I'm somehow a mix of "livid" and "numb" regarding the shooting at the Arkansas Democratic Party Headquarters right now. We don't know the motive of the assailant yet -- we don't know if Gwatney was the target for reasons other than his role in the state party.

But didn't we just go through this last month a guy killed two people at Unitarian churchfor it being "too liberal?"

We don't know if this is the same thing. But it is far too easy to imagine the motive. Because for some reason, conservatives love the idea of Democrats being shot. Oh, not all do. And those that publically call for it claim to just make a "joke" of it. Like those "Liberal Hunting Permit" that Dave Neiwart cited recently in a post about conservative "eliminationism". Neiwart collected a disturbing, but media-ignored list of major conservative voices calling for the death of Americans they disagree with. Here are a few:

Rush Limbaugh: "I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus -- living fossils -- so we will never forget what these people stood for."

Stop the ACLU [post since removed]:

Rope + Tree + ACLU Lawyer = Pinata

Ann Coulter: "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee. ... That's just a joke, for you in the media."

Melanie Morgan: "A great deal of good could be done by arresting Bill Keller having him lined up against the wall and shot."

Lee Rogers: "[T]he day will come when unpleasant things are going to happen to a bunch of stupid liberals and it's going to be very amusing to watch."

Bill O'Reilly: They ought to hang this Soros guy.

Whatever happened to the crime of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater? I know there's a fundimental right of these blowhards calling for the death of their so-called enemies (re: us) but where do you draw the line? The recent NRA wallet-sized handout saying that Obama will take away everyone's guns,perhaps?

In it, they state "never in NRA's history have we faced a presidential candidate -- and hundreds of candidates running for other offices -- with such a deep-rooted hatred of firearm freedoms." Surely that won't inflame people with guns, ironically since they must be confusing the gun-quiet Obama with another candidate.

But the most disgusting account I can imagine is an upcoming one. Pandagon links to a review of an upcoming "conservative comedy" called An American Carol about an irresponsible unamerican filmmaker modeled after Michael Moore who is visited by 3 ghosts who turn him conservative.

Amidst 9/11 jokes and various moralizations about what it means to be an America, comes this nugget:

In a scene that Sokoloff described, but didn't bring, Patton and his soldiers storm a courthouse that's about to remove the Ten Commandments and start opening fire on the people trying to stop them. "You can't shoot these people!" Malone says. "They're not people!" says Patton. "They're the ACLU!" At this point we see that the ACLU members are unkillable George Romero zombies.

It's always important to dehumanize your enemies, especially if you're looking to get them shot. (See: "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder", "Obama Nation" and "Unfit for Command" for other examples of how 'dem librals ain't like us.)

I'm sure an endorsement of violence is not what irresponsible filmaker David Zucker is endorsing by showing just that in his film about how unamerican and, apparently, inhuman Liberals are. Maybe he'll be visited by 3 ghosts and learn the error of having a fake mass shooting of liberals at a time in which people seem to be doing that on their own accord.

Sure, he's protected by the First Amendment. But during a crucial in the film, the Michael Moore charactor is faced with the carnage of 9/11 (hilarious!) and told that those deaths are on his hands because of "freedom of speech, which you abuse."

If fake Michael Moore's abusive use of freedom (as Atrios suggests, that's truly a conservative logistical stretch) makes him responsible 9/11 deaths, somehow -- is real David Zucker, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, et al. responsible for the deaths at the Unitarian Church and the shooting today in Arkansas?

Will they even notice?

So, that venerable, unimpeachable journalistic institution The National Enquirer released DAMNING pics of John Edwards with his love child. Or quite possibly some other man holding a love child. Could also be an older woman holding a love child. Maybe it's a hate child -- you have to check the neckline for some kind of "Omen" birthmark. Might not even be a child. Could be a puppet. Or one of those demented "Boglin" toys from the 80s. With the photoshop "smart blur" filter overused.

