger from Minnesota named John Hugh Gilmore had been arrested on Thursday night for disorderly conduct. According to tweets from witness and NRN attendee Jamila Boudlali, VP of the Al-Madinah Cultural Center, the man was “super creepy and drunk.” She also wrote: ”Who takes pictures of random girls in the street?”
Gilmore has absolutely no connection to Andrew Breitbart, and Boudlali even tweeted that she had no evidence of any: “Also, we have ZERO info that had any connection 2 breitbart.”
Ms. Boudlali then sent me a series of tweets on Saturday night. She has since deleted them, though none of her messages were rude or offensive in any way. One confirmed that the man in question appeared, to her, to be drunk.
What is now known about Gilmore: he is not listed as a contributor on any Andrew Breitbart website. He has only put up two posts in the last two months on his own blog. And not only is there no evidence that Gilmore had any ties to Breitbart, no evidence has come forward of Gilmore making any claim to work for him, either.
Andrew Breitbart represents the future of journalism in this country. Mark my words, he will be known as the Joseph Pulitzer of the 21st century. And I think we are in very good hands.
They can’t get away with it anymore.
As someone who was there, I’d like to say a few things.
I was the person blocking John Gilmore’s passage. What you can’t see in the video is that he had been repeatedly coming back over to this group of young women, saying hateful things whilst shoving his camera in their faces demanding that he could take their photos, though they had clearly said they did not want their photos taken and some of them were crying. Though this is at the tail end and he has become quiet because he has lost the ability to be the aggressor, he was still trying to approach them. At all times I was simply standing between him and them. So, I’m not blocking is passage of the sidewalk, I’m blocking him from approaching them, yet again. Once he stayed at a distance, I let him be.
I agree with you that this incident was not about Andrew Breitbart, other than the fact that John Gilmore evoked his name, demonstrating that he thought Breitbart and the political faction Breitbart represents would have supported what he was doing.
I am dismayed that the story continues to be discussed in terms of Breitbart. The story is really one of a bigoted bully harassing innocent women on the street. For at least one of them it was traumatic because it was not the first incident of the day. Quite aggressively lewd things had been spewed at them earlier. It was heartbreaking to see how frightened they were. Even you, here, are perpetuating a partisan battle rather than addressing the core issue. What everyone could simply be writing about is this: “we do, in this country, stand by as people are harassed particularly with hate speech.” You could be affirming the rights of these women to walk down the street in peace. You could be disowning the bullying behavior. This is something we could all be doing in unity.
Instead you are using the incident and any imperfections in communication to further your partisan divide. Let’s say the women involved got some details wrong. They were traumatized. They are human. Still, John Gilmore did what he did. There were many, many witnesses whom the police spoke with before arresting him. Is Andrew Breitbart really the victim in the story? He has made himself a public figure and he opts for very aggressive and sometimes misleading tactics to do his work. These women were simply standing on a public sidewalk. Please focus on that.
“Even you, here, are perpetuating a partisan battle rather than addressing the core issue.”
This piece doesn’t “perpetuate” any such battle. It attempts to set straight a vicious smear against Andrew Breitbart. There is no “core issue” that trumps all other discussion, rendering those other issues unfit for discussion. You’re basically saying that no one should defend Breitbart from the vicious attacks against him because…
“Is Andrew Breitbart really the victim in the story?”
…Right. This is not a game of “Who’s the biggest victim?” here; that’s a Leftist trope to assign points to various classes of victimhood. The rules for the game aren’t published, but I’ve been able to figure out that women are considered bigger victims than men, and Muslims are bigger victims than Jews, making these women much higher on the Victim Hierarchy.
Of course no one is in favor of drunken jerks verbally assaulting women. That is why the guy was arrested.
what smear?
Yes, of course everyone has empathy for innocent women being harassed by anyone. But it has become standard Alinskyite tactics for the left to blame everything that is wrong on the right, regardless of who is at fault.
We have empathy for congresspeople shot by lunatics – blame it on Palin. We empathize with blacks subjected to racism – blame it on Limbaugh. We can have empathy for the existence of the poor – blame it on Republicans.
Should we simply stand by and empathize while the left shamelessly lies? They make up stuff all the time, distort the facts the rest of the time to fit their political agenda.
And speaking of “journalistic ethics” as it applies to the old media, that is simply an oxymoron. There is no such thing for them, nor principles nor standards nor morals when it comes to doing what has degenerated into “journalism”. Winning for Marxism is the only thing that matters.
what was made up? there are police records of the arrest. which part is made up?
“They were traumatized.”
They need to grow up.
