Topping Keith Olbermann's Worst Person Totem Poll for the second time in a week - KSFO Radio Host Melanie Morgan continues her attack on Votevots.org Chairman Jon Soltz.
The worst part isn't that, as Keith points out again and I diaried earlier this week, she's completely wrong about reservists being able to participate in politics - she threatens Soltz.
Morgan: Jon Soltz is still a hypocritical cockroach. He needs to be stomped on and neutralized before he and his ilk can silence military support for the mission in Iraq.
I'm just asking but, exactly how many different ways do you know of to "neutralize a cockroach"? How many ways do you stop someone from speaking out politically? Think about it for a second and what do you come up with?
Yeah, I thought so.
And just what does the DoD have to say about Morgan accusations about Soltz's political activity? (Via Media Matters)
Today, [Steve] Epstein [director of the Department of Defense (DoD) General Counsel's Standards of Conduct Office] said two sets of rules help protect the integrity of the political process: a DoD directive for active-duty service members and the Hatch Act for federal civilians. These rules keep the military out of partisan politics and ensure that the workplace remains politically neutral, he said.
That's not to imply that military members and civilian employees can't participate in politics. Epstein said DoD encourages both groups to register to vote and vote as they choose, and to urge others to vote. Both groups can sign nominating petitions for candidates and express their personal opinions about candidates and issues but only if they don't do so as representatives of the armed forces. Also, all federal employees can make contributions to political organizations or candidates.
Beyond that, the list of dos and don'ts differs widely, depending on whether the employee is an active-duty service member, a rank-and-file Civil Service employee, a political appointee or member of the career Senior Executive Service, Epstein said.
Capt. Jon Soltz is not currently on active duty, he's in the reserves and as such these rules and limitations don't apply to him.
You wanna talk about political hypocracy?
Where was Morgan when it was revealed that Lorita Doan at the GSA was violating the Hatch Act and using her position to participate in so blatant partisanship for the Republican party that the Inspector General recommended that she be fired?
Where was Morgan when Tim Griffin was illegally caging the votes of African-American Soldiers in Iraq as a member of the RNC?
Where was Morgan when Monica Goodling and Brad Schlozman admitted under oath to illegally administering political litmus tests to DOJ employees?
If active duty members of the military can't appear at political rallies in uniform then how do you explain this?
Or this?
Or this?
Or...
The fact is that there loopholes in the uniform/politics rule besides the fact that it is largely directed at active duty members of the military it says that uniforms are prohibited ...
(2) When participating in public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies, or public demonstrations, except as authorized by competent authority.
Obviously since the President consider himself to be a "competant authority" - hey, quick snickering - he can have uniformed active duty officers appear anytime and anywhere he feels like, even at a completely political event like when he declared Mission Accomlished four years ago.
But that's the kind of ridiculous double-standard we've grown to expect from Repubs isn't it?
In recent days Dailykos has taken flack for random comments about gassing Joe Lieberman even though the comment clearly wasn't meant to be taken literally and had nothing to do with Jews or the Holocaust and it was heavily criticized and troll-rated by other commenters long before O'Reilly got wind of it, it has been used repeatedly to argue that DKos is a "Hate Site."
Meanwhile as Jon Stewart pointed out, it has become common practice to accuse critics of the war of being traitors.
So let's really talk about Hate Speech, ok?
Guess what Melanie free speech really isn't absolute, and you've just stepped into the deep end since there is something that limits it called the Fighting Words Doctrine.
The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as granted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [which] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
Though that decision has been subsequently narrowed it still stands.
Any reasonable person would (and many here already have) vehemently oppose physical threats against Joe Lieberman for his political views - but just what do you say about someone who says that one of our veterans should be stomped like a cockroach!??
What would she say about the active duty soldiers who just spoke out in the New York Times about the Surge?
The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. [...]
In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.
Would she follow Ann Coulter's lead and suggest he should be fragged?
Would she suggest that this soldier should be added to the kind of hit list that right-wing extremists have put out against doctors they disagree with?
The identities of three of the seven doctors murdered in the past 10 years were listed on websites; there have been a further 17 attempted murders. Many such doctors now wear disguises and bullet-proof vests, live in fortified houses and vary their journeys to work.
One of those websites happened to belong to one of the right-wings recent media darlings - Randall Terry - but I certainly didn't see Morgan or Hannity distance themselves from him, did you?
Would Morgan similarly agree with real hate groups who gloated when a left-wing Judge was murdered?
"Well, I for one hope this was the work of some 'lone wolf' targeting those who aid or support or have connections with someone involved in acting against our race, or someone who has acted against those -- like Matt Hale -- who have stood up for our race."
The message concludes, "Let's hope it's only the beginning."
How about the actions of rabid right-wing anti-abortionist Eric Robert Rudolph who bombed the Atlanta Olympics, killed two people and injured 110?
Is this the kind of "Coachroach Stomping" you were talking about Melanie?
You know what these people are? They're Terrorists!
They use fear, intimidation, the threat of violence and actual violence to influence the coarse of political events.
If you have a disagreement with Soltz or VoteVets you and everyone else has every right to express that disagreement, no matter how fact-challenged it might be, but to talk of "silencing him" is crossing the line. IMO Those are Fighting Words.
Suggesting that he should watch his mouth or he might get hurt - is Terrorism. It's what was done to Salman Rushdie for daring to write his book The Satanic Versus - it's what was done to Keith Olbermann when some nutball sent him fake Anthrax - it's what was done to left-wing talk show host Alan Berg when he was murdered in 1984 for "talking too much" by a group of neo-nazi's who called themselves "The Order" in emulation of a group described in the infamous racist right-wing novel The Turner Diaries. A book, which not so coincidentally was Timothy McVeigh's favorite and which he too emulated faithfully in Oklahoma City.
Do you, Melanie, have fans that are this wacked-out? Would any of them really follow your lead and start to do some cockroach stomping with some mouthy liberal war protester? I don't know, but that's exactly the point - no one does, yet - and this is why endorsing violence isn't protected by the First Amendment.
If you agree with and endorse these types of actions (as your own comments and actions would tend to indicate) you - Melanie Morgan - are a Terrorist. You are inciting violence against American citizens.
And if you continue to use Fighting Words like these, you can expect that many of us will be Fighting Right Back by shining your hypocracy under a heat lamp!
Count on it.
Vyan
No comments:
Post a Comment