Here's the link if you want to feel dirty:
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/exclusiv e_john_edwards_love_child_photos/celebri ty/65258

I mention this because the Huffington Post, so excited are they, are linking away from their MAIN PAGE to give the Enquirer their much-needed ad revenue. Of course, Mickey Kaus (of whom Atrios has inquestionable pics fucking a goat, which will be exclusively released any day now) is beyond excited. Any day now, the MSM will jump all over it. Slate even graphically links to Kaus' "5 Reasons to Cover the John Edwards Scandal" which never quite mentions the "1 reason Not To Cover the John Edwards Scandal" which is, of course, the total lack of proof that there is a scandal.

There's a bunch I don't buy about these photos. First of all, the evidence is curtain-based. That is, the Enquirer gives space to show that the curtains in the pic are certainly from the place they say Edwards was when he met the baby. They also offer a clear picture of Edwards in a blue T-Shirt similar to the one the blurry Edwards in the pic is supposedly wearing. I can't tell from the link if the clear shot of Edwards is from the same day as the blurry shot of Edwards. The neck sweat doesn't match, at least.

NOTE: I think the blurry guy looks a lot like John Barrowman of the BBC's "Torchwood" and "Doctor Who." That would definately be a scandal if he had a love child, since he is in a long-time committed relationship with a man. Although his charactor, Captain Jack Harkness is bi.

I'm really unsure what to make of this story, other than wishing to God on high that it's untrue. Not for any love for Edwards, who's sexual activities are quite possibly the least interesting topic I can think of. I just want to see Kaus and the Edwards-Stalkers of the Huffington Post eat some crow. I doubt Kaus would eat crow, rumor has it (totally provable) that he prefers eating his own excrement, and does so daily, in the Slate offices, while Jack Shaefer and John Dickinson stroke his hair romantically. But someone there would likely have to put a stop to his column, maybe via lawsuit (since Libel is Libel even if you are merely repeating libel, although it hasn't been fully tested online yet.). I want Kaus homeless. I want him to have to report on High School graduations in order to eat. I want him to have to hold down a second job at the Barnes and Noble information desk, so I can go there and make him find EVERY BOOK ON JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY I can think of. And then bring them to me. I will peruse them, find useful passages, then give the books back to Kaus to reshelve. I want him to get papercuts from each book, and then to have the salt from his tears aggrivate the wounds.

Is this bad of me? I don't know. But I also don't know the fascination Kaus has had with sex scandals involving the Kerry-Edwards ticket. Remember Kaus was one of the lone pushers of the soon-disproven allegations that John Kerry had a wandering eye for staffers. And for months now Kaus has been pushing every little nugget of rumor on his column, battling with the Huffington Post for who will have the blog that will first link to whatever story the National Enquirer is peddling today. It's like if Woodward and Bernstein were super lazy, relied on supermarket tabloids to do their intellectually dishonest work, and fucked goats.

I just don't understand it. Maybe they like knocking a rich guy who has devoted his life to public service down a few pegs. That'll show him! The contempt the Right has for Edwards I've always thought wasn't based on his wealth -- but rather that he'd use his wealth for liberal causes! McCain can have $550 shoes, he's supposed to. He's a Republican and doesn't care about the poor. But Edwards is a class traitor, and he has nice shoes too! He's enjoying his wealth AND caring about the poor. So he must be ruined. Destroyed. Especially as his wife is dying. ESPECIALLY! It makes it hurt more.

Either way, I have no idea what, if any of this crap, is true. I don't know if the Edwards pics are real, if the baby is his, if the baby is real, if the affair was real, if space robots were involved, if there was a coverup or whatever tripe the Enquirer and it's minions at Slate and Huffington feel like pushing. The thing is NO ONE KNOWS IF ITS TRUE. Was a time, that lack of knowledge would have kept the story out of the pages (web or otherwise) of decent publications. Why that's not the case now escapes me.

