Subscribe via RSS Feed


[ 143 ] December 26, 2012 |

All of our favorite conservative writers are up in arms because David Gregory brought a high-powered ammunition magazine onto Meet the Press yesterday in order to discuss gun violence.

William Jacobson is calling for Gregory’s prosecution and wants more of this kind of thing (Legal Insurrection!!!!32131!!!!) Glenn Reynolds of course agrees, etc.

There’s only one logical solution to this problem.

We need to arrest George H.W. Bush for possession of crack cocaine.*

If the problem is really going on television with a proper visual to demonstrate a political problem despite technically breaking the law, consistency demands Bush’s arrest. After all, we all know that crack went to W after the press conference so I feel an intent to distribute charge may be in order……

*Since some in the conservative world are too uneducated to understand metaphor, let me introduce them to another part of the English language. This is called sarcasm.


Comments (143)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. steve says:

    Is that like rain on your wedding day?

  2. bradP says:

    As usual, this isn’t about supporting the law, this is about trying to catch libs in a gotcha moment.

    Obviously, they don’t believe that LaPierre should have been arrested for showing up with the same magazine on television, or whatever. They just think that libs would have called for LaPierre’s prosecution, so they are jumping all over Gregory for it.

    I think they are also trying to generate sympathy for those who would want to possess a magazine like that.

    In short, its a “If you wanna throw someone in jail for possessing this, why don’t you throw this guy in jail” sort of thing, with the expectation that people would think throwing him in jail would be an absurd application of law (which it would, but for rather boring reasons).

  3. DocAmazing says:

    David Gregory is being attacked from the right. This, of course, is the fault of the left.

  4. actor212 says:

    Colin Powell needs to be put in Gitmo. He brought anthrax, a bio-weapon listed in the terrorism acts, to the UN

  5. WhatDragon says:

    David Gregory isn’t a hill I think liberals should die on.

    Let him get arrested and prosecuted.

    It would probably do him some good.

  6. Derelict says:

    What’s truly tragic in all of this is that there’s nothing the rightwing Wurlitzer can bring that’s too absurd for the regular media to not pick up.

    And given Gregory’s low IQ, I wouldn’t be surprised to have him calling for his own arrest because “it’s out there and a part of the discussion right now.”

  7. TBogg says:

    Does the fact that William Jacobson has a stick up his ass in any way equate to putting LaPierre’s head on a pike? I guess not when it is self inflicted….

  8. TT says:

    The DEA and FBI entrapped the kid they got that bag of crack from in Lafayette Park, just to “prove” that you could get drugs anywhere–even at The White House!! (emphasis on white, of course).

  9. Glenn says:

    Obviously, this guy is ridiculous, but I’m pretty sure the premise is incorrect. While it is true that DC public health law prohibits the possession of large-capacity magazines, there is no such provision that I can find in the criminal law portion of the DC Code, at least not that I can see. (As opposed to, for example, illegal gun possession, which is a crime.) In other words, as far as I can see this is at most some sort of regulatory violation, not a crime to be “prosecuted” — all the other absurdities of this “Professor” of Law’s arguments aside.

    Those who know DC’s laws better than I do are welcome to correct me if I’m wrong.

  10. cpinva says:

    fortunately for mr. gregory, it’s the DC Police who are said to be “looking into this”, he’ll be dead and dust before they ever reach a conclusion. had it been the PG County Police, they’d have just dragged him off the set, tasered him repeatedly, and tossed him in a holding cell, where he’d have lain, forgotten for a month, by pretty much everyone.

    prof. loomis, internet rumor has it that you remain unfired, good for you. does your university’s president remain un-balled?

  11. Davis X. Machina says:

    Armed teachers

    In Civ IV, they’re my favorite unit…

  12. AlexD says:

    If that moron Jacobsen cannot figure out how to legally transport a gun he shouldn’t be allowed to own one anyway.

  13. J. Otto Pohl says:

    I am disappointed not to have made your list of “favorite conservative writers.” Although to be honest I prefer the term “right winger” since as an exile I really do not care about such issues as gun control or abortion. But, my opposition to things like Stalinism, the forced expulsion of the Sudeten Germans, and Israeli apartheid certainly comes from a position of supporting traditional societies against revolutionary violence.

