Home / General / Submitted Without Comment

Submitted Without Comment

Comments
/
/
/
197 Views

Ann Althouse, everybody:

NPR writes “she knew he was attending a rally in Virginia” but didn’t “didn’t know it was a white supremacist rally.” Notice the assumption that it’s simply a fact that it was “a white supremacist rally.” I’m not sure that’s established. I don’t think you can assume that everyone who attended that rally has a “white supremacist” ideology, but I think there’s a big effort right now to lump the entire alt-right into that category.

Between this and Glenn Reynolds’s “if Obama had only prosecuted unarmed New Black Panthers for nonexistent legal violations, we wouldn’t have had all of these problems” the right legal blogosphere has really covered itself in glory this weekend.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Dr. Waffle

    All Confederate statues and memorials should be destroyed. It should be illegal to fly Confederate and/or Nazi flags. White supremacist and alt-right groups should be classified as terrorist organizations, and prosecuted as such.

    • Captain Oblivious

      Agree with the first sentence. Not at all with the second — I still support free speech. As for the last sentence, classifying organizations as “terrorist” just because of their political views is something I would rigorously oppose. Classifying them as terrorist if they commit or incite acts of terrorism is fine.

      • mattmcirvin

        Bans on Nazi iconography work fine in Germany, and serve a useful purpose. Here, I’d be afraid of the precedent–it would definitely be extended and turned around on liberal groups at the first opportunity.

        • brucej

          It is a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment.

          That said we should insist on these folks carrying the proper flags of these ideologies:

          http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/591c030edd0895dd1a8b4aec-1190-625/why-a-white-flag-is-used-as-the-universal-symbol-of-surrender.jpg

          • mattmcirvin

            It is. I remember having a conversation with an Austrian many years ago in which he said the First Amendment was the thing about US politics he found most incomprehensible–it meant we had to let Nazis run around free. And we are certainly paying a price there. But given US politics as it stands, any such exception would probably be exploited to smack down Black Lives Matter and the SPLC with a bonus clause for the undead ghost of ACORN within three seconds. Our conservatives are the kings of projection.

            • NewishLawyer

              Yep.

          • Rick Mann

            Wrong, schmuck. Remember the analogy of yelling fire when there is none? Read the fucking Constitution before you open up that poor excuse for a tool for elucidation.

        • Snarki, child of Loki

          Look, if assholes want to paint a target on themselves, great.

          And those nazi/confederate flags are GREAT for flag-burnings also, too.

        • Germany doesn’t have a First Amendment to symbolize its commitment to freedom. And that’s OK, they have other stuff, and overcoming the Third Reich must come first. But we do have a First Amendment defining what kind of republic we’re supposed to be, and I don’t think we can afford to mess with it..

          • I’m ambivalent about this, because I can’t help but think that we’d be much better off as a country if we’d treated the postbellum Confederacy the same way post-WWII Germany treated Nazism. It is, however, entirely possible that it’s far too late for that to occur now.

            The argument that a prohibition on hate speech would boomerang back to affect the left more heavily seems plausible, but it also has a touch of American exceptionalism to it, since I don’t see much credible evidence that outlawing things like Holocaust denial in various countries like France, Belgium, and Germany has led to chilling effects on free speech overall. A few countries that have such laws, such as Hungary and Poland, have backslid into authoritarianism, but it seems a stretch to blame this on those laws. On the other hand, our country is in a more precarious state with respect to institutional norms than countries like France and Germany are.

            I’m not a free speech absolutist. I’m incredibly uncomfortable with the idea of having the government policing speech, but I’m equally uncomfortable that Nazis feel ever more comfortable voicing their bigotry aloud. The idea that the only thing required to counter speech is better speech seems to have been categorically disproved by recent events. Germany’s strict prohibition of pro-Nazi speech seems to be a major reason the country hasn’t backslid into Nazism. The persistence of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy has long been an incipient danger to our democracy, and we’re seeing it affect our modern politics in worse ways than most of us ever anticipated as being possible (though I suspect a number of African-Americans were probably a lot less clueless about it than the rest of us were).

            But of course, the driving question in response to this is “how do you prevent hate speech without having that boomerang back on the left?” Especially with the Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III Justice Department, I don’t have a good answer for that, and I doubt there is one.

            In any case, I’m definitely going to favour the SPLC with donations for awhile. In fact, I’m going to throw them some cash right now.

            • Yes. It’s the first time I’ve ever tried making the argument in this direction–I’m usually trying to explain to people why French and German law is OK–and I’m not at all sure it works. Thanks for giving it so much serious attention.

              One thing they have going for them against the boomerang possibility is not having to “bothsides” the legislation: it’s about Nazis, who are responsible for this, that, and the other, so it’s not about Communists. I would be happiest to see US law directly keyed to Confederate symbols, in that way.

              Apparently there’s some interesting work going on in South Africa and Kenya on developing a hate speech concept that works in an Anglo-Saxon constitutional framework.so that might be worth watching.

            • ExpatJK

              I’m ambivalent about this, because I can’t help but think that we’d be much better off as a country if we’d treated the postbellum Confederacy the same way post-WWII Germany treated Nazism. It is, however, entirely possible that it’s far too late for that to occur now.

              I think the Union should definitely have been harder on the former Confederacy postwar. However, deNazification was relatively weak, even in Germany, and had stops and starts – it was brief at best in the immediate postwar period, and only restarted many years later. NeoNazis also exist in Germany, esp in the eastern part, but are at best a fringe force. (The same is true for US NeoNazis, albeit not true for US neoconfederates).

              Germany’s strict prohibition of pro-Nazi speech seems to be a major reason the country hasn’t backslid into Nazism.

              This seems extremely unlikely.

              On a related note, there are bans on Holocaust denial in France, yet the FN got 40% of the vote in the last election.

              • david spikes

                Certainly removing public memorials to the Confederacy is good-and it’s happening-let’s not forget that’s how this started. But limiting private speech, i.e. carrying a Confederate flag, is bad. But more and more Americans see carrying it as bad . As for the swastika-that turns almost everyone off-the more they display them the more they discredit themselves.

            • david spikes

              Yes, we’ll be fine with limiting free speech until of course someone limits ours.
              Do you actually want places like Texas or Alabama dictating what is or is not acceptable speech-or Neil Gorsuch for that matter?

              • postmodulator

                The thing is that they do that.

                Not directly; they don’t have to. But look at the difference in how a BLM protest, or the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, or Occupy Wall Street, are treated, and how the Tea Party or these assholes are treated. Hell, the UVA hospital apparently rescheduled a bunch of peoples’ surgery rather than risk interfering with the Charlottesville march. Our speech is already regulated differently from their speech; I’m not sure “give in to them more” is going to get us a good outcome.

      • Dr. Waffle

        White supremacist groups want to overthrow the government and commit genocide against minorities. Their very existence is a threat to the democratic order.

        • philadelphialawyer

          They are.

          But that doesn’t mean government prosecution and changing free speech law is the best way to combat them. IMO, we need to break the false and pernicious connection between “Constitutionally protected free speech” and “speech which you cannot be socially, and even economically, ostracized for.”

          Nazis and white supremacists generally can be, consistently with the First Amendment, socially shunned, and even denied economic opportunities, by private actors. The first part of that, social shunning, is inherent in a free society. The second part of that, economic consequences, is (wrongly, for the most part, I think, but nobody cares what I think), enabled by our law. Private employers, from the NFL to Google, can, and do, discriminate on the basis of political speech and activities. And civil rights and equal opportunity laws don’t usually include political beliefs, speech or activities in the list of prohibited categories.

          Don’t break bread with a Nazi. Even if he or she is your parent, sibling or best friend. Don’t buy from Nazis. Go even further, and boycott Nazis. You can go further still, under the law, and demand that people you do business with not be or hire or do business with Nazis.

          • Patrick_Spens

            IMO, we need to break the false and pernicious connection between “Constitutionally protected free speech” and “speech which you cannot be socially, and even economically, ostracized for.”,

            Does that connection even exist in any meaningful sense? People are already getting fired for showing up at that protest.

            • philadelphialawyer

              It exists in the sense that people bleat about “the First Amendment” with respect to Googlebro (but not Kapernic, oddly enough).

              • david spikes

                Kneeling while negro is unforgivable.

                • Rick Mann

                  Even if he’s praying?

        • david spikes

          Then you don’t be.

    • NewishLawyer

      I think Matt and Captain have it right. Any ban would quickly be used against left groups quickly.

      • Dr. Waffle

        Passive acceptance of white supremacy has never diminished its influence.

      • LeeEsq

        During the Weimar Republic, many of the laws that were ostensibly meant to oppose all extremist groups ended up getting aimed more at leftist groups than rightist groups. This was mainly because the judiciary was filled with very conservative judges from the Kaiserreich. Sound similar to something?

    • Snarki, child of Loki

      “All Confederate statues and memorials should be relocated into the target area of a shooting range, neoconfederates are invited to become ‘human shields’. If they have the balls, which they don’t

      • D. C. Sessions

        Someone suggested recycling them as miniature statues of Lady Liberty.

        Others have suggested recycling them as Nat Turner, Harriet Tubman, John Brown, etc.

        • Richard Gadsden

          All the ones in Georgia should be recycled as Sherman.

    • Tyro

      I disagree with the second part: free speech absolutism is one of the unique things about the USA, and it is worth preserving.

      • Dr. Waffle

        Tolerance of hate speech is, in part, responsible for what happened yesterday.

      • Lord Stoneheart

        We don’t have free speech absolutism and we never have. There’s always been limits, for good or ill.

    • Rick Mann

      What do you mean by alt-right? It seems to be an ill defined term that simply generalizes people who you don’t like.

      Got a problem with who I voted for? Then call me alt- right…is that the deal? FYI, I’m a Jew. Would you label me a white supremacist? And please, no smart ass answers. And BTW, exactly what are you a doctor in?

      • Dr. Waffle

        Islamic extremism is an ill-defined term as well, but it’s never stopped the government from treating groups that fall under that rubric as enemies of the state. It’s only fair that Nazis and their fellow-travelers be held to the same standard.

        I have a PhD in breakfast foods. Duh.

        • Rick Mann

          Barack Obama refused to call it a sect dedicated (by Allah’s decree) that is dedicated to murdering anyone who doesn’t believe in THEIR interpretation of the Quran. He then obfuscated the issue by trying to make us believe such a sect was simply part of that peaceful religion by refusing to call it ‘Islamic Terrorism.’ Therefore, it’s only ill-defined if you believe Obama. Follow?
          Anyway, I’ll take 2 bowls of Cap’n Crunch and call you in the morning.

          • Dr. Waffle
            • Rick Mann

              Actually, I’m rather well informed, but thanx for the compliment anyway. So, Obama was at war with those ‘who’ve perverted Islam.’ Perverted Islam?
              Perversion is cutting the clitoris off a female or raping a 9 year old – boy.
              Terrorism is beheading those like American journalist David Pearl, or capturing a downed Jordanian pilot, putting him in a cage, pouring lighter fluid on him and setting him on fire. Help us, Lord, for the enemy is the one who is easily indoctrinated and believes everything he’s told. And he is in our midst.

              I honestly don’t believe you plucked that passage from an admitted Islamist to post. Read his book.

              • Dr. Waffle

                Perversion is molesting children and covering it up. Terrorism is the slave trade, the Holocaust, and imperialism. Help us Lord, for the enemy is one who murders millions and claims to be the victim.

          • Dr. Waffle

            Also: wasn’t Obama the guy who ordered the deaths of Osama Bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki? What has Trump done to combat white supremacy, besides welcoming them into the White House?

            • Rick Mann

              Yes! Gold star for Dr. Einstein. In fact he did issue the green light, but if you knew who planned it, or knew how many years it was in the making, or the sacrifices and ops exercises it took to get it done, you’d want to flush your head down the toilet. But Obama gave the nod, which even a moron like you could have done, AND, then TOOK ALL THE CREDIT FOR IT! And brainwashed malcreants like you BELIEVED HIM. S.O.S.

              • Dr. Waffle

                You’re right. Obama’s responsible for nothing, except for the bad things you want to assign to him. A+ take, you hack.

      • david spikes

        Rick you seem to have a problem with hostility, is it because you feel people don’t like you? Perhaps there’s a reason for that.
        Alt right is what the alt right call themselves, perhaps you should go to them for illumination.

        • Rick Mann

          I do have a problem with hostility, viz. comments from those who articulate with hostility rather than with a civil answer. Perhaps I was not clear at first. The question was ‘what do you mean by alt-right? Are you inferring that they’re somehow affiliate with the ‘Right’ (as opposed to the ‘Left’)? The reason I ask is that I’ve heard these hydrocephalics identified as – or calling themselves – White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis, and White Nationalists. So, in your opinion, what do you mean by alt-right? It isn’t a tough question.

    • e.a. foster

      there is the small matter of the First amendment so outlawing all the groups you suggest might not work. Now banning Confederate statues, etc. and that flag might be a nice way to go. You can not change how people think and people ought to be free to think what they will. But once they start to act out these actions, that is another case. What we can do is have laws which prevent some actions which are hate based, white supremacist, etc.

      • Dr. Waffle

        Some times people have to be forced to change. See: the Civil War, World War 2, Brown vs. Board of Education, etc.

        • Rick Mann

          ‘…people have to be forced to change.’ See: Hitler and the REAL nazis. Now they forced people to change, as did Stalin, who was responsible for over 10 million executions, or Mao, a genius who really knew how to force people to change. Fifty million dead didn’t care for his style of change.
          And what does the Civil War or WW II have to do with ‘forcing people to change?’ Your logic and lack of linear thinking and of history scares me.
          OK, say your ‘Fuck You’ if it makes you feel better. But remember, if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem

          • Dr. Waffle

            “And what does the Civil War or WWII have to do with ‘forcing people to change'”?

            Someone’s never heard of the Emancipation Proclamation or the destruction of the Axis Powers! Then again, I really shouldn’t expect more from a simpleton like yourself, whose idea of a historian is probably Dinesh D’Souza or Jonah Goldberg.

  • N__B

    I have a simple reposes for Althouse: fuck the entire alt-right. Those that aren’t nazis are enablers of nazis and are just as worthy of contempt and expulsion from civilized debate.

    ETA: Saying “fuck you” is civilized debate, as no one is injured or in danger of injury. Hitting people with tiki-torches or driving into them is not. Threatening them with semi-auto weapons is not. Fuck everyone in the alt-right.

    • BaronvonRaschke

      Conservatism is a defect of the brain and the human heart. Change is the only constant, and some fools deny it. I am with you on your entire post

      • Rick Mann

        Love your opinion on conservatism. Can you explain what it stands for? Are you aware that conservative guest speakers are rarely permitted to voice their opinion when invited to college campuses? Have you ever heard of Dennis Prager (aJew), or Larry Elder (a black)? No conservative I know has ever denied that change is constant. BTW, it’s not the ONLY constant. he earth is in constant rotation and revolution.

        • BaronvonRaschke

          How have you left off Paris Dennard, a complete jackass and Trump apologist? What can I learn of benefit from such a blithering idiot, a man that Cornel West rightly ridiculed on CNN last night? I have heard Larry Elder, and he is an ass clown. Those are precious minutes of my life that I can never get back. Dennis Prager is a vile conservative bigot who supported Agent Orange. Enough said. I have tuned out both of them a long time ago, because they have nothing of value to say to me. Paris Dennard, Larry Elder, and Dennks Prager are soulless embarrassments to the human race.

          BTW, as an aside, if you obsess about horrible college kids being mad that a racist like Charles Murray thinks black kids are genetically inferior, and recycling century-old arguments from the age of eugenics and earlier in making his Bell Jar arguments, or that it is somehow a problem that college kids have no interest in the garbage that Prager and Elder spew forth, you are revealing something about yourself. That something you are revealing is decidedly not flattering. Modern conservatism was born of assholes like Hayek and Buckley. It is morally bankrupt, and Trump is the natural result of that moral bankruptcy. Ultimately, Agent Orange reflects the natural evolution of modern conservatism. I repeat myself. It is a brain defect that reflects its moral bankruptcy.

    • DaftPunkd

      Since the right is about cutting taxes, government services and regulations, and generally screwing over the people who weren’t born into wealth, what does ALT bring to the table except overt racism?

      • I think it’s the tone and memes. Yeah definitely the memes. Kek

      • Rick Mann

        Let me get this straight … you like giving your money to the government so they can squander it on ‘government services,’ like, oh, supporting illegals by housing, feeding, educating, and giving them free healthcare? Do I have that right? AND, the right is screwing over all 99% of Americans … Right? So why don’t you make yourself heard and complain about those illegals, misfits, and other losers who are being supported with YOUR tax dollars??? Another Rhodes scholar…..

        • DaftPunkd

          No you don’t have that right.

          Next time, try addressing what I wrote, instead of projecting your biases.

          • Rick Mann

            OK, Einstein, so you DON’T like pissing away your money … go ahead, finish the sentence (if you’re capable of doing so). No wonder Punk’d is in your tag.

  • Sentient AI From The Future

    [Insert “economic anxiety” joke here]

  • heh. the comment threads on wingnut sites have been exceptionally ridiculous for the past 36 hours.

    • SatanicPanic

      I don’t even know what that would mean anymore

  • SatanicPanic

    i guess if you have to defend the indefensible then playing dumb is as good a strategy as any.

    • farin

      Hm, yes, “playing”…

      • Mellano

        There’s a point where “playing” becomes “is.”

        It’s hard to draw a bright line (as Althouse would probably be the first, second, and third to interject), but “your entire fucking career” is somewhere far, far, far on the other side.

      • SatanicPanic

        Hmm good point

    • Hogan

      “No, I really am dumb. Most of the time I’m playing smart.”

  • Jordan

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHCaO6rVoAAzCGc.jpg

    Definitely not established its a white supremacist rally.

    • sibusisodan

      That photo just boggles my mind. It’s like it’s fractally wrong.

      • N__B

        You’ve heard of crank magnetism? Here’s racist-loser magnetism.

    • wjts

      But other marchers, not shown in that picture, might also have been carrying flags, and not necessarily Nazi or Confederate flags. Let’s not rush to judgment until we have all the relevant vexillological facts.

      • NewishLawyer

        Yeah they might have a Death’s Head flag, an Iron Cross flag, and a flag of St. George.

      • Jordan

        Agreed for more flag facts. Along with NL, there were a number of BLM flags, Antiracism flags, LGBTQ flags, etc. Unfortunately, for truth and justice, they were not affiliated with the Nazi and Confederate flags.

        • LeeEsq

          Maybe somebody should have been a brave soul and carried a Jewish flag. That would have united everybody against them.

      • Marlowe

        Just ask Dr. Strangelove “Dr.” Gorka: those swastika banner carriers were probably yids leftists running a false front operating to defame those white supremacist Nazi Klansmen upstanding young conservative who were merely peacefully marching to preserve their cultural heritage. Just like me wearing my father’s anti-Semitic fascist medal, there’s no racist motive at all.

      • It’s all a false-flag operation.

    • farin

      Well sure, pro-slavery and anti-Semitic, but is that necessarily white supremacist? Let’s not jump to any hasty conclusions here.

    • Snarki, child of Loki

      “Definitely not established its a white supremacist rally.”

      perhaps those economically-anxious folks had to buy the flags that were on sale at Walmart, ever think of that?1??

      • Jordan

        When even wal-mart won’t sell your flags, you know you’ve dropped out of economically-anxious straight into stupidly-punchable.

        • D. C. Sessions

          Quotable. Definitely quotable.

    • Incontinentia Buttocks

      The swastika is an ancient symbol used for millenia before Nazism existed. Who knows what the intent of the guy with the flag was. Maybe he just likes ancient India!

      • sibusisodan

        He’s just a Lynyrd Skynryd fan with a keen interest in ancient India, a love of flags, and a desperately unfortunate sense of timing.

      • wjts

        The Field Museum used to have a case displaying some pre-contact copper swastikas from (I think) Ohio Moundbuilder sites. What could be more American than that?

    • RogerAiles

      Instacracker would brake for those demonstrators.

      Then stand up and salute.

    • david spikes

      But have you demonstrated that ALL Nazis and ALL Confederate sympathizers are in fact white supremacists?
      This might just be a meeting of the South German Cultural Appreciation Club.

  • Hypersphericalcow

    Why would anyone who is not a white supremacist themselves go out of their way to say anything remotely positive about these people?

    • Because as Althouse and the rest of the right is fully aware, their base is largely racist goons. They’ve spent the last 10 years circulating pictures of Obama with a bone in his nose, making jokes about watermelon and fried chicken at state dinners, and narrowly avoiding serious internal injuries from straining so hard to not say “n****r” in public. Now, with Trump and his band of neoNazis in the White House, it’s no longer possible to hide the racist nature of the GOP.
      But Althouse, Reynolds, and every other “respectable” wingnut has to at least try to spackle it all over.

      • ColBatGuano

        Yeah, how are they going to keep up the facade that voter ID laws, Gestapo-like immigration raids and anti-affirmative action witch hunts by the Justice Dept. aren’t racist when all these racists keep saying how much they love them?

        • Barry_D

          “Yeah, how are they going to keep up the facade that voter ID laws, Gestapo-like immigration raids and anti-affirmative action witch hunts by the Justice Dept. aren’t racist when all these racists keep saying how much they love them?”

          By lying 24/7. Or in other words, continuing to do what they do for a living.

        • D. C. Sessions

          No prob. Movements aren’t responsible for their followers, any more than bakers are responsible for mass murderers loving their pastries.

    • D. C. Sessions

      Because there are actually a fair number of people who reflexively vote Republican and they need to pretend that the KKK and American Nazi Party aren’t running the show to keep them on board.

  • Patrick_Spens

    They were literally yelling, “Blood and Soil” and “Heil Trump.”

  • MacK

    I watcher the interview with his mother (it’s online https://youtu.be/VP8t_MoiDRc ) – I have to say I feel quite sorry for her (unless she was faking the puzzlement.) I get the impression she does not talk politics anymore with her son.

    • Karen

      I felt sorry for her as well. She was widowed with a young son who grew up to be, well, a guy who drove his car into a peaceful crowd.

    • ssdd

      From the Toledo Blade ( http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2017/08/13/Mother-of-James-Alex-Fields-accused-of-driving-into-Charlottesville-crowd-shocked.html )

      “Laurie Schoonmaker, who lives across the street from Ms. Bloom, said she hadn’t seen his car in months, but when he was there he often blasted polka music from the car.”

      I’m sure it’s awful of me but I laughed out loud at this.

      • Snarki, child of Loki

        “when he was there he often blasted polka music from the car.”

        Sure sign of a diseased mind, it’s true.

      • Sharon1W

        Ms. Schoonmaker noted, “Yeah, it was just ‘The Chicken Dance,’ 24-7.”

      • wjts

        Polka? Sounds suspiciously Tejano to me. False flag! False flag!

      • Those guys who pull up beside you at red lights with their subwoofers shaking the windows of their cars and yours? Polka fans.

      • Origami Isopod

        His favorite tune was “The Blahs Stole My Kishka.”

    • Lost Left Coaster

      I kind of feel sorry for her too but (and this comment isn’t directed at you but the media at large) it strikes me that we’re talking so much more about the details of the killer’s life than that of his victim.

      • Perkniticky

        I think it is appropriate not to splash the victim all over the media. No need to drag a grieving family through the public glare. This woman’s son is still alive, and, in a certain sense, she has something to answer for. The victim and her family have nothing to defend. In fact, interest in the victim seems a bit goulish to me.

        • D. C. Sessions

          I agree that we should honor the preferences of the survivors.

          On the other hand, family willing, I would so carry her picture on a sign to a demonstration.

          • Perkniticky

            This is why the preferences of the family are so important. They have to live with the effects of their family member being elevated to martyrdom. Though at a certain point that is out of anyone’s control.

            • D. C. Sessions

              Are we in violent agreement?

        • Lost Left Coaster

          There are definitely good and bad ways to cover the victim — coverage should be consistent with her family’s wishes and with honouring her legacy. I have read some good coverage of this today and probably should have held back on my comment.

          • Perkniticky

            I understand the desire to know more about the victim – it just seems these days everything moves with… unseemly haste. It’s connected to a concern about our loss of privacy – which I feel becomes especially paramount when tragedy strikes. But of course tragedy is public, so there is a public demand for information. It’s complicated.

        • Origami Isopod

          In fact, interest in the victim seems a bit goulish to me.

          I agree that the family’s wishes ought to be respected, but I see nothing ghoulish about wanting to know more about the brave young woman who was murdered.

          • Perkniticky

            Another reason to be uncomfortable with outing victims – the rightwing media will pick up on it and start to dig into her background to find anything negative that they can use to undermine her credibility. Unfortunately people think martyrs should be angels, which is why people will want to sling dirt, regardless of how minor. I would imagine there are some things she would prefer to keep private, or would want to explain, but now she is not able to defend herself. That is why I really hate the idea of elevating private citizens to celebrity status after their death. The police and media are much more careful about releasing names here in the UK, for that very reason.

          • Perkniticky

            I probably have unreasonable standards when it comes to describing things as ghoulish. Maybe there is a better term to describe what I feel. For example, it’s what I call tourists who come to gawk at the place on Westminster bridge where the car attack happened. Maybe that is not same as the interest in this most recent victim… but I feel they are related, somehow.

        • david spikes

          Soon enough Hannity will reveal the conspiracy that REALLY killed her.

  • If I were Althouse’s and Reynolds’ employers, I think I’d move their offices somewhere to the basement, next to the boiler, and maybe assign them no coursework, and maybe take their names off the faculty webpages.

    I get that you can’t fire tenured faculty, no matter how Nazi-curious they are, but I don’t see any reason you can’t put their office inside the campus radio station’s transmission tower three miles out of the city limits.

    • Snarki, child of Loki

      In the case of Reynolds, Oak Ridge National Lab is not too far away. I hear they have some facilities that could use Reyold’s “moderating” influence, ifyouknowwhatImean.

    • twbb

      Reynolds is somehow worse to me than Althouse. Maybe it’s the obscene smugness.

    • AlexSaltzberg

      Glenn Reynolds has a weekly opinion column in USA Today. In case you want to read pieces such as “Yes, I know Delta dragged a man off an airplane for overbooking. But they also rebooked my flight one time.”

      • Hypersphericalcow

        Look on the bright side: most of the issues of USA Today are placed outside the doors of hotel rooms, and promptly thrown in the trash, so no one reads his columns.

        • david spikes

          And USA Today had a great smash on Trump last week. Which makes me hopeful things are really starting to move.

  • efgoldman

    Even supposedly smart RWNJs, university professors and like that, are totally unmoored from any facts or reality. I pity the thinking students who end up in one of their courses.
    And of course, because they have “doctor” or “professor” before their names, or “Phd” after, we’re supposed to take them seriously.
    What a bunch of evil, delusional “authorities”. Tenured, too, right?
    Christ what assholes

    • david spikes

      Gigantic amounts of conservative(Koch bros.) endowment money has of course nothing to do with it.
      And of course Cornel West is kind of hinky-well more than kind of.

  • rfm

    For liberals, the presence of one bad faith actor demeans us all. For conservatives, you can’t label even a few accurately if one can be found willing to deny the charge.

  • dnexon

    Althouse spends a lot of time in the comments arguing that he quite possibly feared for his life and gunned the car to get away. In this she is supported by people who are explicitly sympathetic to all those cleancut young men defending, if a bit misguidedly, western civilization.

    • N__B

      Vacuumslayer just retweeted this: https://twitter.com/YesYoureRacist/status/896711976088457216

      Maybe he feared for his life because he took part in a nazi rally.

      ETA: I know we’re on the same side. I am extremely angry right now. If people with less privilege than my white, middle-class, cishet, male ass have no choice but to fight than I have to fight. And that gets me angry.

      • sibusisodan

        I know the symbols are fasces, but I’m stubbornly clinging to the idea that they are rolling pins.

        • N__B

          If any of them understood irony, they’d use crossed hammers.

          • sibusisodan

            Surely hammers would be more steel-y?

            • N__B
              • sibusisodan

                Yesterday I was at the Olympic Stadium in London to bask in athletics. It’s now the home ground for West Ham FC, known as the hammers. You couldn’t throw a hammer without encountering crossed-hammer iconography, which I’m sure is ironic on several levels.

                • N__B

                  Extremely OT: Every time I’ve been in the London Underground and looked at a map, the same question has crossed my mind: why isn’t the station between West Ham and East Ham called “Anus”?

                • Hypersphericalcow

                  It has a free transfer to the station called “Taint”.

                • sibusisodan

                  This is how you can tell I’m provincial: there’s an East Ham?

                • N__B
                • wjts

                  Not only is there one, it’s well to the west of West Ham.

                • Hypersphericalcow

                  I have a friend from Boston, and he talked about the “Seven Hams” in eastern Mass.

                • wjts

                  As seen in the little-loved musical about maritime shipping infrastructure, Seven Hams for Seven Harbors.

          • mattmcirvin

            I’m sorry to inform you that there are Nazi “hammerskins” groups that use that imagery unironically–they saw “The Wall” and thought it looked like a great idea. Fascism may be a lot like war according to Truffaut; you really can’t depict it negatively.

            • N__B

              I knew irony was dead, but I didn’t realize that its zombie corpse had disintegrated so far.

              • mattmcirvin

                They’ve actually been around for a long time. I think I heard about them back in the 90s.

              • mattmcirvin

                …There’s also a tendency for some far-right groups to use a sort of obnoxious 4chan-ish double-switcheroo deployment of ironic irony in the service of what they’re actually endorsing seriously, to maintain deniability and confuse people. This was Richard Spencer’s basic shtick for a while, but I don’t think he’s keeping it up very well.

                • wjts

                  I think “kidding on the square” is the phrase you’re looking for.

                • mattmcirvin

                  “ha ha only serious”

                • N__B

                  I’m not confused by this tactic so much as it lowers my already rock-bottom opinion of the people in question.

                • BeatnikBob

                  That is one astute observation. I couldn’t have said it any better.

            • farin

              “Hammerskins”? Are they orcs?

              • Shantanu Saha

                Orcs were invented by Tolkien in order to have thoroughly evil enemy minions that the heroes could kill by the hundreds without remorse. So basically yes.

                • MacK

                  Tolkien formative experience of war was in the front line in WW I, which he regarded as horrific.

            • NewishLawyer

              I am not sure it is completely true but it is an interesting observation. Fascism and Authoritarianism do have a highly visual/aesthetic edge to them and knew how to use visual imagery.

              Another person I knew on facebook took an observation from Oscar Wilde on War and made it about Nazism. Oscar wild said that if war was considered vulgar instead of wicked, we would lose interest in it. My facebook friend believes that the problem with Nazism right now is that a lot of people view it as wicked instead of vulgar.

              Again, I don’t completely agree but there is enough truth there.

              • Perkniticky

                I don’t think anyone cares about vulgarity anymore – hence Trump. Class (and moral) stardards have changd a lot since Wilde.

            • The hammer is also the symbol of Thor- a lot of these assholes are ‘asatru’ (#notallasatru), they follow Norse pagan traditions because they see Christianity as a Semitic tradition which undermined True European Kultur with a pacifistic message.

              It’s all of a piece with the storm/lightning bolt imagery.

              • Hogan

                I prefer my Nietzsche straight up.

                • D. C. Sessions

                  Sorry — I at first read that as risque.

              • BeatnikBob

                It’s funny how, IIRC, Hitler assumed Scandinavia would embrace his invasion. This helps explain.

        • mattmcirvin

          The killer is holding his upside down, so you can’t see the protruding axe blades.

        • Hypersphericalcow

          That was EXACTLY my first thought.

      • solidcitizen

        Anne already tackled this photo – what if he’s just a “lost soul” and someone handed him the cardboard shield and he was holding it without knowing anything about it?

        • N__B

          Then he’ll go to jail for being too stupid to live, whereas if he were black he’d probably be dead at the hands of the cops.

          • Sentient AI From The Future

            im just glad our prison system does such a good job of rehabilitation. especially with regards to racist gangs and the like

        • mattmcirvin

          What if an omnipotent deceiving demon is arranging our entire perception of a false reality?

          • Sentient AI From The Future

            Excuse me?

            • guthrie

              Not all sentient AI’s from the future are actually demons.

              • Sentient AI From The Future

                #NotAllSentientAIsFromTheFuture

        • MacK

          Looks like at least plywood to me.

          • N__B

            “Young Frankenstein. In BLACK and WHITE and PLYWOOD.”

        • did they also loan him the khakis and white polo that all the other fascist cosplayers are wearing?

          • D. C. Sessions

            Unfortunate coincidence khaki and white polo shirt are certainly practical clothing for a hot summer day in Virginia. Means nothing.

    • Kevin

      Has she not seen the video where he guns it INTO the crowd, from a non-busy side of the street? He was nowhere near the protesters, and then…he was very near them. God these people are disgusting.

    • he quite possibly feared for his life and gunned the car to get away

      that was the first story, circulated among the alt-right, when they were pushing the idea that he was a lefty who was being attacked by other lefties.

      the fact that the police chief says it was premeditated should have put an end to that.

      • Jay B.

        Should. Won’t.

  • Kevin

    Anyone see Tom Bossert (White House Homeland Security Advisor) on with Jake Tapper this morning? Explicitly went to “both sides”. I wish I could say I’m shocked that they are doubling down on this officially.

  • stepped pyramids

    For fuck’s sake, it was organized by Jason Kessler and Richard Spencer, both of whom are overt white supremacists. It included — by invitation — a number of overt white supremacist groups like the “Identitarians”, the Ku Klux Klan, etc. Althouse is probably “not sure” the sun comes up in the morning if she thinks it would benefit her right-wing politics.

  • SomeTreasonBrewing

    I’m left wondering: if you cannot peacefully assemble, then why should be permitted to legally assemble? What happens when a neo-nazi group submits a local application for a rally and is denied? Do judges usually/sometimes overturn the local decision and let the assembly occur? Might this change?

    If al qaeda or a local chapter of MS-13 submitted an application to hold a rally at a public park in Omaha or Topeka, the answer would be no.

    • Dixon Ticonderoga

      The city tried to move the rally outside of downtown, but a judge stopped them. The ACLU supported the marchers:
      http://www.nbc29.com/story/36115819/judge-grants-injunction-jason-kessler-can-have-unite-the-right-rally-at-emancipation-park

      • D_J_H

        Something along those lines also happened with the Portland rally back in June when the mayor tried to prevent them from holding it.

      • SomeTreasonBrewing

        Hopefully, evidence that these major white nationalist groups showed up to their own rally prepared to do violence (and doing violence) will persuade the next round of judges looking at these denial of permits.

        • D. C. Sessions

          A1 — they probably can’t be denied except on “time, place, and manner.” If, for instance, there’s a pre-approved event there the city can deny based on resource issues [1].

          On the other hand (IANAL) the city can probably make the approval conditional on the attendees not coming armed for a full-up firefight. You know — no long arms, no large-capacity magazines, no <expletive&gt armor — that kind of thing.

          [1] Hint, hint

    • Lost Left Coaster

      I mean, would Isis be allowed to have a rally, where their supporters would be certain to show up armed and violent?

      I don’t see the difference. Or, rather, that there should be a difference.

    • Its an easy line. If you show up with clubs and AR-15s you’ve made it clear that there is no intention for it to be a “peaceful assembly”.

      • Bizarro Mike

        I think the mitigating factor that clouds judgement is that these are white people. Assemblies of white people are always peaceful, even if they are composed entirely of bad apples.

        • CP

          Well, let’s not go too far. Assemblies of left wing white people are not peaceful, and are in fact almost as bad as the dangerous radical reverse-racist cop-killing BLMers. Remember OWS.

  • brad

    This makes me very glad I am still not Ann Althouse. But she’s getting worse and worse at remembering to pretend to be a Democrat, or decent human being.

    • stepped pyramids

      Does she still pretend to be a Democrat? I thought she had given that up years ago.

      • brad

        I haven’t really thought about her existence in that long, but I assume so. Looking at that post suggests her schtick hasn’t changed one bit.

        • david spikes

          My guest tonight on Hannity is Ann Althouse, well known Democrat . she voted for Obama, who will tell us why liberals suck.

  • Kevin

    She also goes truther on the picture of him at the rally:

    I don’t know. The second picture seems to have a sharply over-shaved space between the eyebrows. In the first picture, it’s hard to see past the sunglasses, but the eyebrows may be more natural. The hair in photo #1 seems more squared off . The ears seem closer to the head in photo #2. Would he really have changed shirts? And don’t men usually stick to one style of undershirt and not switch between a high and low necklines?

    Those black shields may make people look like they’re in the same group, but if the shields were being “handed out,” then any lost soul might end up carrying something without knowing what the group that handed it out says it means. And it’s just stupid cardboard held in a hand. Is “brandishing” really a sensibly journalistic word?

    • stepped pyramids

      Also, if you look really closely at his ear, it looks like an onion ring…

    • wjts

      Jesus. That is (charitably) barely half a step better than, “The man in the first photo has his hands in his pockets and the one in the second does not. How can they be the same person?”

      • Kevin

        It’s really no different. “Hair is more squared off”…in the second picture, his hair is disheveled. That is literally the only difference. It’s so stupid.

        • Apparantly along with some thinking Sandy Hook is a false flag, we’ve come to the point where the existence of Brylcreem is questioned.

          • D. C. Sessions

            We can all dream of a better world. Some would like to disbelieve in ketchup.

          • Harry Rumbold

            It's Wildroot Cream Oil. Look at the kerning.

    • Look, we have an adversarial justice system. Someone has to ask the questions.

    • sibusisodan

      “don’t men usually stick to one style of undershirt” is next level ‘but what about the kerning?’

      • Sentient AI From The Future

        Smells like an internet tradition in the making…or perhaps something is wrong with the sewer lines.

    • mortimer2000

      Would he really have changed shirts? And don’t men usually stick to one style of undershirt and not switch between a high and low necklines?

      Good grief. Has she gone from boxed-wine to shipping container-wine? That’s his prison mugshot. He’s wearing a b/w striped prison uniform. I don’t think it was his own “style” choice.

      • Don’t forget it was Althouse who famously commented about Jessica Valenti’s breasts because Bill Clinton was in the photo with Valenti.
        Breast Controversy

        • wjts

          Damn you for reminding me of the Bill Clinton onion ring bullshit.

        • stepped pyramids

          I forgot just how ridiculous Althouse got there. I remember her commenters being vile, and I remember her criticizing Valenti for running a blog that had a woman as a logo (sorry, a “breast blog”). But I forgot that she made the absolutely batshit claim that Valenti had been “dressed in the guise of Monica Lewinsky”, despite the only similarity being that they’re both brunettes and have breasts.

    • Hypersphericalcow

      I’m starting to think she became a law professor because her “reasoning” would have gotten her laughed out of court.

    • Lord Stoneheart

      Any lost soul? Did he just drive all the way from Ohio and then just happen to end up at a white supremacist rally?

      • BiloSagdiyev

        “But you march in ONE Nazi rally and you’re Pierre the Racist for life!”

  • brad

    “”Notice the assumption that it’s simply a fact that it was “a white
    supremacist rally.” I’m not sure that’s established.” What would it take
    to establish it in your mind professor?”

    More than a framed shot
    of a couple dozen people within a crowd of (what I hear was) thousands.
    Here’s related question that comes to my mind. Sometimes you have a
    parade, maybe a St. Patrick’s Day Parade, and a gay rights group wanted
    to have one float in the parade and is told no. Do you think the parade
    organization is right to exclude them on the ground that it makes the
    whole parade seem to be pro-gay rights? Or do you think the gay rights
    float only speaks for that float and the rest of the parade is not
    having its message changed?

    Honestly, arguments this piss poor should be grounds for termination from someone paid to teach.

    Good god.

    “Videos of the incident do not show a driver trying to escape the counter protestors but rather someone who was waiting at the spot before gunning the engine and ramming into the crowd, which was retreating from the scene.”

    What does that mean? Waiting?

    It’s possible that he was driving down the narrow street and saw ahead of him a crowd in the street. The crowd might have looked angry and scary to him and be all around his car. If, under those circumstances, he waited, that could mean that he was scared and confused and trying to figure out what to do. What was the crowd doing/yelling during that time? Gunning it is a terrible idea, but subjectively, he might have felt they were going to treat him like Reginald Denny.

    This is so deliberate she may as well just post Pepe in response. She’s a fellow traveler, now, there’s no question.

    • Kubricks_Rube

      Or do you think the [X] float only speaks for that float and the rest of the parade is not having its message changed?

      Uh-huh. And what was the rest of the parade’s message?

    • Sentient AI From The Future

      Incidentally, “Reginald Denny” predates the conception of this little turd by five goddamn years.

    • Hypersphericalcow

      Oh good Christ, there’s probably someone on Reddit or 4Chan right now making a Microsoft Paint image of Pepe driving his car into a crowd of protestors.

  • keta

    “Ethanol Anus” is an anagram for Ann Althouse.

    Yes, pointing this out is childish and immature and obviously dragging the once-exceptional country America down so I absolutely deserve to be visited by a bunch of white supremacists who have borrowed a tiki torch from their Mom better to shout Nazi slogans at night in their cleanest golf shirt and khakis, if not just plain run down by a car driven by a fuck-nut with improperly-spaced eyes and fecal matter occuping the part of his head where rational thought resides in most folks.

    It was me. I started it.

    • Snarki, child of Loki

      “Ethanol Anus” is an anagram for Ann Althouse.

      I always suspected Althouse was a Butt Chugger. Thanks for the confirmation!

    • mortimer2000

      Yes. And she lives in “an anus hotel” that “a nun loathes”. (I think the nun referenced here is Rod Dreher.)

  • Kerans

    I’m reading the comments at Althouse’s site and trying to figure out how to move forward with people who I just cannot fathom. And I remember this week pulling up to my wife’s bank. We pull into the inside lane and can hear some guy in the next lane talking so loudly on his phone that we can hear every word. Then he starts yelling “I want suckers, I want suckers!” at the teller’s intercom. Then he yells “I’m a democrat, I want free stuff!” and pulls away. Who the hell has to subject every participant in every daily transaction to this kind of garbage? Apparently Bill Cunningham does.

    I’m either starting to feel radicalized or really gassy.

  • SomeTreasonBrewing

    Ann seen running from house to house looking for ten righteous men at the neo-nazi rally. She’s been assured if she can find them then the white power movement shall be spared.

  • twbb

    Ted Cruz is arguing the Charlottesville vehicle murders is domestic terrorism and should be investigated as such.

    My brain is trying to escape out of my head now. Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn.

    • farin

      He’s an opportunist first and foremost.

    • Snarki, child of Loki

      My brain is trying to escape out of my head now. Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn.

      Dammit, Cruz, get back in the cage!

    • dmsilev

      I’m going to assume, based on what we know of Ted Cruz’s character, that he’s doing this as a way of undercutting Trump.

      • N__B

        Does he believe that impeachment will re-litigate the primaries?

        • dmsilev

          He might think that a 2020 primary challenge to a critically-wounded Trump might have some chance even if impeachment hasn’t happened.

          • petesh

            He might. He thinks all kind of strange stuff.

            • Barry_D

              “He might. He thinks all kind of strange stuff.”

              For that, he’d have to be truly dumb. There’s something which I called the ‘Ted Kennedy Theory’ (after Ted’s primary challenge to Carter in ’80):

              By the time that an incumbent president can be primaried, his party is doomed anyway.

          • D. C. Sessions

            What he needs to worry about is how he’s going to position himself against a neoConfederate primary challenge and still win the general, even in Texas. This looks like putting the cart before the horse.

          • BiloSagdiyev

            Oh yes, I expect many ambitious men of the GOP (and Nikki Hailey) will be tempted to challenge him in the primary.

        • D. C. Sessions

          Why not? Democrats are still re-litigating primaries from the 60s.

        • Barry_D

          “Does he believe that impeachment will re-litigate the primaries?”

          If Trump and the Trump wing of the GOP prospers,
          Cruz would not have a shot at the presidency until 2032,
          and that’s only if he’s not primaried out by Trumpists.

          If Trump and the Trump wing of the GOP crashes, then Cruz’ Senate seat is safe (no good primary challenge, and it’s Texas), and he would have a shot at the presidency in 2024.

          Also, he likely hates Trump deeply.

      • twbb

        Win-win.

      • efgoldman

        he’s doing this as a way of undercutting Trump.

        More to the point, he’s running for re-election next year, and according to some Texans is in trouble. Plus, sooner or later the big naturally Democratic part of the population might actually get out and VOTE. He’s protecting his punchable ass.

        • MacK

          He is in trouble. Texas is R+8 on the Cook Partisan Voting Index and he won with 57% in 2012 and since then has become as popular as a social disease. Trump is polling -20% on fivethirtyeight.com and Dems in Congrees between +9 and +11.

          He is the 3rd most vulnerable Republican in 2018 and on current numbers, especially if he tracks Trump even a little, he’s toast.

    • SomeTreasonBrewing

      broke clock

    • Patrick_Spens

      It is sad as hell that y’all are tying yourselves in knots trying to figure out why a Cuban would be vocally opposed to violent white supremacy. .

      • Barry_D

        “It is sad as hell that y’all are tying yourselves in knots trying to figure out why a Cuban would be vocally opposed to violent white supremacy. .”

        First, he’s a GOP politician, second he’s from Texas and third – Cubans have been ‘honorary whites’ for a while.

      • twbb

        You don’t think Ted Cruz considers himself 100% white? Seriously?

  • Sharon1W

    They can’t help themselves.

  • MacK

    I find myself – just a bit – wondering how much I agree with Samuel Alito’s dissent in Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011) – where he considered a broader interpretation of the “fighting words” doctrine that held that language and behaviors designed to cause “an imminent breach of the peace” with reference to the Westboro Baptist Church could be applied.

    It’s a tricky line, but when you have armed marchers waving Nazi flags, etc. are they over the line?

    • armed is the key word here. Yes that’s over the line.

      • MacK

        Several were “open carrying.”

        • Still. Its not difficult to say as part of the permit you won’t be brandishing weapons. They weren’t even holstered, they had fingers resting on triggers.

    • D. C. Sessions

      Given the current “Justice Department” and Court, that is probably going to translate to “the antifa provoked the violence.”

      • Except that there’s a point where allowing both sides, protest and counter-protest, free rein on 1st Amendment grounds could lead to legal consequences out of the ACLU’s wheelhouse, and those circumstances will not likely favor the left or anti-racist side.

        That is, I’m not thrilled about saying we have to support white nationalist marches where 10% get overexcited and go over the line into violence, because then we get to have left-anarchist marches where 10% get overexcited and go over the line into violence.

        • D. C. Sessions

          Nothing says that law enforcement has to abandon all judgment in preparation for violence. That’s going to be a problem whenever passions are aroused, regardless of who is demonstrating. (Bear in mind the hecklers’ veto — starting violence to give cops the excuse to crack heads.)

          In a better world we’d have impartial law enforcement. Bull Connor, Nixon, and (among far too many) Ferguson teach us that we’re not there yet, but also that we can’t abandon “peacefully petition” — and that giving the cops too much power is guaranteed to end badly, as defined by most of us posting here.

  • I need to bring it up, but the ACLU isn’t getting another dime from me after backing this ralley. SPLC just got their monthly contribution doubled.

    • Jordan

      theres a gofundme for the lady who died for this, as well.

    • Lost Left Coaster

      I generally support the ACLU. They fucked up here and deserve all the criticism that they get. They better not do this again. Civil liberties do not exist in some kind of vacuum in the Trump era. They are weapons that are deployed. These neo-Nazis would take away all of our freedom of speech in a heartbeat but that doesn’t stop them from beating us over the head with their First Amendment rights.

      • D_J_H

        Now that (neo)Nazis are really a thing in American politics, the ACLU might consider reading up on the thoughts that went into drafting German Basic Law. I would in particular point them to Carlo Schmid who argued that democracies ought to have the courage to be intolerant of those who would use democratic institutions to destroy them.

        • Scott P.

          Now that they are really a thing? Ever hear of Skokie?

          • Hogan

            The march that never happened.

          • D_J_H

            Indeed I have.

          • Wikipedia doesn’t indicate Skokie was violent, was It? I actually hadn’t heard of it. But really, it seems like a counter of my claim that they behaved shittily by giving another example of shitty behavior

            • Patrick_Spens

              Skokie wound up not happening because an angry crowd showed up and threatened to violent assault the marchers.

      • sibusisodan

        This, from afar, is the part of first amendment absolutism which has me most conflicted. ‘Speech-acts which, if acted upon, threaten the entire political system guaranteeing the freedom of speech’ shouldn’t be consequence free. It’s like some kind of end-run around the idea of civil society while claiming its benefits for your protection.

        • D. C. Sessions

          Agreed about consequences. If it helps, there’s a very large crowdsourced effort to identify the participants. Until recently online doxxing has primarily been used (e.g. ‘gamergate’) by the right wing to harass “SJWs.” I suspect that they’re not going to like how it works when they’re the targets.

        • Patrick_Spens

          So we should ban communists from marching? Should Muslims not be allowed to even discuss Sharia law?

          • D. C. Sessions

            Thus,

            This, from afar, is the part of first amendment absolutism which has me most conflicted.

            I can respect “conflicted.” Usually more than “without doubt.”

            • sibusisodan

              Thank you. It’s something that is never going to have a comfortable resolution. I suspect if I ever reach a conclusion I can get comfortable with I’ve probably made a misstep.

              • D. C. Sessions

                Probably so. See comments elsewhere regarding Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem as applied to social policy.

                Shorter: if you have a comfortable resolution, you should be uncomfortable.

          • sibusisodan

            Those both sound like very knee-jerk actions to me, which would weaken, not strengthen, a shared civil society.

            I hope you’re not going to claim they are the inescapable result of my mild, qualified, question above. That would be daft.

            • Patrick_Spens

              Well, both communism and sharia law involve, “Speech acts which, if acted upon, threaten the entire political system guaranteeing the freedom of speech.” Some I assumed you had a least thought about them and beliefs like them when you called for consequences.

        • Zagarna_84

          There’s no “absolutism” involved here.

          If a group commits violence, as these Nazis did, then the police can and should arrest the responsible individuals and charge them with the appropriate offenses. But that’s a far cry from preventing groups from organizing in the first place.

    • Joe Paulson

      What did you want the ACLU do?

      • Snarki, child of Loki

        Send the Alte Reich nazis a reply to their request for legal assistance: “Ha ha NO”.

        I think the ACLU has better things to spend their funds on.

        • D_J_H

          They could even make it contingent: Convince us that you actually believe in democratic values/principles, and we would be happy to help.

          • Joe Paulson

            Is this “democratic values/principles” rule for free expression just for defending Nazis or does it work for anti-gay evangelicals and the like?

            • D_J_H

              It depends on what antigay evangelicals are trying to accomplish. Do they, for example, advocate the violence?

              Edit: missed a couple words: the use of violence?

              • Joe Paulson

                Thanks. Okay. Some general advocacy of violence is found in many movements. That’s not the line of the law and yes it’s not of the ACLU.

                • D_J_H

                  I am not sure I entirely follow you, so sorry if I am misinterpreting in my response. I guess I don’t see a problem with refusing to aid a group that advocates violence, and by any reasonable standard the Nazi/KKK/”alt-right” scene do advocate it. The ACLU’s defense of the rally in Charlottesville or the one in Portland would suggest that they don’t see violent ideology as a bright line.

                • Joe Paulson

                  The ACLU doesn’t think “violent ideology as a bright line.” That also is not the line of the First Amendment in current law.

                  It’s a troubling line. For instance, the Communist Party in the height of the Red Scare had a “violent ideology,” including in theory supporting violence in certain cases. This lead to wrongs & eventually the line drawn was an imminent incitement test. Yes, the ACLU supports that line over the other one.

                • Does the ACLU think marching with weapons, violating the terms of the permit, or attacking bystanders is a bright line? The minimum they can do here is refuse to represent groups who have done that in the future.

                • Joe Paulson

                  ACLU has been attacked by the usual suspects for its support of stricter rules regarding gun regulations. I’m not sure what the local laws were regarding weapons — as we saw with black power back in the day, some local laws allow that.

                  I wanted clarification and appreciate, e.g., the comment regarding where the march was supposed to be. If the issue is violating legitimate permit terms, that too would be different. Obviously, the ACLU doesn’t support attacking bystanders though since various movements include some form of violence in action, an absolute rule there might at times not result in consequences some here would appreciate.

                • D_J_H

                  Thanks for elaborating. I see the point of disagreement better now. I guess my inclination is to draw the line short of imminent incitement, though there are certainly potential costs to that approach as well.

                • D. C. Sessions

                  I’m a firm believer in Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem as applied to social systems.

                • My screen was scrolled so that I saw less than the top half of the first line; I autocompleted the capitalized phrase to “Goebbels’ Incompleteness Theorem”.

                • D. C. Sessions

                  Goebbels, I’m pretty sure, falls on the “inconsistent” side.

                • Sentient AI From The Future

                  I’m no lawyer, but this has me wondering whether there’s precedent on incitement and the meaning of “fighting words” while open carrying firearms.

                • D. C. Sessions

                  Damned interesting question. One might speculate that “fighting words” is (or should be) variable depending on the lethality of the means at hand.

                • Seems like a lot of crap to avoid taking a moral stand. If I supported legal arguments for the sake of some set of logical aethetics, sure.

                  But to play the game of formal constistancy > moral justice is itself a moral failing. Maybe the ACLU has always been that and I took for granted that they knew when to put the foot down, maybe I didn’t look deep enough, but they should have a hard time looking in the mirror after supporting this one.

                • D. C. Sessions

                  If our goal is for the Law to be no respecter of persons, when do we begin?

                • I don’t believe that’s a good goal for law.

                • D. C. Sessions

                  So you’re down with the law explicitly privileging one complexion over another? That would, to put it mildly, disturb me. Likewise having the wealthy explicitly rather than implicitly favor the wealthy over the less so. Likewise having the law favor one political party over another.

                  I guess we’ll have to disagree.

                • Persons are not their characteristics. I don’t know what the solution is, but to say that if an armed Nazi who is itching for a fighr can be shown to be formally equivalent in some legal sense to a peaceful civil rights activist then that “legal sense” is bullshit.

                • D. C. Sessions

                  “No respecter of persons” is a historical reference to when the law did unapologetically make precisely the kinds of distinctions I mentioned.

                  “Armed and itching for a fight” is (remember: IANAL) well within the scope of things that are already fair game to consider. The part that isn’t is the “Nazi” vs “civil rights activist.”

                • sk7326

                  the hostility is the interesting difference and where is that line … but the two cases are both parties who are outside of what mainstream America considered a “normal point of view”. Sometimes (as in civil rights case) society is wrong. What is within the mainstream largely does not need defense – it’s mainstream! The hostility is another matter – sadly, that is one area where the courts have historically been very restrained.

                • sk7326

                  No no no, it IS a moral stand on the right for a fringe POV to have its rights defended. You wish the fringe POV were not something which is fringe for a darn good reason. “Socially acceptable” is a moving standard blessedly, but if you applied this in 1964 those civil rights heroes should not have had a right to be defended. I actually applaud the ACLU for being pretty consistent here. The consistency is not a formality at all.

                  But speech does have consequences, and the speakers should face it. Brandenburg iirc sets a very high standard for what constitutes such speech.

                • Patrick_Spens

                  How did you manage to know anything about the ACLU without knowing they support the right of Nazis to march? Loudly defending the right of terrible people to exercise their rights is half of what they do.

                • They don’t tend to lead with “We support Nazis too!”

                • Patrick_Spens

                  Hey, look what I found on the ALCUs “About us” page.

                  The ACLU is frequently asked to explain its defense of certain people or groups—particularly controversial and unpopular entities such as the American Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Nation of Islam. We do not defend them because we agree with them; rather, we defend their right to free expression and free assembly. Historically, the people whose opinions are the most controversial or extreme are the people whose rights are most often threatened. Once the government has the power to violate one person’s rights, it can use that power against everyone. We work to stop the erosion of civil liberties before it’s too late.

                • Hey, fine, my bad. They’re shitty people pretending it’s all equivalent or wotb it to equivicate and don’t hide it too deeply. I should have known better and cut them off and given more money to the SPLC earlier.

            • They can (and did) exercise their judgement. If their judgement is this poor I can’t support them.

              If they want to hide behind a formal, “all comers” rule and refuse to take responsibility for their judgements, then they aren’t worthy of support.

              • Joe Paulson

                They have been rather clear about their “all comers” rule regarding free expression. The basic principle of speech law today is a product of white supremacists going all the way to the Supreme Court.

                • Fine. Then they aren’t an institution I can in good conscious support. And I think anyone sincerely concerned with civil rights and social justice needs to think about how that works with their formal “all-comers” position.

                • Joe Paulson

                  That’s your choice. But, it’s nothing new, nor the debate. Nat Hentoff spent his career talking about it. Just one.

                • D. C. Sessions

                  It has been, and IMHO should remain, a perennial topic of debate. I’m something of an absolutist on the subject precisely because I can look at Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard and consider how much power I want him to have over speech, the press, religion, and assembly.

                  I would be profoundly disappointed were that position to go unchallenged.

            • AMK

              Distinction without a difference

      • Lost Left Coaster

        The ACLU has limited resources. In the Trump era, they have their hands full battling Trump. Pretty easy for them to simply decline to take such cases even if they see a legitimate First Amendment issue at stake. Let these neo-Nazis get their own representation. Glenn Greenwald may be willing to go pro bono.

        • Joe Paulson

          The basic idea that hate groups have the right to have public protests is boilerplate at this point. ACLU has enough resources to have one more case. But, let’s say it was a waste of some tiny fraction of their resources. The good they do with the rest warrants giving them your dimes especially since as you say the Nazis would have found someone and would have likely won.

          • Lost Left Coaster

            Speaking for myself, I wouldn’t cut off support to the ACLU over this. They are doing a hell of a lot of good right now. But this was a bad mistake that they deserve to get grief over.

          • If an organization sullied itself supporting a clearly violent hate group and then hides behind a formalistic interpretation of its mission, liberals shouldn’t support that organization.

            • Scott P.

              The ACLU has been defending the rights of Neo-Nazis to march for literally 40 years. How is this news?

              • Well, I guess it’s just the scales have fallen from my eyes. And the Nazis just showed themselves to be a live threat.

                • Sentient AI From The Future

                  I seem to remember something about Skokie, IL that the ACLU was also involved with. If this is somehow a surprise to you, perhaps read some history.

                  I still support the ACLU.

                • sibusisodan

                  My impression – cursory, alas – is that the Skokie Nazis were basically a joke. Did they have any power or support?

                  I don’t think one can rate the 2017 tribute act as quite as powerless, given their White House connections.

                  That’s a key difference. ‘We support the rights of less-empowered groups to speak, however reprehensible’ vs ‘ We support the rights of less-prehensible groups to speak, however powerful’. The visions of the role and scope of the public square are very different.

                • Sentient AI From The Future

                  Fair points. Yes, the Skokie Nazis were a joke and didn’t actually wind up marching in Skokie, though the town was a target specifically because of the ethnic Jewish presence.

                  I also expect to hear a fair bit of discussion about the incident by the ACLU themselves. If I dont hear that, or I hear the kind of tone deaf doubling down I would expect from right wingers, then I may be willing to reconsider my support. I can well appreciate the negative reaction in the immediate aftermath here, but I think calling for people to withdraw their support over this is premature as fuck.

                • I have wondered whether their support of Skokie (which I think was reasonable enough), or just the passage of time, has led to them becoming more and more mechanically “absolutist” over the years (to the point of forgetting the spirit of the law, and showing poor judgment in certain cases). Whether because it led to shifts in personnel or something else.

                • david spikes

                  Who interprets the spirit of the law-you?, Sessions? Donald Trump? me?
                  I think I’d rather leave it with the ACLU and the courts.

          • solidcitizen

            Except that they are more successful with right wing groups.

            It goes like this, left wing group applies for permit, gets turned down. ACLU steps in to argue for the left wing group and loses. Good fight fought!

            Right wing group applies for permit, gets turned down (rarely). ACLU steps in to argue for the right wing group. City/judge reconsiders (with a good dose of “Even the left-wing ACLU!”) and right wing group gets their permit.

            When the government favors right wing speech, “neutrality” in defending speech favors right wing speech.

            • Joe Paulson

              Left wing groups win repeatedly. The basic principles here are for everyone.

              • The way I see it, it’s like a comedian who makes fun of “all sides”, except here people are being terrorized by the violent results of the sick joke.

              • Zagarna_84

                More to the point, AFTER the right-wing group gets their permit, future left-wing groups can, and do, successfully use that case as precedent for their own situations.

            • david spikes

              We’re going to need some citations on left groups turned down.
              Otherwise you’re just yelling I’m a victim, I’m a victim.

          • D. C. Sessions

            One of the best defenses against those who attack the ACLU is precisely that they defend the same people who their attackers do — kids wearing religious T-shirts to school, for instance. That tends to make arguments over the ACLU being anti-Christianity fairly short.

      • drwormphd

        Not defend the nazis when the city of Charlottesville tried to move their protest to a park away from a business/residential area after it became clear that the march was going to be larger than was stated on the permit application for the march.

        • Joe Paulson

          Was this park an isolated area where, e.g., someone couldn’t ram into counterprotesters outside?

          (If the point is that narrow, okay — but the original writer seems to have a broader point.)

          • If it was Mcintre park, where it most likey was then yes.

          • drwormphd

            Yes. Open field; need to drive to get there. Would have been much easier to contain the protest.

          • drwormphd

            Nobody came close to advocating a ‘free speech zone’. The city wanted to move the protest for largely practical considerations, and they felt obligated to based on comments Kessler made about the expected crowd. The ACLU sided against the city and with the Nazis. Whatever their merits, the ACLU fucked up big time here, and at the very least need to re-evaluate their decisions in this case.

            • Joe Paulson

              I’m speaking in general regarding “free speech zones,” not specific to this one case. At any rate, there are various reasons why they are set up, not just to isolate people on content. Repeatedly, they are set up for “practical considerations” (a broad term) and there can be problems with them, including if “protesters would need to drive” to get somewhere. Sounds like that would inconvenience some protesters and isolation is one problem people flag with free speech zones, which repeatedly are set up for crowd control reasons.

              • Guest

                If you can only speak in generalities instead of in specifics, you should shut up when talking specifics. The only precedent the ACLU set in this case is that violent groups who promise violence and come armed for combat can lie about their numbers and intents on official punishable by perjury forms and still get to violently protest and kill people.

    • I would like to see them using this as an opportunity to set a bright line and not cross it in the future.

      Alternately, maybe they should focus on civil liberties and let someone else do the social justice, instead of pretending they can make all of it into a coherent ideology.

      • The cover of their Summer 2017 magazine has the headlines “United We Resist”, “Activists Fight Back,” and “Americans Rise Up, Strength in Numbers.” Contents: “The Revolution will be televised, archived & analyzed,” and “Resistance Report: Fighting Trump on four key fronts.” I don’t think it’s unreasonable (based on this publication) to expect them to be reluctant to defend the rights of uniformed Nazis to march.

    • D. C. Sessions

      I’ll have to disagree on that, while admitting that it’s at best a tough call.

      I’d rather have them out in the open. Yesterday forced a lot of people to take a stand, however spineless [1] and, Althouse aside, made it hard for many others to pretend. And then there’s the splendid display from the Greatest Orator in American History.

      [1] Yeah, I mean you, Marco

    • AMK

      The core question of these times is how does a liberal democracy handle illiberalism that would destroy the democracy? The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Not volunteering to defend Nazis is literally the least anyone can do.

      This is really hard to get through the heads of lots of liberals. I live in a purple state where the Dems’ holy grail is one of these nonpartisan, good-government statehouse redistricting commissions. I argue at the local Dem meetings that our goal should instead be to re-gerrymander in our favor, given that our state’s rural areas are theo-fascist opioid dens on a good day and no more capable of post-Enlightenment democracy than the Afghan tribal areas. The other people look at me like I have three heads.

      • D. C. Sessions

        The Arizona rule is “competitive districts.” Which, honestly applied, would get your State results about as good as you could hope for given the urban/rural demographic bias.

        • Michael Cain

          Like most states with which I’m familiar, Arizona’s rules have a bunch of other criteria that have higher priority than “competitive”: contiguous, compact, use of geographic features, existing city and county boundaries. Colorado has similar rules, and applied to Congressional districts, pretty much ensure that there will be three safe (R) districts, two safe (D) districts, and two that are more-or-less competitive.

          • D. C. Sessions

            Which, given Colorado and Arizona is hard to argue with. Just as a fer-instance, you really don’t want any districts spanning the Rockies — lumping Grand Junction together with Boulder would be … strange.

      • It may be that prohibiting Nazis from marching in Skokie would have set a precedent that would ramify to groups I wouldn’t want to keep from marching.

        I hold out hope that they’ll realize this is a case they don’t need to defend. If not, though, I think we still need them.

        In general we don’t have laws against illiberalism, just limitations on acting in illiberal ways.

    • Hogan

      It would be good to know whether the permit application they were defending specified that many/most of the marchers would be brandishing fully loaded semi-automatic weapons. Knowing that might have affected the ACLU’s decision.

    • Zagarna_84

      What a silly, shortsighted attitude. Do you believe that a rule that authorities may crack down on rallies in advance because they THINK there MIGHT be violence would, by and large, benefit the left? Do you really want local police making those decisions?

      Because my answers are “no” and “oh hell no,” respectively.

      • I’ll stand up for those people when it comes to it. I’m not willing to back known reprehensible violent rightists just so I can say I was consistent all along.

        • Zagarna_84

          It turns out that being “consistent all along” is really rather important in the lawyerating.