But I find the fascination -- fascinating. Anyone else have any theories why the John Edwards sex-theories have become just a great White Whale for these low-rent Ahabs?

Anyone care to make a case why we should care?

I made the horrific mistake of reading Mickey Kaus's blog today... caught up on a week of his goat-fuckingly giddy reporting of the National Enquirer's reporting that Edwards visited the former campaign aide who Kaus is certain fathered Edward's bastard child.

I won't link. It's all easy enough to find from the Slate homepage. In Kaus' posts there are links to other so-called columnists and bloggers pushing the tale.

Most of the links are links to other columnists seeing their greatest dreams fulfilled, Clinton references, and complaints that the mainstream media isn't using the unimpeachable Enquirer as source material to launch a thousand scandal articles. Kos noted a few days back taht the MSM similarly didn't go nutso about the Bush/Drinking stories the supermarket tabloids push with regularity. Atrios makes cutting remarks to rumors of Kaus fucking goats -- proof of which is sourced about as well as Kaus' Edwards rumors

But that notwithstanding, I don't know how to guage this story. The recent rumors sound strange, and if true are very suspicious. (Do I sum them up here? Might as well. Basically, they say there are witnesses, journalists, who confronted Edwards when he visited an aide who previous was said to have been pregnant and given birth to a child with another campaign aide. Except it was 2 in the morning, at the Beverly Hilton or something, and when the afore-mentioned journalists confronted Edwards, he ran and hid in a bathroom.)

Kaus' Slate peer Jack Schafer did a piece on the media's ignoring of the story -- again, not mentioning all the other stories that go ignored in the Enquirer, but focusing on Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson and a couple other once-in-a-decade cases of the Enquirer getting sex scandals right. A few other columnists have jumped on the bandwagon, but near as I can tell, there's been no coverage by consistantly reputable media.

And its worth noting that pictures from the Beverly Hills hide-out were supposedly promised this weekend, and much to Kaus' consertnation are nowhere to be found.

But I'm curious -- not whether its true, although if anyone has thoughts on that, that's interesting too. Personally, I think we'll know that soon enough. And I hope Edwards' litigational skills are sharp as ever if its not. But my curiosity is for what people here think about it. Kaus and Schafer find conspiracy in the silence, or lament the media's love for "Saint Elizabeth" or comment that the media is waiting to see if Edwards is a pick for veep or something. I'm hoping the silence is good taste among the media.

But I'm not one for ignoring what the Right Wing is peddling. This seems a rare case of restraint by some, and overreach by others. Thoughts?

UPDATE! On the off chance McCain chooses Sen. Lindsey Graham instead of Gov. Tim Pawlenty, the "Team Diarrhea" name needn't be lost, thanks to an image highlighted by Politico.com.

Go Team Fudge House!

Gentle readers,

I am just a humble purveyor of blogs, occasional commenter, less occasional diary poster -- surely no one of note. Yes, I had some experience as a political reporter, but that was long ago, when I was much, much more mature.

Today, however, I have a simple request. To explain it, I must show you something courtesy of Newseum.org: The Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune -- which had a front-page, right-side article about the possibility that Sen. John McCain might pick Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

Now, if you look below that article, you'll see a fascinating look at how public health officials responded to the salmonella scare that sickened so many people.

That the public health team went by the name "Team Diarrhea" certainly shows their gallows humor at a time of great health risk to themselves and others. But this is also a time of great political risk. After all, would these salmonella scares even happen if America had leaders who cared about health regulations?

But that is a conversation too elevated for me. Because, thanks to a Page Layout editor who I'm sure is a lovely man or woman to whom we all owe our thanks, we now have this image -- McCain, Pawlenty, and the term "Team Diarrhea."

Again, I am but a humble purveyor of blogs. I carry little weight outside of my belly, and my political heft extends no farther than my stubby fingertips. Yet I have dream.