    • Erik Loomis says:

      Every comment thread is about you and I’m always impressed by the pyrotechnics you use to make it so.

    • AlexD says:

      Who are you and why should we care about someone even less interesting than a Jonah Goldberg fart?

    • Linnaeus says:

      But, my opposition to things like Stalinism, the forced expulsion of the Sudeten Germans, and Israeli apartheid certainly comes from a position of supporting traditional societies against revolutionary violence.

      Of course, one need not be a right winger to oppose these things.

      • witless chum says:

        I oppose those things from a general human rights principle that we’re all equal and none deserve to be forced to leave the Sudetenland, apartheided by Israel or Stalinized. I’d identify this as coming from the left and I think it’s bad no matter whether the cause is revolutionary violence or some other kind of violence.

        But, y’know, what this has to do with David Gregory or big ammo clips I’m too bourgeoise to figure.

      • J. Otto Pohl says:

        True, but with few exceptions in the 1940s when these crimes occurred and for decades afterwards most criticism of these particular crimes came from the right. There are some exceptions, particularly regarding Stalinism, but other than Victor Gollancz I can not think of any non-German leftists that condemned the expulsion of the Sudeten Germans at the time it occurred. Most of the German leftists to condemn it were Sudeten German Social Democrats in exile. The creation of Israel in 1948 was cheered by the “international left” almost without exception and Zionism continues to be a “progressive cause” for many even today. But, more importantly the right that criticized these crimes did so from a position that revolutionary violence against traditional societies was wrong. Leftists like Gollancz emphasized a universal human rights that most leftists at the time rejected in favor of collective punishment against national groups viewed as having collaborated enmass with the Nazis or having reactionary beliefs and practices.

        • Linnaeus says:

          But, more importantly the right that criticized these crimes did so from a position that revolutionary violence against traditional societies was wrong.

          I’m a little skeptical of this as a rationale, given how selective rightists could be about what constituted a traditional society (a term that is itself historically contingent) worth defending. My guess is that it helped if such societies were arrayed against groups the right already saw as enemies.

          I’m not, however, a Europeanist, so there’s a lot I could be missing. In the North American context (particularly in the US), it’s pretty clear that the right exalts the revolutionary violence that produced the United States and its subsequent expansionism, despite the fact that this was pretty much a disaster for the traditional societies, i.e., Native Americans, that inhabited the continent.

          • J. Otto Pohl says:

            US violence against Native Americans is generally not referred to as revolutionary. But, rather as old fashioned colonial subjugation. I suppose in the 19th century many did refer to it as “progress.” However “progress” towards a capitalist society is not why “progressives” in the 20th century supported the use of revolutionary violence. The 19th century colonial violence in the US differed radically from the explicit socialist transformation aimed at by the Soviet Union for instance.

            It should be noted that even the rhetoric of Israeli settler colonialism was largely couched in explicitly socialist terms. Ben Gurion’s Labor Zionism having triumphed over Jabotinsky’s Revisionists at the time.

            There is also the fact that both in the USSR, and certainly Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia and even to an extent in Palestine (the Mufti of Jerusalem) collective punishment for collaboration with the Nazis was the primary stated justification for the collective punishment of ethnic and national groups. The US did not punish the Native Americans for collaborating with a foreign power deemed to be an evil so great that fighting against it justified any and all crimes against humanity in the minds of “progressives.” Very few leftists at the time, Gollancz is the main exception in the English speaking world, said that ethnic Germans deserved universal human rights. The condemnation of these crimes remained largely restricted to the “far right” for decades.

            • Linnaeus says:

              True that US violence against Native Americans wasn’t called explicitly called revolutionary, but then I’d be inclined to ask what is it about revolutionary violence against traditional societies (however those terms are defined) that requires particular disapprobation from rightists. Point being that I don’t necessarily accept that position at face value.