“they should grow up”. Nice. Were you there? Do you know exactly how he treated them? Was it your 3rd time being harassed in one day? I’m not sure how someone who wasn’t in their shoes feels justified making such a statement. And why no one here has anything to say against it.
So Allison, what’s the deal with the press conference in which Netroots tried to connect Breitbart with what Gilmore did?
Are you defending that?
No, Bill, I don’t defend. I though it was juvenile and beneath dignity and a disservice to civil discourse.
Allison, I sincerely thank you for saying that.
Yes Allison, what of the press stunt attempting to connect Breitbart to the drunk man? Nobody is in favor of men (drunk or not) assaulting women on the street (verbally or otherwise) and only a hardcore ideologue would believe otherwise. Every time the left, whether it be main stream media or nutroots media, make an attempt to smear Breitbart (and by extension the “right wing”) they fall flat on the backsides and only those who stay in their little left tilted online world (KOS, Alternet etc.) continue to believe the lies, smears and utter BS of the left.
So again, Allison, what of the attempt to smear Breitbart with that “press” stunt?
Breitbart was connected to the incident because the alleged perpetrator said he was connected to Breitbart. As can be seen in the linked video – Stop trying to blame the “liberal media” for the actions of one of your own -
http://youtu.be/15SEXyOU8iI
So, you believe and if anyone stands up and claims affiliation, that’s good enough? That’s called lack of query, lack of investigation. You know, the part journalists claim they do and do well and seldom do at all anymore.
Breitbart was connected to the incident because the alleged perpetrator said he was connected to Breitbart.
A drunk shouting a well-know person’s name: that’s certainly grounds for orchestrating a circus blaming that person.
Hey, at least no one was hospitalized.
Thats exactly the type of agenda driven non professional, lack of investigating left wing biased journalism we have come to expect of the Lame Stream EneMedia. And you defense of it is just what we have come to expect from braindead moonbats too.
That’s just brilliant. Brilliant. Unknown and intoxicated person makes assertion, but you and media twits can’t form a single thought that involves critical analysis, and so you come to this conclusion that Breitbart is, indeed, connected.
Are you also the smartest person in whatever room you are in ? (Must be the bathroom.)
Kender, I’m not sure what stunt was trying to smear Breitbart. If you’re referring to our action of going up the escalator in hijab, that wasn’t about Breitbart. We’ve always said that Gilmore called out his name, but that we know this doesn’t mean Breitbart had anything to do with it. If other people have gone beyond that, it’s irresponsible, unless they have some evidence of which I’m not aware. Our only point was that this man clearly thought that he was aligned with rhetoric of Breitbart. He’s the one who brought him up, not us. Unfortunately his name gets mentioned and somehow this all becomes about Breitbart and how he has been smeared.
Allison.
If you regret that the focus of the story is on Briebart, rather than the harassment incident itself, and the harassor, you should direct your ire at those on the left who lied about the incident, and incorectly attempted to blame it on Briebart. They are the ones that made it a Briebart story, rather than a harassment story, Briebart was merely defending himself against slander. If you are investigating the harassment incident, perhaps you should also find out who on the left is to blame for incorrectly trying to point the finger on Briebart. They need to be found out, and criticised, for as you say “incorrectly focussing the story on Briebart”.
who did that? we weren’t doing that, at all.
Allsion, here is the problem with Minneapolis and its colleges:
Muslim Students Association, Malaysian Student Association, Pakistani Student Association, Somali Student Association, Persian Student Organization of Minnesota, Oromia Student Union, the Turkish American Student Association, La Raza Student Cultural Center, Asian-American Student Union, American Indian Student Cultural Center, Disabled Student Cultural Center, Queer Student Cultural Center, the Black Student Union, Women’s Student Activist Collective, and Minnesota International Students Association.
I doubt if you’ll understand but it goes something like this: bigots and racists tend to attract like minds. Try going outside some time and imagining not being a victim or huddling by race and religion and try joining a club where the first and most important thing is what the club actually does. Enlightenment will follow.
You’re screwing America and have not the least idea why. You set up de facto enemies by your very activities which say you need or want such organizations in the first place. Is this why these people came to America or is it the vision others born here have of America?
It’s not much of a vision.
Breitbart is not a guy I’d want to piss off. He may have been born and raised in SoCal, with it’s attendant super-relaxed, cultural laissez-faire attitude, but somehow he ended up with the tenacity of a bulldog.
I’m with you Libertyship46, Andrew is going to be quite the legend by the time he is finished, and good on him for it.
So I am to believe that one drunken bully intimidated 15 women, using mere “hateful” words and demanding to photograph them, to the point they were defenseless and weeping for mercy? Maybe they should have slugged the jerk. Oh the humanity! Oh the poor victims of the vast right wing conspiracy! Hell, they’re muslim women. Muslim men can beat them if they wish to. They could be stoned to death for being alone with a strange man in any Islamic country. Give me a break.
Ugh. It wasn’t 15 women. It was about 4 or 5. And he was yelling and being physically aggressive. How is it that so many people who weren’t there feel they can judge how these women should have felt. He was frightening. He was so persistently aggressive they were concerned he would hurt them. That’s why people got in between him and them. And, yes, people who are not used to overly aggressive, nearly violent behavior, who aren’t violent themselves, can be intimidated.
Where is your humanity? The man wasn’t arrested because he just said a few things.
As for what became an event on Saturday, I was there, as well. Having protected the women on Thursday they asked me to join them in a walk up an escalator. In a post-traumatic moment they wanted to regain some of their dignity by standing up for their right be the US-born citizens of this country that they are. Since Breitbart’s name had been evoked and we had learned that Gilmore was a right wing blogger, the question was, “do they really have a kneejerk reaction when seeing women in a headscarf? Without knowing the women?”
It doesn’t matter whether Gilmore was registered at Right Online. He made an association. They felt the need to find out how the right wing bloggers would treat them.
I can tell you with certainty that the plan – which wasn’t much of a plan because it an action thought of only an hour prior and hastily put together as we found scarves for women who didn’t normally wear them – was simply to go up to the escalator, ask for access to the 3rd floor elevator and to leave. Now, with a group, it takes a moment to gather everybody back up and coordinate a next movement. So, when we were told that we could not access the elevator we were preparing to head back down, when someone approached us about making a statement. In retrospect, perhaps we should have declined. It’s difficult in that moment, to be that wise, as we were suddenly swarmed by cameras, bright lights and microphones and from our perspective we felt quite hemmed in. In fact, I felt bullied by some cameraman who kept jamming his camera into my back.
The escalator would not have been blocked if that had not happened. And it could be argued, that if you’re hosting an event with hundreds of people, you might not want the cordon in a position which creates such a tiny foyer space at the top of a publicly accessed escalator. Simply food for thought.
Our little stroll up an escalator should have been a non-event. As I had passed by Right Online conference rooms/gathering in small groups several times over the previous two days, getting off the elevator taking us to the skyway for our conference (why is your conference in the same hotel ours is in? Isn’t that provocative?), I’m fairly certain that had we not had scarves on our head there would not have been the reaction we received. Whether you feel we were blocking the escalator or not, the press, the Right Online staff and the hotel staff need to take responsibility for their reaction. It went from a small group of women at the top of the escalator to a larger crowd. We didn’t ask all those people to surround us. In fact, it was intimidating. What I have experienced in all of this is that our “press” is not about journalism. Both sides are being bullies to those they question whom they believe to on the other side of a partisan divide. I have made sure to make this complaint to a left wing “reporter”, as well. I put these words in quotes, because you don’t seem to be reporting from the perspective of open-minded journalism seeking a truth. You are crafting stories to support a narrative. It is this pre-scripted narrative and the bullying mentality and our calling people who bully others “leaders” which is eroding the civil society here. Almost every problem we face would get better if we identified and stood up to bullying.
We were a group of women at the top of an escalator affirming that we have a right to our civil rights and full citizenship and to be treated with respect regardless of religious or political affiliation. The reaction we received only served to highlight why we would even feel the need to affirm that.
So why was it okay for the overly aggressive questioning? Why the continued peppering of “what was his name?!” At that moment we could recall his name. We were distraught by what was happening to us. And it was moot. Because it’s not about his name. It’s not about whether he was from Right Online. It’s not about whether Breitbard had anything to do with it. It was an opportunity for everyone to support their message that they do not deserve to be harassed and bullied. Instead we were harassed and bulled, yet again. And it continues online with the use of our story to push your partisan politics. Why can’t you simply say, “the folks at Right Online, in the press and from the hotel probably should have just ignored them.”? That would have been a brilliant story for all to tell.
But you keep on attacking us because the way it went down was imperfect (just an excuse for bullying) and we’ll see how that serves our civil society. I hope that we all find some peace, compassion and the ability to co-exist without ratcheting every disagreement up to such hyperbolic rhetoric. Thank you.
How DARE you whine about your treatment after the way your fellows mobbed Breitbart.
How DARE you whine about civility after one of your fellows assaulted Michelle Bachman.
Grow up. Get over yourself. Stop thinking that being treated like an adult is “overly agressive”. YOU WENT THERE TO MAKE A STATEMENT, AND NOW YOU’RE WHINING BECAUSE YOUR STATEMENT WAS QUESTIONED.
I had nothing to do with what happened to Breitbart and I have repeatedly spoken out against it. That being wrong doesn’t make what happened to us right. Are we in kindergarten?
It is a shame that we’ve come to believe that uncivil, aggressive, bullying behavior is being treated like an adult. If you weren’t there, how dare you presume to know how it felt? I find it very interesting that so many people who weren’t there think they know better what happened than those who were.
I’m sure you all know the story of the blind men and the elephant…. Even if you’ve seen videos which show a part of what went down, you can’t get a real sense of everything that was going on without being there. I’ve now gotten a first hand experience of just how distorted things get reported. It’s fascinating. Also, sad.
“So, a slice of the American citizenry is Muslim. Many of the those Muslim women wear hijab. If you’d like to understand why, ask them. Don’t presume to know. Don’t presume that you have superior ideas or that you are ‘really supporting them’ by trying to convince them that they shouldn’t.”
That’s your friend Una at the Kos, blowing up an incident with a single drunk into an indictment of America. Yeah, it kindergarten and it’s the Kos.
When your ostensible opposites do that exact thing you call it Islamophobia. So, what do you call yourself? Isn’t all that smug and arrogant moralizing just a bit much to project onto America from a single drunk? Disgusting, really disgusting and you don’t have a leg to stand on with this – none.
“(why is your conference in the same hotel ours is in? Isn’t that provocative?)”
And sending your platoon of hijab-wearing women into the RO conference to provoke a reaction isn’t “provacative”?
“I’m fairly certain that had we not had scarves on our head there would not have been the reaction we received.”
If you’d all been wearing pink hats or T-shirts (so that people might think you’re Code Pink) or some other uniform that identifies you as a group in opposition to the RO attendees, you’d have had a reaction very similar to what you got from wearing scarves and traveling as a group. And a bunch of people in yarmulkes walking in front of a mosque might get some attention, too. You wore the scarves en masse to get a reaction, and you didn’t care what it was, because any reaction at all would be rationalized as “proof” of whatever it was you were trying to accomplish.
“Because it’s not about his name. It’s not about whether he was from Right Online. It’s not about whether Breitbard [sic] had anything to do with it.”
You should have explained that to the guy who screamed at Breitbart about this incident, blaming him for the actions of someone he doesn’t even know, then started accusing him of drug abuse and having sex with prostitutes. And he wasn’t even wearing distinctive headgear. He was assaulted just for being Andrew Breitbart.
My goodness, you are delicate flowers to be rendered so distraught by “aggressive questioning”, aren’t you?
Word of advice: It is a dreadful (and usually embarrassing) mistake to accuse Breitbart of being involved in something he has no part of. He’s known for aggressive questioning. He’s surrounded by people who don’t hesitate to aggressively question, because they’ve so often been smeared and lied about by people of your particular political persuasion. Perhaps you should start aggressively questioning the motives of the people you associate with.
Allison, enough, try as you might you’re not the story, and neither is Gilmore.
If you wish to do costume stunts you take the responsibility. In any case you have blathered long enough, a few thousand words too long, and establishing only your own sense of self importance while trying to change the subject.
I’ve watched all the videos, and I do not find your account resembles what I saw on those videos.
You need a much bigger violin.
I hate it when people use “reduced to tears” or “weeping” as an excuse for their behavior. I hate it part II when people use unproveable unseeable physical ailments as an excuse for their behavior. If you’re in pain, if you’re tottery, if you’re hysterical enough to cry at the drop of a pin, then stay home. You’re obviously not competent to represent either the left or the right.
It’s the “weeper’s veto” — the flip side of the “heckler’s veto”. It’s a critical part of the left’s assault on free speech, the concept that you have no right to say something that upsets another person.
“which wasn’t much of a plan because it an action thought of only an hour prior and hastily put together as we found scarves for women who didn’t normally wear them”
Sounds to me like it was a plan to bait some sort of criticism towards muslim women by the attendees at Right Online. When the facts don’t add up, make something up right?
Saul Alinsky 101: “The organizer’s first job is to create the issues or problems,’ and ‘organizations must be based on many issues.’ The organizer ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. . . . An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.”
I’m sure Clayton meant Brietbart no harm when he asked him if he stilled used cocaine, but would he ask Bill Clinton the same question? And it must have been the wind in the willows that shouted “coward” at Brietbart, not leftists.