That dream: In the likelihood that McCain choose Pawlenty as his veep -- as so many speculate -- that they come to be known as "Team Diarrhea." As in: "Vote for Team Diarrhea!" or "Look! Team Diarrhea is running an explosive new ad campaign!" Or maybe "Team Diarrhea strained to hold on to their slipping poll numbers." Or if there is a kind and loving deity, "Team Diarrhea's Leaks New Gas Plan."

So, please, help this immature husk of a once somewhat respectable reporter finally achieve something noteworthy. Rec this diary, forward it to your friends. Put a sticky note (not too sticky) on your computer saying: "FYI, If McSame choose Pawpaw as VP, Make Poo Joke."

After all, there likely wouldn't need to be an article about "Team Diarrhea" had we had responsible leaders minding the store the last eight years, and the only way to see regulation that keeps people from dying-by-vegetables is to see a Democrat in office.

So, please, join me in calling John McCain and Tim Pawlenty "Team Diarrhea" should the urgent need arise. Together, we can answer nature's call of the "Fierce Urgency of Now."

Longtime right-wing political hack Bob Novak is alleged in a remarkable Politico story of attempting a hit-and-run after "plowing" into an elderly pedestrian in DC Wednesday morning, and apparently then speeding away. He was stopped by a bicyclist.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/070 8/11985.html

As he traveled east on K Street, crossing 18th, Bono [the bicyclist --ed] said a "black Corvette convertible with top closed plowed into the guy. The guy is sort of splayed onto the windshield."

Bono said the pedestrian, who was crossing the street on a "Walk" signal and was in the crosswalk, rolled off the windshield and then Novak made a right into the service lane of K Street. "The car is speeding away. What's going through my mind is, you just can't hit a pedestrian and drive away," Bono said.

Novak, with his usual penchant for accuracy, recalls it differently:

"I didn't know I hit him. I feel terrible," a shaken Novak told reporters from Politico and WJLA as he was returning to his car. "He's not dead, that's the main thing." Novak said he was a block away from 18th and K streets Northwest, where the accident happened, when a bicyclist stopped him and said, "You hit someone." He said he was cited for failing to yield the right of way.

This just a day after Novak was "reprehenibly" taken by the McCain campaign for posting that a Veep announcement was imminant -- something the campaign later denied and Novak retracted.

The Politico story notes this is nothing new:

Novak, 77, has earned a reputation around the capital as an aggressive driver, easily identified in his convertible sports car.

In 2001, he cursed at a pedestrian on the corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and 13th streets Northwest for allegedly jaywalking.

"'Learn to read the signs, [bodily orifice]!' Novak snapped before speeding away," according to an item in The Washington Post's Reliable Source column.

Novak explained to the paper: "He was crossing on the red light. I really hate jaywalkers. I despise them. Since I don't run the country, all I can do is yell at 'em. The other option is to run 'em over, but as a compassionate conservative, I would never do that."

But what's least surprising, at least to me, is that Novak would be trying to dodge the truth or compassionate conservatism. After all, he doesn't care who gets caught up in his hit-and-run CIA outing columns...

Finally, Novak put his head out the window of his car and motioned him over. Bono said he told him that you can't hit a pedestrian and just drive away. He said Novak responded:  "I didn't see him there."

A concierge at 1700 K Street said that she saw a bicyclist yelling and walked outside to see what the commotion was about.

"This guy hit somebody and he won't stop so I'm going to stay here until the police come," Aleta Petty quoted Bono as saying, as he stood in K Street, blocking traffic.

Disgusting weasel. He'd have just kept going...

-------------------

Leaving behing John McCain's horrible, no good, very bad week in which he:

• Stopped complaining that Obama never left the country, and started complaining that Obama left the country
  
• Messed up Geography 101, by opening up a border between Iraq and Pakistan
  
• Stopped bragging about how much the press loved him to complain that the press doesn't love him
  
• Messed up Current Events 101 by delaying the Anbar Awakening by some six months
  
• Bragged how courageous he was by saying Obama wants America to lose -- a comment so weak as to offend Joe Klein

...today is a new day. Politics has a short memory, and things can always turn around. Yay! So this morning his campaign felt they finally found an Obama gaffe in Israel to exploit. Flagged by Politico, here it is:

Obama on Genocide

Obama today at Yad Vashem:

"Let our children come here and know this history so they can add their voices to proclaim `never again.' And may we remember those who perished, not only as victims but also as individuals who hoped and loved and dreamed like us and who have become symbols of the human spirit."

Obama on July 20, 2007:

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now -- where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife -- which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Yes. The McCain campaign ripped Obama for his comments at the Israeli HOLOCAUST MUSEUM. Let that sink in. They're rapping him for not being strong enough against GENOCIDE.

In order for this to be true, you have to read Obama's comments with a ridiculous amount of misanthropy, while ignoring what the comment really is -- an indictment of the situational use of "human rights" by Pro-War conservatives. You also have to ignore the fact that the ethnic cleansing of the Iraq Civil War occurred BECAUSE we went in there in the first place, BECAUSE we had no plan for the 'peace', and went on and on DESPITE our being there for all these years -- including during the Blessed Surge, Hallowed Be Thy Name.

But to rip someone at a Holocaust Museum.... that's like... I don't know, ripping someone at a Holocaust Museum. There's no metaphore for it, it's so rich with chutpah it's its own metaphore.

But, don't worry. There's more. Lest they fear their earlier whines that Nobubby Wuvs McCain get forgotten, they issued new luggage tags to the press corps. Also flagged by Politico:

Front:

Back:

I'm sorry, which is the JV Squad -- the McCain media, or the McCain campaign? I haven't seen photoshopping this poor outside of a Jr. High since... well, they didn't have photoshop when I was in Jr. High. Still would have turned out better I think -- use of the "watercolor" filter notwithstanding. Not to deconstruct too much, but now, instead of complaining that the media is ignoring them, they're saying to the reporters WHO ARE COVERING THEM, "you guys are the JV Squad."

Okay, insult those who are doing what you are asking them to do is consistant -- after all, isn't that what they're doing by whining about Obama taking the foreign trip they mocked him for not taking? But you can take the insanity further on the back -- which doesn't even make sense. If they're covering the US, why the dig on France? And doesn't the GOP like France again now that Sarkozy is in charge? Is this gaying of the French guy with his pink scarf supposed to make the media gay? Or the French? Or Obama, somehow?

Does the McCain campaign even want McCain to be President?

But the thing that blows my mind -- truly -- is the waving White Flag of Surrender on the back. It's one thing to make the argument that the French surrendered too quickly in WWII. It's lame, but whatever. But a joke about a country that suffered greatly under the Nazis -- a country that suffered GENOCIDE under the Nazis... THE SAME DAY you're jumping on Obama for not being Anti-Genocide enough.... THE SAME DAY you're staining the very apolitical sacred nature of not just the Israeli Holocaust museum, but the Holocaust itself? THE VERY SAME DAY you do all that, you make a Nazi joke?

A Nazi joke?

Really McCain? Really? Is this how classy this campaign is going to be, this early?

Wow.

No words. Should have sent a poet. A JV Poet.

Among the many instances of chutzpah that make my eyes explode is the strange brew of logic exmplified by ABC News here:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/07/the-success-of.html

The Success of the Surge Seemingly Puts Obama on the Defensive
July 15, 2008 2:22 PM

Though a majority of the American people support ending the war in Iraq and think the invasion was a mistake, Republicans have tried to put Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, into a box as he prepares for his first trip to Iraq since securing his party's presidential nomination.

The idea that the "surge" is a success hinges upon so many caveats that you'd have to attend a few months of Latin class to keep up. I'll just name a few:
-

• It first required successful ethnic cleansing to put an active civil war on 'hold'
  
• It required abandoning our holds on other territories
  
• It required arming and paying our prior enemies, now friends with American blood on their hands
  
• It required battling our well-paid prior friends, now enemies with American blood on their hands
  
• It required more American blood
  
• It strengthened Iran's role in Iraq
  
• It has not improved Iraq politically, which was the stated goal of the time
  
• Iraq wants us out even more
  
• It is unsustainable

You would think that any of the above would disqualify the "surge" as a success, or at least the last one, with anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

Granted, in this case, we are dealing with Jake "I Dated Monica So Give Me a Career" Tapper, so I'll save the commentators that point. And we're dating with the DC villagers who don't often like to mix facts with their statements of fact -- proven by the alternative universe in which China is drilling off the coast of Florida, no oil spilled during Katrina and John McCain is a steadfast Maverick straight-talker.

By which I mean, I get it, the surge is a "success" regardless of the facts on the ground, because enough people who pretend to like the food at Lauriel Plaza say it is. The people eating food in Iraq? Who listens to them.

Multiple bombings kill 40 in northern Iraq
Published: Tuesday, July 15, 2008

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Bombers killed around 40 people and wounded scores in several attacks in northern Iraq on Tuesday, days after the government vowed to expand a crackdown against militants in a region where al Qaeda retains influence.

In the worst attacks, two suicide bombers killed 27 people and wounded 68 when they blew themselves up outside an army recruitment centre in Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) northeast of Baghdad, an Iraqi security source said.

The New Yorker wieghed in on this this week, again equating the current situation with "success". Even if they pin the credit as much on luck as surging...

At the start of 2007, no one in Baghdad would have predicted that blood-soaked neighborhoods would begin returning to life within a year. The improved conditions can be attributed, in increasing order of importance, to President Bush's surge, the change in military strategy under General David Petraeus, the turning of Sunni tribes against Al Qaeda, the Sadr militia's unilateral ceasefire, and the great historical luck that brought them all together at the same moment.

As for me, I'm just ranting I fear. Because the "surge as success" meme seems to be destined for long term, unargued "fact" -- regardless of whether it is also destined to join our successes with, say, getting so Soviets out of Afghanistan, helping Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, and I'd keep going on but it's hard to simultaneously type and bash one's head against the wall.

Because what really gets me, is how this idea of a success in Iraq seems to negate the "being wrong about Iraq in the first place."

Mickey Kaus, ladies and gents:

A reader emails:

People seem to think it's somehow a stroke of political genius that Sen. Obama is taking Sen. Hagel with him on his trip to Iraq. But why doesn't this highlight Obama's lack of judgment on the surge, by bringing along the man who considered it a catastrophically bad idea?

Actually, Hagel called the surge "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam." ... Is Obama cannily trying to demonstrate why Hagel would be a horrifying VP pick? Is he trying to deflect attention from his own poor surge judgment ("the surge has not worked") by bringing along as a lightning rod someone whose judgment was even worse than his? ... Imagine how embarrassing it would be if Obama went with an antiwar Republican like Gen. Zinni, who supported the surge, with what now looks like contrarian wisdom. ... 1:40 A.M.

So, Hagel, hated by Kaus for being RIGHT on Iraq as a whole, is now even more hated for being WRONG about the surge, even if he may not, in fact, have been wrong about the surge. (Since we're arming and paying God knows who for short term ends (see the aforementioned soviet afghanistan), we should all know by know how those chickens come home to roost).

I see this a lot. Political Correctness about the surge is seeming to absolve a lot of pro-Iraq warriors of all their prior wrongness about the war. Certainly, that's McCain's point -- although he's at least trying to rewrite his own history of being pro-EVERYTHING that Bush did about the war.

I would think the easiest way to deflect this would be to argue the point that the surge is a "success" -- at least in conjunction with Obama's "Iraq doesn't matter in the war on terror" point. But maybe the fact is too far entrenched to try.

I wish it wasn't. For my own forhead bruising purposes. At least Jon Stewart made a point of Maliki's handing out our US Aid dollars to citizens like, as Stewart said, "Sanatra at the Sands."

BAGHDAD - It is a politician's dream: Handing out cold, hard cash to people on the street as they plead for help. Iraq's prime minister has been doing just that in recent weeks, doling out Iraqi dinars as an aide trails behind, keeping a tally.

In that China-drilling, Katrina-non-spilling, free money for everyone just not Us, alternative universe, no wonder the surge is a success!

Seems wingers are going apeshit over the performance of "Lift Every Voice and Sing" -- also known as the "Black National Anthem."

This has led to some handwringing here and elsewhere that maybe performances of such songs should be forsworn so as not to offend the easy offended.

At the start of the event Tuesday morning, City Council President Michael Hancock introduced singer Rene Marie to perform the national anthem.

Instead, she performed the song "Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing," which is also known as the "black national anthem."

When she finished, the audience responded with mild applause. The national anthem was never performed.

Governor Bill Ritter (D-Colorado) discussed the incident on The Mike Rosen Show on 850 KOA on Wednesday morning, calling it "inappropriate."

They are going nuts because they are nuts. It's to be expected, as other diaries here have noted, that this would bring out the racists. Anything involving blacks being something other than invisible will upset racists. Anything showing black with political power will upset the wingers -- since black political power is almost universally progressive.

But let's get one thing out of the way. There is nothing wrong with the song. In the actual news story, there was confusion that the singer didn't perform the "national anthem" that was expected; that is, the Star Spangled Banner, but to complain about any other aspect of the story is proof of ignorance or worse.

"Lift Every Voice" is called the "Black National Anthem" but for God's sake, it's not an either/or situation. Our nation has several anthems, and no one goes nuts over the others.

From wikipedia

"Lift Every Voice and Sing" was first performed in public in Jacksonville, Florida as part of a celebration of Lincoln's Birthday on February 12, 1900 by a choir of 500 schoolchildren at the segregated Stanton School, where James Weldon Johnson was principal.

Singing this song quickly became a way for African Americans to demonstrate their patriotism and hope for the future. In calling for earth and heaven to "ring with the harmonies of Liberty," they could speak out subtly against racism and Jim Crow laws--and especially the huge number of lynchings accompanying the rise of the Ku Klux Klan at the turn of the century. In 1919, the NAACP adopted the song as "The Negro National Anthem." By the 1920s, copies of "Lift Every Voice and Sing" could be found in black churches across the country, often pasted into the hymnals.

Again, it's not like this is a parallel national anthem, or a dueling national anthem that hides a secret goal of white slavery. Put it akin to "God Bless America" and "America the Beautiful," both patriotic songs sung to show affection for the nation.

Frankly, "Lift Every Voice and Sing" is likely a more respectful song if you think about it. "The Star Spangled Banner" is an old British drinking song with a poem about a war the US essentially lost. "God Bless America" is our one-time mortal enemies anthem -- "God Save the Queen" with slightly different lyrics. At least "Lift Every Voice" is original.

But to be offended by this, people have to betray an ignorance of a song that is performed regularly in churches, schools, sporting events and public gatherings all over the nation, several times a day. The wingnuts getting all upset and acting all surprised are betraying an ignorance to a song better known than "Take me out to the ballgame" or "Rockabye Baby." They could get as offended by the former, as its performed with our nation's anthem at major community gatherings too.

As progressives with a modicum of education, a decent amount of historical curiosity, and no tolerance for racism, we should, as one, call this so-called outrage what it is -- blatent racism. No ground should be given. "Lift Every Voice" is a great song, sounds fantastic in the company of our nation's other anthems, and speaks for a population that deserves no less than our defense.

To cower to the idiots on this would make us unworthy of the song itself, and its vision of us as a nation.