What is the threat posed by a minute group of virulent haters?

Sunday’s Washington Post had an interesting article about how Barack Obama’s candidacy has proven a useful recruiting tool for racist hate groups. They’ve enjoyed a real spike in applications and activity. That’s alarming.

Or is it? As some of the leaders of the white-power movement admit, they’re not exactly on par with the NRA or the AARP, numbers-wise:

Such groups have historically inflated their influence for self-promotion and as an intimidation technique, and they refused to provide exact membership numbers or open their meetings to a reporter. Leaders acknowledged that their numbers remain very small—“the flat-globe society still has more people than us,” Roper said. But experts said their claims reveal more than hyperbole this time.

Yet their existence, and growth, is useful for those at the diametrical opposite end of the spectrum as well: If the threat of neo-Nazis and white supremacists seems to be growing, that’s a powerful recruiting and fundraising tool for organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center.

In some ways the situation seems to have some parallels to the debate over Islamic radicalism and the threat of jihad. There are those who contend the Bush administration has exaggerated the threat from Islamofascism for its own political ends. Just how big is the threat—from white supremacists or islamofascists—in actuality?

In each case you’ve got a bunch of angry young men (and some women) and a lot of websites spewing vitriol by the bucketful. But how many of those who hang out on the fringes of the movement are motivated enough to carry out—let alone competent enough to carry out—a serious plot?

Then again, how many does it take to carry out a serious plot?

On 9/11, it took only a couple of dozen.

In the Oklahoma City bombing, it took only a couple of persons.

I just got the news flash from the NY Times about the SP decision on gun rights.

The blogs will be burning up today.

They old guys finally did something right. We have the right to defend ourselves. What a wonderfully novel idea!!!

I agree. I had not been to the site before.

Some really well researched well written stuff.

Liberals are not my cup of tea at all. And well educated liberal lawyers with an agenda just make me want to turn to gin.

I have far too much time on my hands.
I checked out the Truthout.org site and the Majorie Cohn article.

It seems that Scalia got his information from a year old CNN piece who got their information from a DOD report. That they have since discredited. I went and read what looks like the final word on the matter. A report by Marc Ash a law professor at Seton Hall University. It certainly looks as though he did all the research that Scalia should have done. I think it nails down the matter once and for all.

I am disappointed. I still agree with Scalia. I think that we will regret the decision. Well into the future.

Truthout competes with Moveon for most “ultra” liberal.  Even when they get the facts straight hard to stomach the spin (the exact same as leftists feel about some rightwing websites).

And what about those facts ?

Not convincing to me. If Scalia got it wrong, and only 2 vs. 39 went back to the battlefield, exactly what does that prove ?  Anything ?

Are we tracking them, is that classified, and how does having a couple more combatants relate to protecting their rights, or to the Americans killed and maimed as a result of them being back on the battlefield, or to those who went peacefully back to the village or to them waiting a year or two and then going back to the battlefield, or to them convincing all the other villagers to hit the battlefield, or to only 2 going back to battle vs. 200 peaceful or to the memory of the Americans killed that landed them in Gitmo to begin with.

Meaningless stats get waved around as if they prove something. Do they ?

The bottom line is that someone of Scalia’s stature is worried innocent Americans will get killed while other worthy folks worry about habeas corpus and such.

I guess I myself have lived in a society that has released hardened criminals on a pure technicality or paroled them to go off and commit horrible crimes, so I see some value in simply protecting our interests whenever possible.

First of all, Scott - give us a link that works if you please.  Thanks.

Second - I went and checked it out - holy crap, what a bunch of knee-jerk, head-bobbing, “me too” liberals.  You’d think Scalia single-handedly murdered a town of women and children.  In the comments section of that site, there are the predictable (and very tired) calls for impeachment, “criminal,” and yes - even “Hitler” is invoked. 

Sheesh.

So Scott, why don’t you inform us where Scalia got that information from?

Marjorie Cohn | Scalia Cites False Information in Habeas Corpus Dissent
http://www.truthout.org/article/scalia-cites-false-information-habeas-
corpus-dissent
Marjorie Cohn writes for Truthout: “To bolster his argument that the
Guantanamo detainees should be denied the right to prove their
innocence in federal courts, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his
dissent in Boumediene v. Bush: ‘At least 30 of those prisoners
hitherto released from Guantanamo have returned to the battlefield.’
It turns out that statement is false.”

The ice is getting thin but since we are both on it, here goes -

Look, you could say that Texas is the 2nd largest state, with an economy the size of many countries, but that does not mean the elected governor of that state is any different than any other politician in any respect. 

By the same token, Obama teaching as a prestigious university does not automatically make him a legal scholar as some have said.

Both claims, that governor of Texas or legal scholar mean anything must be subject to proof.