I agree that that episode with Breitbart when he tried to enter Netroots Nation was juvenile and pointless. I wish we would all stop this.
As you would ask us to consider that Gilmore is one man, not representing all conservatives, then I ask you to not generalize what happened with Breitbart as representative of all liberals. I found that episode far beneath dignity. There are quite a few comments here which simply sling epithets at an entire swath of the US citizenry. I don’t accept this in venues I’m participating in and I would ask that you don’t accept it in your own either. Perhaps we could all start finding ways to actually work together to address the challenges we all face as Americans. It’s called being civil. A requirement for a civil society.
Don’t start up with that civility stuff again. The lefties were all preaching civility after AZ shootings, but at the time we didn’t realize it was only the right that was supposed to be civil.
You and your pals get to go first this time. Then, if you are civil (and if we are able to recover from the shock to the system that would occur), we will maybe consider your offer of “civility”. But you aren’t getting away with that stuff a second time– you first.
Aside fromt he fact that it’s difficult to make a whole lot of sense from Ms. Allison’s statements here as it was sans a coherent chronology, filled with iterations of “we didn’t ask for attention, we were bullied, we’re victims!” surrounding a tacit admission that they were deliberately trying to create a situation, I’m finding it hard to muster up any sympathy.
And now she’s upset that her faux situtation is not getting all the attention?
Katz, i just saw your video at PJTV. You are a very real hero for our side. Seriously. Love your work.
Bernard,
Many thanks for your kind words.
– Tony
I thought your questioning was fantastic. It’s exactly the kind of questioning I want to see in press conferences. Tough, to the point, and repeated if the question is not answered.
I want to see more of your questioning now.
We had similar efforts to slime a Conservative in Alaska during the Miller/Murkowski Senate Election.
Attempting to smear Joe Miller CBS reporters were caught on tape discussing how they could report that at some Joe MIller rally some non-existant child molesting, registered sex offender showed up to support Miller, and the efforts by Miller to have to fight back against that charge would effectively slime him in the eyes of the public and knock him off his campaign stride.
Same old, same old. http://bigjournalism.com/pjsalvatore/2010/10/30/anchorage-cbs-affiliate-caught-on-voicemail-conspiring-against-alaskas-gop-senate-candidate/
JavaScript on the blink.
The Left is so lucky that conservatives & libertarians don’t just make shit up and recklessly abundantly hurl outrageous accusations at them every single day. It almost makes one wish it were so, just to see the Left on the defense for once. Is their sleaze innate or learned or what?
Even you, here, are perpetuating a partisan battle rather than addressing the core issue. What everyone could simply be writing about is this: “we do, in this country, stand by as people are harassed particularly with hate speech.” You could be affirming the rights of these women to walk down the street in peace. You could be disowning the bullying behavior. This is something we could all be doing in unity.
Allison, let me say here and now that I strongly and unwaveringly denounce any and all acts of physical or verbal abuse directed at you or the other women, I don’t care what they were wearing on their heads, it is not acceptable nor representative behavior of any group with which I identify.
Let me also say that no gentleman would ever allow such behavior or treatment of you and the women, not one, with whom I associate. Certainly nothing like the treatment of that reporter in Egypt who had her clothes torn off her and was savagely and sexually molested because she was wearing western garb and because someone mistakenly shouted out that she was “a Jew”.
I find such incidents horrifying. As a gentleman I could not stand by and watch a drunken American, or a frenzied Egyptian take those verbal liberties.
What should I make of “those who apparently agree” with such actions? Devout Muslim men with their hands mauling and even inside a woman in Western garb, or “conservatives” with their aggressive questions and clumsy cameras?
When we race to condemn the atrocious behavior, by what standard should we measure it? The way American “conservative” men treat Muslim women, or by the way Muslim men treat American women?
When we lose respect for our principles, when they become situational, or simply political props…we lose our ability to act “in unity” as you plead we must.
An apology is owed to anyone intentionally hurt in this process. If you and the other women were mistreated, we are better than that behavior and we should condemn it harshly, swiftly and without the parsing of words or with disguised or masked ill will.
And, if there was intent to smear Andrew then he is owed an apology as well. If the smear is done in your name, then in the name of “unity” of purpose that you propose, it is you who should stand up and say “not in my name”. Wrong is wrong, right is right, fair is fair.
You seem to want to dispel the notion that Andrew being smeared is of any significance. If you seek honor, integrity, and fairness for all, not just some, that argument must fall on deaf ears.
We must condemn the acts of hatred and take our victims where we find them. Each and every time. Regardless of which “side” of the political fence they may reside upon.
Gilmore is one guy, a fool, drunk, not representative of anything I stand for or against. I am so sorry for your having to deal with him in this land of ours. Our women deserve better. Had I been there, I would have ensured it.
And, Andrew Breitbart deserves better as my countryman as well. He does not deserve to be slandered. I will equally, stand between that attack and him… as well. As should you. Because, you believe as I do….that this country stands for something better than that. And, I take you at your word.
cfbleachers, I think I missed where Breitbart was slandered. Those of us involved in both the incident on the street and the action of going up the escalator to the entrance of the Right Online conference, have repeatedly said that we have no evidence that Breitbart had anything to do with any of this. Only that the man evoked his name, suggesting that this man believed what he was doing was inline with what Breitbart’s agenda is.
That’s why I wonder how this became all about him.
If others have tried to claim that Breitbart had anything to do with this, without having evidence, I agree that that is unacceptable.
I’m glad to have met so many people from Right Online who were sympathetic to our concern for what happened to these women. (We stood downstairs greeting people as they went up to their conference and wishing them well. Several stopped and chatted with us and it was wonderful.) I truly believe that the majority of us can rise above this ugly way people of differing political views talk to each other. I have vastly different political views from half my family and I still love them and we still manage to be civil and agree to disagree. None of us see the others as “unpatriotic” or other such ridiculous epithets.
But look at some of the comments above.
“I hate it when people use “reduced to tears” or “weeping” as an excuse for their behavior. I hate it part II when people use unproveable unseeable physical ailments as an excuse for their behavior. If you’re in pain, if you’re tottery, if you’re hysterical enough to cry at the drop of a pin, then stay home. You’re obviously not competent to represent either the left or the right.”
What does that even mean? That bullying isn’t a problem? The person who is “reduced to tears” by it is? If only people weren’t so weak! Sheesh. People have committed suicide due to bullying. Why? Because it’s a horrible thing to endure. It’s aggressive and threatening and dangerous. Are people here saying that bullying is ok? Because I don’t see anyone pushing back against that comment. And “if you’re pain…. then stay home.” So, those of us who live with chronic illness have no place in society and should just stay home and keep our mouths shut because we’re “obviously not competent”? Wow. Now that’s a message of inclusiveness, human compassion and recognition of basic human and civil rights. This is a problem. All of us on each side of the aisle need to push this ugliness down. Not let it stand. Real dialog is not possible until we do.
Why is it so hard to see what we did as a human act? It may not have been perfect, but it was perfectly innocuous. And it could have been a non-event if people didn’t have such a knee jerk reaction to a piece of clothing. I mean, really, we approached and were ready to leave when we were ganged up on. So, yes, I’m pointing out that we all need to ratchet down the aggressiveness. Please know that I wrote the same thing to a left wing “news” blogger whom I thought was equally ridiculous.
I think what many object to is this notion among your crowd that creates a racist bogeyman society where there is none. In order to make that case it will present itself in the way of rhetoric in essays, articles, news programs, teachers, lectures and classes at university. There is no reason to proudly trot out a drunk.
If you have to resort to blowing up an encounter with a drunk, turning him into a GOP blogger and then purposefully dressing up in head scarves to get the reaction you figured would happen because every one is bigot but you, then your agenda in bankrupt.
Just look at the obnoxious title of that woman’s webpage about Islamophobia visiting Minneapolis over a drunk. There are a ton of drunks downtown – go out every night there and you will have lots of things uttered at you.
That was drunk society not society and there is no reason to build web pages as a testimony to drunks and play it like it’s just Minneapolis like at the end of “Chinatown” – “It’s just Chinatown”.
Eff off. I hate your racist devotion to multiculturalism and diversity because you’re saying that in fact race does matter and you’re the cure that ails the endemic racism of all white people who don’t think like you. Muslims themselves make up the single most violently bigoted societies in the world today. Wake up. They don’t like you or your multicultualism.
The Vietnamese have 1,000 times as many reasons to bitch about America as you and yours and yet you here nothing from them. That’s cuz they don’t lead with their chins and expect that every thing done to them is because they are Asians. If your friend wants to be reduced to tears, go to Cairo and walk around as a group of females with headscarves late in the evening. You’ll be abused far worse than in MPLS and then you’ll see that it’s not Islamophobia but just stupid men and stupid drunks. No need to project that onto the GOP, MPLS, or anyone other than those who did the actual deed.
They didn’t arrest MPLS, just the drunk. Wake up to that fact and ask your dumb friend to re-title her dumb web page to, “We ran into a drunk.” “Hate, racism and Islamophobia comes to MPLS?” Really. You’re an idiot. That’s name calling and demonizing an entire city and you’re defending it. If I do the same thing I’m a racist and a bigot but not you and yours, no. You’re defenders of peace and justice and love and you can do no wrong, even when you do the same thing and worse cuz I’m assuming you’re not drunk and defending your friend’s take down of an entire city with clear eyes.
Your entire philosophy is centered around not demonizing muslims because of a few terrorists and then you do the exact same thing and take down an entire bloc of people and much of MPLS with it over an encounter with a drunk and pass it off as the Islamophobia this stupid woman and you are so desperate to prove exists.
You are this woman are the dumb racists who make huge generalities and stereotype based on nothing not America.
wow. You said that better than I ever could have. I hope Allison and her Kos friend read that.
So Una Spenser of the Daily Kos has a “neurological disorder”. Is that what the left calls stupidity now?
Why is it so hard to see what we did as a human act? It may not have been perfect, but it was perfectly innocuous. And it could have been a non-event if people didn’t have such a knee jerk reaction to a piece of clothing. I mean, really, we approached and were ready to leave when we were ganged up on. So, yes, I’m pointing out that we all need to ratchet down the aggressiveness. Please know that I wrote the same thing to a left wing “news” blogger whom I thought was equally ridiculous.
Allison,if your point was to ratchet back reaction, was there a better way to approach Right Online or to “raise Andrew’s name”?
It seems to me that had there been no incident at all, this exercise would not have come to light. That is to say, had the experience been nothing but pleasant, it would have been ignored. That seems to render the stated intent a bit disingenuous. Encountering overwhelming pleasantness IS an important story here.
Clearly you know, as an exceptionally bright, articulate and astute woman, that non-leftists in this country are painted as ugly, vicious, stupid, crass, knee-jerk, reactionary and even evil…people.
Your exercise seems at first blush, to want to test that theory. However, by your own experience, overwhelmingly, you found the opposite. Yet, who raises that finding on their behalf? My hypothesis is that had nothing happened but pleasantries, NO “news” of their acts of kindness and good will would have been presented precisely because it does not support the false narrative…the slander of good people.
The fact that your “test” was conducted in the manner in which it was suggests also that you bought into the slander, had an agenda to promote its furtherance, and NOT to bring down the level of leftist slander and aggressive hate language AGAINST non-leftists….but to give it more fuel.
I’m sorry that I see it that way, but before we can heal, we must be truthful.
On a second issue, we still are talking past each other on the point about Andrew. If I or my American female family members had been accosted by a group of Muslim men and one of them invoked your name, should I then suggest that there was some validity to the leap in logic that you approved of the behavior?
Someone shouting your name during such behavior does it in some way advance the notion that you approve of accosting American women in Western garb?
If not, my “merely raising” your name in recounting the situation…especially to a crowd that has a history of slandering you, wrongfully attributing motives to you…does that reduce or increase the “ratchet back” of hate speech?
Again, you are a bright, articulate and astute woman. Surely you can see when someone is being unfairly treated. By “merely raising his name” in connection with Gilmore, it gives fuel to the continuing slander against him.
That is not fair.
The way to “ratchet back” hate speech against non-leftists, is to:
a)not approach them with the pre-formed notion that they will be anything but pleasant;
b)when you get treated well, spend as much time announcing that to the world, THAT will do more to ratchet back the sound and the fury…than a thousand accusations of isolated bad behavior;
c)if you see someone being falsely accused, be as quick to come to their defense and as vigilant in protecting their name as you would your own;
d)don’t align yourself with one side over another, through word, act or deed…and then suggest that you are merely looking for people to talk to each other in a civil manner, that would be disingenuous. Look for ways to promote harmony, not raise the level of suspicion and doubt about your motives.
Seek first to understand, then to be understood.
Walter E. Williams: Reverse Racist or Uncle Tom?
I’ve long admired Professor Walter E. Williams, a rare breed among men.
The 75 year old conservative, African-American economist, columnist, political commentator, and John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University invariably perceives the nation as it is, not as politicians and special interest groups pretend and twist it to be, which is rare, indeed.
Okay, he calls himself a libertarian rather than a conservative, but close enough.
In an article titled, “America’s New Racists,” Williams once again ruffles the feathers of his fellow black men, exposing and clearly articulating an ugly truth about American society today and cutting through liberal distortions and misleading propaganda. The truth, censored by the MSM and which only an African-American can say without being accused of rabid racism: “Most racist assaults are committed by blacks.”
If he isn’t labeled as such already, that forthright and documented observation will surely earn the professor designation by the derogatory term “Uncle Tom” which is regularly used by professional black agitators to demean African-Americans who don’t tow and spout the race line, who dare to stray off the new plantation.