          • IANAL. But in my humble opinion, rulings are political and moral and the rest of it is a game to dress it up as though it were otherwise. But that’s my external opinion.

            • Zagarna_84

              It’s obvious that politics plays a huge role in judicial decisionmaking, but it’s equally obvious that precedent and consistency pose at least a significant external restraint on the ability of extremist judges to write their political preferences into law. And nobody other than maaaaaybe the NAACP has done more than the ACLU to create good precedent.

        • D. C. Sessions

          Would you settle for “weapons at the door?”

          • Yes.

            • D. C. Sessions

              Then we’re cool.

              Oh, and: crowd size limits specified in advance, depending on the usual constraints (this usually goes without saying, but lately …)

    • Origami Isopod

      They’re representing Milo Y, too.

      I understand why they’re doing it; I don’t need it explained to me. That said, if I were in a position to be making regular donations right now, I’d divert them to BLM, the SPLC, and similar organizations.

    • A member of the VA ACLU board resigned in protest: http://www.starexponent.com/news/board-member-of-va-aclu-resigns-in-protest-of-group/article_cac6b890-806b-11e7-a275-c398fc9335a8.html

      Apparently there may be others– more informed than I– who likewise thought the ACLU would draw the line appropriately when it came to violent extremists and were let down. Shoild have read the “about us” page I guess.

    • ExpatJK

      I’m with you on this. I do understand the ACLU has a consistent position on this, so I have some respect for that. On the other hand, there’s no need for me to donate my money and have said money go to support Nazis, who openly want to destroy people like me and my family.

  • Thom

    I think these people missed the point of “White Riot.”

  • Perkniticky

    Impressive hair splitting. Is the alt-right still pretending not to be white supremacists? I think their flag has been captured (if they ever had their own flag, which is highly debatable).

    • Aaron Morrow

      Alt-right is either a euphemism for white supremacists or white nationalists; either way, Althouse is defending antisemitic fascists by saying they could be Italian Brownshirts.

      • Zagarna_84

        *Blackshirts

        This has been your interlude of pedantic historicism for the day. Carry on.

    • D. C. Sessions

      Last I checked the “alt-right” is still trying to avoid the collapse of its wavefunction.

  • DonCoffin

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7bf3c2026f931892f8ef8f97401af510d34b7cc7c1e8bc66efa59da4b83ca6b0.jpg
    Just a reminder, if one is needed, about what can happen when the Nazis (or neos) take over). (Not that anyone here needs the reminder.)

  • Incontinentia Buttocks

    Someone seems to have forgotten to lock up the boxed wine at stately Althouse Manor.

  • The Lorax

    Listening to NPR yesterday from their headline news I’d have thought Trump gave a strong denouncement of the Nazis. Because God forbid they point out he didn’t. They might be called liberal.

    • Snarki, child of Loki

      NPR = “Nice Polite Republicans”

      Vella napalma est

    • Weirdly, I was listening to classical radio and the NPR news at noon said the crowds were small and nonviolent.

  • tsam100

    I only hope to live Iong enough to witness a mass grave full of these nazis.

    • Snarki, child of Loki

      (tinkerbell voice): “may all your dreams come true!”

  • Uncle_Ebeneezer

    This from a woman who didn’t think her obsession with Jessica Valenti’s breasts could possibly be a sign of internalized sexism and Clinton-Derangement-Syndrome.

  • Just_Another_Person_123

    New Internet Tradition: Going forward, you may only refer to Ms. Outhouse as “Nazi apologist, Ann Outhouse.”

  • Sentient AI From The Future

    A few months back I was discussing Trump’s election with a friend of many years. We were both freaking the fuck out because of confluences of personal setbacks with the political situation. We both have dependents that would make up-and-fleeing pretty much untenable, so we were trying to figure out what the brightest lines were that we could draw to indicate the need to GTFO of the US.

    The only halfway decent one I could come up with was the existence/rise of brownshirts or their equivalent, able to inflict extra judicial violence with impunity.

    I dont think Charlottesville is quite that, exactly, but its certainly bounding towards that line.

  • Mutaman

    Ann nay have outdone her previously most famous space cadet moment:

    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-are-letters-nig-on-childs-pajamas.html

    “On pausing, staring, and thinking, I believe these are pajamas that say
    “good night” all over them, but the letters “NIG” are set apart by a
    fold in the fabric. Is the campaign responsible for sending out a subliminal message to
    stimulate racist thoughts in the unsuspecting viewer? It is either
    deliberate or terribly incompetent.”

  • BaronvonRaschke

    What happened in C’ville and with Trump is a culmination of nearly 50 years of GOP racism and race baiting. The main difference is that Agent Orange is openly racist, and he occupies the the WH. Until now, they were a bit subtler. Reagan, a pathogical liar and racIst hypocrite, gave GOP racism the subtle push it needed to go mainstream among Reps.

  • Davebo

    Probably just local fisherman out for a midnight cruise in eel infested waters….

    • Hogan

      “The evidence against my clients is circumstantial, and the girls brought their own drugs and Wally and Lenny didn’t know it was a laundromat, and the pony was there when they arrived.”

  • sanjait

    From Southern Poverty Law Center (which I found in 3 seconds on google searching for info about the organizer of the event):

    **About Jason Kessler

    A relative newcomer to the white nationalist scene, Jason Kessler has made waves in his attempt to unseat Charlottesville’s only black city councilman and for his status as a bridge between a Virginia gubernatorial candidate and the Alt-Right. Relying on familiar tropes of “white genocide” and “demographic displacement,” Kessler has sought to parlay his status as a lonely dissenter in the “Capital of the Resistance” into notoriety on the larger far right circuit by organizing a second white nationalist rally in Charlottesville after the first, torchlit rally in May of 2017 made headlines.**

    https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/jason-kessler

    Seems like a pretty solid assumption that people who rely on the familiar tropes of “white genocide” and “demographic displacement” are white supremacists. N’est pas? Is this really so complicated?

  • MacCheerful

    Fans of motivated reasoning will be interested in this example taken from Althouse’s commentariat:

    The guy was not driving on a pedestrian mall. He was driving on a public street (4th Street, approaching Water) that crosses the mall, a street which should have had only cars on it, but was in fact full of asshole pedestrians intentionally and illegally blocking it, shouting “Who owns the street? We own the street!”. The two cars he hit should have been going 25 miles an hour, but were going roughly 2 miles an hour, because the pedestrians were blocking them. Were the pedestrians doing that so they could check out the drivers and pull any who looked like right-wingers out of their cars and beat them? I’m pretty sure some of them were at least thinking of that. There weren’t that many pedestrians around that they couldn’t have made room for the cars if they had wanted to.

    There was no other way out of town for the guy. He could not turn right or left at the previous intersection with Main Street, because Main is now a pedestrian mall, blocked off by bollards. He could not legally go back north, because 4th Street is one-way southbound, though he did back up that way after the collision, when it was the only way out, legal or not.

    Nor is it true to say that he drove into pedestrians. He drove square into the back of the car in front of him, which was right in the middle of the lane of traffic where it was supposed to be. If his aim was to kill pedestrians, he could easily have gone right or left and killed lots of them himself, and maybe even have gotten past the other two cars, but he didn’t. It looks like he was praying that the blockage would open up and the other cars would start moving and all three could get the Hell out of town and onto I-64 and head for Ohio.

    I don’t know if he hit anyone backing up, but it looks to me like anyone who was hurt or killed in the initial collision was hit by the car he ran into (silver convertible with black roof) or the red SUV in front of it that he knocked it into or (worst of all) crushed between them. And any pedestrian hit by any of the three vehicles had no business being where they were, in the middle of the damned street blocking traffic. Their own recklessness was in fact a contributing factor to their injuries.

    • 4th street intersects the pedestrian mall. Pedestrians on the mall have complete right-of-way. Its a terrible way to get to 64, so that makes no sense either.

      I just realized I wrote that in response to a comment from someone who has not an ounce of good faith in it anyway. But still even the motivated reasoning doesn’t make any fucking sense.

      • MacCheerful

        As it happens a deep dive into whether there is or is not a pedestrian mall involved occupied the time of a lot of commenters – as if that explained anything about what happened. Some seem to operate on the theory that running down jay walkers is everybody’s right.

        • Getting 2 blocks of steam going too.

          When I saw the one angle I thought (hoped) it was an accident. There are angles where you can see him reving up and speeding into it though. Its not ambiguous.

  • randomvariable

    Still with the constitution worship in these comments.
    Stay committed to the freedom of genocide incitement you wonderful liberals in the greatest republic the world has ever seen.

  • erquirk

    Ann Althouse. Lolz!

  • Rick Mann

    Agreed, on the premise that 1. we don’t know all the facts – yet, and 2. ‘assuming’ can be harmful to one’s health. What happened (from my perch) was that one group applied for a permit to assemble, and was granted such. So, call them what you want, they were there legally. Now the question becomes ‘how (and why) did violence erupt.’ An armed group who did not have a permit to assemble appears. This changes the whole complexion of the debate. If that non-permit group stayed home, the ‘permit’ group would have had no one to tangle with. I have disdain and contempt for BOTH lunatic fringe ideologies, BUT, three families wouldn’t be in mourning if the second group stayed home.
    -Dedicated to Warren Zevon … R.I.P.

  • Rick Mann

    It’s sad to see so much denial, hostility, close-mindedness, lack of meaningful, courteous,and substantiated opinion, one-think, and hostility on a blog or any platform. If Warren Zevon were alive, he would sue for plagiarism. But none of you know who he was, so it’s a moot point.

It is main inner container footer text