              • J. Otto Pohl says:

                I think it is a specifically 20th century phenomenon. That is starting with the USSR, there was the massive use of state violence by “modernizing” regimes along non-capitalist paths. Some ethnic groups were deemed incapable of making the transition. The largest group were the various ethnic German communities, most notably the Volga Germans. But, other groups included the quite traditional Muslim ethnic groups from the Caucasus like the Chechens and Karachais or the Tibetan Buddhist Kalmyks. All of these groups had long standing conflicts with the Russian and later Soviet government. As a result they all had a number of activists in exile. They initially hooked up with the European and Turkish right. The Kalmyks later did a lot of lobbying of Asian non-Aligned states and even attended Bandung. The others remained in right wing circles for some time.

                The Sudeten, Silesian, Pomeranian and other German groups are easier to explain. They, especially the Sudeten Germans became a political force in Germany in the 1950s and hooked up with the right. They were especially associated with Christian Social Union (CSU) in Bavaria. Their appeal to preserving the traditions of their now lost homelands and political opposition to communism meshed nicely with the CSU political program.

                In the case of the Palestinians they themselves had almost no contacts in Europe or the US in the 1950s. But, conservatives in the US at this time were quite wary of supporting Israel. They thought it might push the Arabs into the Soviet camp. Some even thought that the Palestinian refugee problem needed to be solved to prevent Soviet infiltration into the Middle East. Nonetheless, Israel was a “radical” society as opposed to “traditional” Palestine and I am sure this played a role in conservative sympathies in the 1950s.

        • Hogan says:

          If you had been in charge, what would you have done about the Sudeten Germans?

          • J. Otto Pohl says:

            I think the policy of only trying and punishing people guilty of crimes against humanity largely pursued by the US and UK could have been applied. Collective punishment and deportation were two of the crimes that Nazis were tried for at Nurmburg. So endorsing those same crimes by Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary is not supporting universal human rights. The fact is there were very few liberals, leftists, or progressives that supported universal human rights for ethnic Germans in 1945. Gollancz was exceptional in saying that his leftist beliefs required him to oppose the collective punishment of ethnic Germans.

            • Hogan says:

              Uh huh. So what would you have done about the Sudeten Germans? Prevented their deportation through armed force?

              • J. Otto Pohl says:

                You said if I was in charge. I assumed you meant in charge of Czechoslovakia. The deportations were well organized by the Czech government in exile before 1945. When the Germans started retreating the Czech underground loyal to that government began organizing militias and military units to carry out the expulsions. Without the explicit organization and orders from the top down starting with Benes himself there would have been no expulsions. The “wild” expulsions were in fact not “wild” at all, but planned and organized state ordered actions.

                • Hogan says:

                  So let’s pretend that the Sudeten Germans were the only ethnic population displaced and relocated after WWII (they weren’t, by a long shot), and you would have let them stay in Czechoslovakian territory. How do you think that would have worked out?

                • J. Otto Pohl says:

                  It could have worked out just fine. About 200,000 Germans in Czechoslovakia in fact were not expelled and presented no problems to the state. Nor did the one million Germans remaining in Poland, the 500,000 in Hungary, the 400,000 in Romania, or 1.2 million in the USSR. The claim that all ethnic Germans including women, children, Communists, Social Democrats, etc. were all active traitors and Nazi collaborators was never true. There is no theoretical reason why a state claiming to be a multi-ethnic socialist federation could not have provided equal rights to its German minority. Although in practice all socialist states seem to have ethnic and racial policies as bad as the worst capitalist states such as South Africa under apartheid.

        • witless chum says:

          In the U.S., the right would probably send a few poorly-spelled death threats your way if they knew you thought “progressives” supported Israel blowing up Arabs more than they do.

          I guess I chalk the left’s mistakes made before I was born to being, well, mistakes that I’ll try not to repeat and learn from as best as I can.

          I think the modern linking on the left in most of the west of social democracy with feminism and other human rights advocacy is a good antidote for much of what ailed it in the past. It’s also probably good that’s no more Soviet Union producing propaganda to sway the weak-minded. There’s nothing inherent in wanting a greater role for the government in the economy that prevents me from thinking that people shouldn’t be deported from places for their ethnicity.

          Nor is there anything inherent in claiming “respect for traditional societies” that stops people there. It seems likely to me that condemnations of all those things came from people being anti-communist first and pro-human rights second, if at all. But I’m sure you know more about the history involved than I do.

          If you want a leftist who was right about most things at the time, there’s always Orwell. Or maybe C.L.R. James, who started as Trotskyist but seems to have been susceptible to facts as superior to ideology.

          • Linnaeus says:

            It seems likely to me that condemnations of all those things came from people being anti-communist first and pro-human rights second, if at all.

            I’m not as familiar with the European context, but in the US context, the anti-communist aspect was significantly more important to American conservatives and figured more prominently in their rhetoric.

            • J. Otto Pohl says:

              Well I have stated I do not think the right’s condemnation of ethnic cleansing in the 1950s came from a perspective of universal human rights. That does not seem to develop significantly anywhere until the 1960s. I think anti-communism is partially correct, but the reason the communist actions were considered unacceptable had to do with a destruction of traditional societies. Thus the condemnation of the non-communist government of Czechoslovakia under Benes for expelling the Sudeten Germans and the opposition to Israel’s expulsion of the Palestinians. Neither Benes or Ben Gurion were communists, although both were leftists.

          • J. Otto Pohl says:

            In 1948 there were very few “liberals”, “progressives”, or “leftists” that thought Palestinian Arabs should have universal human rights. There are still many that don’t think they should have any rights. The portrayal of the Palestinians as hateful, misogynist, religious fanatics did not originate with the right. It originated with the left, specifically the Labour Zionists. There was a lot more support of the Palestinians from the right in the US in Europe during the 1950s.

            Anti-communism had a role to play in why the right condemned the ethnic cleansing that took place after WWII. But, there were other things at play. Ethnic Polish and Czech anti-communists for the most part supported the expulsion of Germans just as much as their communist counterparts. The thing that sticks out among right wing critics of the expulsions is an opposition to the violent destruction of old traditions and ways of living. Human rights at the end of WWII only existed for some people. The majority of the world including most “liberals” did not think ethnic Germans and Palestinians should have human rights in the late 1940s. The concept really only becomes universal in the 1960s.

            I don’t think a greater role in the economy leads to ethnic cleansing. I support socialized medicine and other social infrastructure. But, I do think an attempt to radically transform society rapidly along “modernist” lines does mean the destruction of traditional ways of life and often the people practicing them. Such a transformation generally requires the power of the state if it is to be accomplished in years rather than decades. A number of such transformations had no room for certain ethnic groups and attempted to forcibly dissolve, expel, or kill them. The USSR, various states in Eastern Europe, and Cambodia respectively.

            Yes, Orwell was anti-Stalinist and a man of the left. I have only read CLR Jame’s writings on Ghana. His justification of the Preventive Detention Act on the basis of the need to combat Asante chauvinism is a little over the top. But, I will concede the National Liberation Movement was threatening in alliance with the Northern Peoples Party to try and convert Ghana into an Asante dominated state. Whether this required the interment of hundreds of people without trial and the beating to death of Danquah is questionable. It is in my opinion the blackest mark on Nkrumah’s otherwise admirable record.

            Probably a better former Communist on Africa and Ghana in particular is George Padmore. He is largely in agreement with James, but considerably more hostile to the USSR. He was publicly expelled from the Profitern for pushing for a strong international Communist opposition to British and French colonialism. He became an adviser to Nkrumah and advised that Ghana keep its distance from Moscow. Thus it was only after his Padmore’s death that Nkrumah was able to establish security and military ties with the USSR.

            • MPAVICTORIA says:

              Otto not many right wingers support socialized medicine. You can define yourself anyway you want but you have to realize that it might be confusing to other people.

              • J. Otto Pohl says:

                Outside the US I don’t think it is that much of an issue. I don’t think many of the “right wing” European parties are eager to go to a US style system of health care. When I lived in the UK I never heard of any moves by the Tories to eliminate NHS, but maybe I was just not paying attention.

            • witless chum says:

              I only knew James, prior to this thread, as a historian who wrote a great book about the Haitian Revolution, The Black Jacobins, and who was an anti-Stalin Marxist.

  14. The gun nuts are engaged in a trolling strategy, writing absurd and offensive things in an effort to derail the national conversation about the need to get rid of assault weapons.

    Even if they lose the argument about jailing David Gregory or arming teachers, they still win if those are the subjects we’re talking about.

  15. Speak Truth says:

    The difference between George H.W. Bush possessing contraband and David Gregory possessing contraband is President Bush was the chief law enforcement officer of the United States with confiscated contraband. David Gregory is a media reporter and talk show host and this was not confiscated.

    Mr. Loomis’ goofy comparison would also call for prosecuting all police officers that are in possession of confiscated contraband.

    Goofy. Really, really goofy post.

  16. klondike says:

    Fortunately, Gregory will be appropriately armed when the jackbooted thugs of the Webster Fire Department ATF arrive at his house. I eagerly anticipate celebrating his successful repulsion of that upcoming government oppression.

  17. Roger Ailes says:

    George H.W. Bush is beyond the long arm of the law right now. They just haven’t told us yet.

  18. N__B says:

    “What harm can there be in being only the shadow of a gunman?”

  19. witless chum says:

    Honestly, a stupid pundit getting prosecuted on trumped up charges would be wrong, because of the trumped up ness. But the David Gregorys of the world being subjected to some kind of consequences for acting like dancing monkeys wouldn’t make me the most sad I could be.

  20. Warren Terra says:

    Also, George W Bush, who proudly displayed in the White House the captured personal pistol of Saddam Hussein; Dubya’s possession of the pistol was unlicensed and illegal under DC law. I’m not sure he ever showed in on TV, though I’d not be shocked if he did, perhaps displaying it to an interviewer’s camera crew in a metaphorical dropping of trousers.

  21. Another Halocene Human says:

    Weird. I had always assumed (and maybe this is just the legacy of growing up with racist German relatives who nursed their grievances as if they were babies) that conservative sympathies for Germans in Slavic countries was a mix of nostalgia and tribalism. Since Slavic cultures were judged of little account by both German and English speakers, the German speaking tradition was clearly the greater loss. I mean, have you ever heard a conservative wax nostalgic about the Austrian empire? (Did ya hear the one about how the Viennese humiliated the Jews?) Also, too, the expulsion of Germans was so furchtbar, like the Trail of Tears, but without half of the party dying of exhaustion on the way or like the context of declaring Slavs untermensch, and every rotten thing they did thence. Prague was lousy with synagogues before the war. Did anybody ask Sudeten Jews before shipping them to Auschwitz?

    Sudetenland was the cause celebre of the Nazis in their push for Lebensraum.Which is to say there is a shocking lack of context going on in this discussion. Post war there was a feeling that the hydra heads of Nazism had to be cauterized.

    The Czechs defied the international community by attempting to airlift planes and materiel to Israel. Linking Germans in Ausland with Palestinians only makes sense at great remove.

    While forcible relocation is often bad (though we justify it in the case of a dam or a highway project, hmm) I must say going solely on consequences that relocating German speakers out of Slavic countries and into the German speaking paradise homeland theyd dreamed of from the moment chauvinism entered the dictionary has to be one of the most successful forced relocations of all time.

    • witless chum says:

      We don’t tend to allow it for dams on the scale of a couple million people, though. Unless we’re the Chinese government, who give not a fuck about anything we’re talking about here.

      There were a bunch of shitty things happening around Europe as everyone was starting to scramble to position themselves for the end of the war. If Sudeten Germans deserved it for alleged pre-war shittyness, well, a lot of people deserved a lot of things and most didn’t get anything along those lines.

  22. […] as last week’s wingnut dinner special Erik Loomis points out, by the impeccable logic demonstrated by Professors Jacobson and Cornpone, as soon as Poppy Bush […]

  23. Jay McHue says:

    Except, you know, for the fact that the acquisition of the crack cocaine and its handling were done by the DEA, not George H. W. Bush himself. Other than that, yes, these two incidents are “exactly the same.”[/heavy sarcasm]

  24. Jay McHue says:

    “NBC contacted (the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department) inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for their segment,” police spokeswoman Gwendolyn Crump told Politico in an email. “NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazine is not permissible and their request was denied.”


    Inconvenient truths…

  25. Thanks for the good writeup. It in truth was once a amusement account it.

    Look complex to more brought agreeable from you! However, how could we be in contact?

  26. This paragraph presents clear idea in support of the new users of blogging, that in fact how to do blogging.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.