Williams personally experienced the poisonous fruits of racism in America and knows whereof he writes when he observes that the racist worm has turned 360 degrees and the former victims of the poison have evolved into the evil-doers. As he says, “What’s worse is there are blacks, still alive, who lived through the times of lynching, Jim Crow laws and open racism who remain silent in the face of it.”
He recounts various recent instances of black racist crime, which have been the subjects of articles on this blogsite as well as others not covered here, including serious incidents at Skidmore College, in Denver, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and on Chicago’s beaches. All involved black gangs committing patently-obvious racist hate crimes against both whites and Asians, although the more punitive hate crime charge is rarely applied by either the police or by the media to the miscreants.
In a scathing and verified indictment of the MSM, Williams audaciously and perspcaciously writes, “In many of these brutal attacks, the news media make no mention of the race of the perpetrators. If it were white racist gangs randomly attacking blacks, the mainstream media would have no hesitation reporting the race of the perps.”
Compounding that miscarriage of journalistic ethics, he adds, “Editors for the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune admitted to deliberately censoring information about black crime for political reasons. Chicago Tribune Editor Gerould Kern recently said that the paper’s reason for censorship was to ‘guard against subjecting an entire group of people to suspicion.’ “ . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4855)
This is an article reporting on contentious media wars, endlessly conducted between hyper partisan bloggers on both sides. It’s ugly and shameful and avoidable.
If these bloggers and pundits simply agree to appear at the same place and time and engage in cvili discussion, all of the important issues can be aired so viewers can make of their own minds, armed with useful information.
Instead we see gotcha videos, shanghai camera crews and all kinds of personal smears involving drug use, salacious tangents and able to man up to it because he not only dishes it, he perfected the art form. Too bad for America and our kids, having to see examples like this and the decline of journalism.
Lavoris:
Andrew Breitbart perfected the art form after learning it from “60 Minutes”. It used to be called Journalism.
And it’s only salacious when people like Dan Rather present false documents as the truth.
Andrew falsifies nothing. Only the Left does that.
Obama’s Racial Politics Are Playing in Peoria
“Will it play in Peoria?” is a phrase dating to the 19th century, a reference to whether some idea would go over well in mainstream typical America, the premise being that if it will float in Peoria it will succeed everywhere.
One particular idea is currently playing in Peoria which regrettably is becoming all too typical in our country, young blacks rioting in the streets, threatening to “kill all white people around here,” assaulting whites, and intimidating cops, white people, and black people alike.
Peorians were advised to avoid their yards and front porches and stay indoors, as if that were a solution to the mayhem.
The real issue, however, is not only what’s been playing in Peoria but what’s also going on in the rest of America. Peoria’s violence is simply and unfortunately a microcosm of events which are largely being ignored by the mainstream media or, if reported at all, are censored.
Time and again violent incidents are occurring thoughout this great land of ours perpetrated by prople oblivious to how great it is and the MSM in large part is choosing to omit a very relevant detail, namely that African-Americans are responsible. Noted black professor and commentator Walter E. Williams has observed both the rampant chaos and the media phenomena of pretending it is committed by some amorphous, racially-unidentifiable gangs.
As Williams wrote, and substantiated, “Most racist assaults [and other crimes] are committed by blacks” and, for reasons of misguided political correctness and lack of journalistic integrity, “In many of these brutal attacks, the news media make no mention of the race of the perpetrators.” See http://bit.ly/mtX5AM
In Peoria, Paul Wilkinson, president of the Altamont Park Neighborhood Association, gave this first hand account of what he witnessed: “Tonight, around 11 p.m., a group of at least 60-70 African American youth . . . were yelling threats to white residents. Things such as we need to kill all the white people around here. They were physically intimidating anyone calling for help from the police. They were surrounding cars. . . . They were rushing residents who looked out their doors, going on to porches, yelling threats to people calling the police for help.”
If this were an isolated incident, it would still be disturbing but Wilkinson went on to say, “Residents are very shaken, both black and white alike. This is the fifth large mob action in about a month with smaller groups of 10-12 out threatening children and adults a few evenings a week or later into the night.” (http://bit.ly/isOjwT)
If Peoria were an isolated city of uncontrolled black violence, it would still be scary but what’s playing out in that Illinois city is a replication of racist black attacks and lawlessness which were common in Soweto in the 1950′s but which we don’t want to believe are happening with regularity in 2011.
Former Jewish radical David Horowitz outed the black liberation movement’s inspiration for rampages . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4906)