The following snippet from 2004 (blogcritics.org) takes Bush to task for his governorship. I don’t claim Bush was an abject failure but the notion that he was successful is definitely open to conjecture (many would disagree):

The following data were valid as of the end of his first term, and are taken from the Census Bureau, National Center for Health Statistics, the EPA, and the Congressional Quarterly. They rank Texas in relation to the other 49 states.

To be fair, Texas was at the top of some ratings:

* 1st in pollution released by manufacturing plants;
* 1st in pollution by industrial plants in violation of the federal Clean Air Act;
* 1st in greenhouse gas emissions;
* 1st in number of working parents without health insurance;
* 1st in percentage of children without health insurance.

* 2nd in number of children living in poverty;
* 2nd in percentage of population without health insurance;
* 2nd in number of children without health insurance (1st in percentage)

* 3rd in percent of non-elderly population without health insurance

* 5th in poverty rate;
* 5th in teen birth rate.

Here’s a listing of where Texas is at or near the bottom relative to other states:

* 50th in teacher salaries plus benefits ("No Child Left Behind”? you’ve got to be kidding!)
* 50th in per-capita spending on government administration;
* 50th in per-capita interest paid on state’s general debt;

* 49th in per capita general revenue;
* 49th in spending for the environment;
* 49th in per-capita spending on natural resources;
* 49th in percent of adults voting in November 1996

* 48th in per-capita spending for public health;
* 48th in per-capita spending for public parks and recreation;
* 48th in per-capita spending for public arts programs;
* 48th in per-capita tax revenue;

* 47th in delivery of social services;
* 47th in per-capita spending on highways;

* 46th in welfare benefits as a percentage of poverty-level income;

* 42nd in state and local government welfare spending;
* 42nd in per capita high school completion rate (from the “Education President”?)
* 42nd in per-capita revenue from current charges (tuition, fees for products/services, highway tolls, etc.)
* 42nd in spending for public libraries (the First Lady is a librarian!)

* 39th in physicians per capita

* 38th in immunization rates;

* 35th in per-capita education spending for K12 and higher;

* 32nd in average life-expectancy;

* 31st in infant mortality rates.

Besides, who says Ventura was a failure ? He may have been less popular at the end but the last I looked, aside from a high profile bridge collapse, Minnesota is and was still intact and undamaged, which leads me to ask, can “anyone” be governor ? Maybe it takes a rocket scientist. My bad.

I’ve always had the opinion, which might be wrong, and have heard, that the reason so many presidents are former governors rather than U.S. Senators is that you don’t have to do much or anger many people to be governor.

Senators have a voting record as ammunition against them. Governors campaign on no-new-taxes or raising teacher salary or some other simplistic platform, and then they get aides to do all the work for them. Piece of cake ? My opinion only.

Obama was obviously still being groomed for president after election to the Senate. If you stay out of contreversy, you don’t anger the voters. McCain, bless ‘em, never avoided contreversy until after his nomination. He received a presidential castration. Never mind. Temporary, we are led to believe, with both candidates.

“The internet is positively glowing radioactive with people who have too much time on their hands and benefit enormously from anonymity”

Ummmm....never mind.

Insinuating that being the chief executive of Texas is no better than giving lectures at Harvard is kind’ve weak. As a matter of fact, Bush had a pretty good rep down there and unlike Ventura, was considered a successful administrator. Then again, he didn’t have to deal with two faced, back stabbing turn coats and a dishonest press hell bent on destroying him either.

Yeah, he was just an adjunct, which means he was not necessarily a reknowned legal scholar, just a reasonably competent teacher.

Univ of Chicago very elite.  The affirmative action at that school would probably outrank the best of other schools. (to some degree)

Univ. of Chicago and Univ. of Virginia both consistently ranked in top 14 by US News & World Report according to Wikipedia (not that said ranking is definitive by any means). 

Contrast that, just for chuckles, to today’s Correspondent of the Day in the T-D paper edition. (no, make that yesterday)

He said George Bush’s credentials were superlative because he was the chief executive officer of one of the largest states in the U.S.

That was funny.

You mean, highly contreversial governor and probable political hack of the land of illegals and rednecks and my relatives (one and the same).

His peer group includes boa wearing ex-professional wrestlers, who probably had more success as governor than he did. (Jesse Ventura)

Still, to a degree, your point well taken. Obama is likely as smart as he is articulate, a point the pundits and talking heads seem to agree on as well, but --.

No reason to assume from that automatically he has more competence than other politicians, or that he possesses anything unusual in his character to recommend him to the constituency. Audacity of hope is apt.

“What really counts is your ability. Obama taught law at Univ Chicago.”

As someone who went through law school, I can state with confidence that having taught law at a law school is no guarantee whatsoever of any kind of ability to be a leader of the most powerful and wealthiest country the world has ever known - or even of an ability to do a good job teaching law.  I had some real stinkers.  Law profs, that is.

Post Your Comments: