It's a lovely idea -- but where do you find the adherents to make the demand of? (Flashback to the scene in The Space Merchants where the copy writer has written a marketing-style recruitment pamphlet for the revolutionaries as a series of affirmative questions including "Are you of above-average intelligence?" -- which he says would have been included even in the spoken version for illiterates. Pohl & Kornbluth could be cruel even when they were dead-on.)

What gets me:

* Leftist makes stupid irresponsible statement: "The left is irresponsible and stupid!"

* Ann Coulter or Michael Savage say something irresponsible or stupid: "You don't understand, they're just having fun!"

or, "Any *reasonable* person would see that it was a joke."

Or, "Leftists are irresponsible and stupid, so it's OK for us to make jokes about them, but they better not say anything about us."

Somewhat related to this are the strategies for trying to detoxify Rush Limbaugh et al. There's the "Michael Moore is as bad as Rush Limbaugh" strategy (anyone who feels inclined to fall for this one, check up on what Limbaugh said about the death of Vincent Foster) and the "Rush Limbaugh isn't important or influential at all" strategy.

Stefan, my dislike for that particular maneuver is one of the things that got "joe@hotmail.com" subjected to severely lossy compression in the "Apocalypse Now" thread. (You might want to look. I'm trying out a new method, just for fun.)

I'm tired of being bullied by these yahoos. There aren't nearly as many of them as they claim. They're just loud and nasty, and some of them are thuggish.

You might also publish their IP addresses along with their compressed posts. I know you did that for "joe@hotmail.com", but doing it as a matter of course might be interesting--and could provide the beginnings of a database of thugs and their IPs, although I suppose some of them might spew their venom in internet cafes or public libraries.

"* Ann Coulter or Michael Savage say something irresponsible or stupid: "You don't understand, they're just having fun!" "

Was de Genova just having fun? I do think Michael Moore is as vile as Rush and Coulter, but all of them are satirists and to some extent entertainers (although often in very bad taste and sometimes libellous).

De Genova was dead serious.

Teresa and Patrick: the next time one of these GOPhers comes after you saying that we leftists must all be held accountable for the statements that idiots like DeGenova, suggest that they be held accountable for the murder of John Komyakevich, killed in a disagreement over the Iraq war.

What shall it be, gentlemen? Would you prefer the liberal version of life imprisonment or the conservative death penalty? Step right up. By your own wisdom, you're accountable. Either put up or shut up about the mass being accountable for the single fool....

More on John Komyakevich at my blog and elsewhere.

Go ahead and post your URL, Joel.

"* Ann Coulter or Michael Savage say something irresponsible or stupid: "You don't understand, they're just having fun!" "

Was de Genova just having fun? I do think Michael Moore is as vile as Rush and Coulter, but all of them are satirists and to some extent entertainers (although often in very bad taste and sometimes libellous).

De Genova was dead serious.

You claimed, in another thread, to be a liberal. And yet, you are running every classic play from the right wing playbook.

Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Riley, Savage and thier bretheren are not entertainers nor satarists. . They are agitators and propogandists. They are running a very calculated scheme, dedicated to making the following syllogism enter the American mindset at True, Right and Patriotic.

1) "Liberals, and The Left Wing, are bad. (mmkay?)"

Call this the Mr. Mackey phase. It's over. They have, quite intentionally, and quite successfully, made the words "Liberal", "Left-Wing", "Progressive" and "Democrat" carry far more negative than positive impact. They've also made the antonyms positives, but I'm pretty sure that was just a bonus. Having completed that, they're on to phase two.

2) "Bad things must be destroyed."

Call this the Mr. Garrison phase. The point of this is to insert into the mindset that violence, for good cause, is not only not bad, it is good, it is virtuous, it is Right. "You go to hell, and you die!". This phase seems to be complete, and we're starting to segue to the conclusion

3) "Therefore, Liberals must be destroyed."

That's the point. They are not just making it acceptible to wage violence against me and my friends, and those who share my views. They are making it virtuious to harm me and my friends and those who share my views.

That's why Coulter is an entertainer, and De Genova is a murderous thug worthy only of death. De Genova is calling for the deaths of not-liberals, and Coulter is calling for the deaths of liberals. Killing liberals? That's okay. Killing not-liberals? Why, only a liberal would say that.

By doing so, they drive us to fear. By fearing, we refuse to stop them. That's the point. Drive us into despair, then walk on us.

We won't be worried about Professor DeGenova much longer. Talk radio in Boston is reporting that he's in hiding after receiving several thousand death threats.

Erik, have you been watching South Park, lately? I was so turned off by last week's episode (with its beyond-vicious lampoon of Christopher Reeve's support for stem cell research), that I'm back to turning my face away from all the good stuff they've done and really disliking them.

(Yeah, I've been down that route before. May be just me....)

I see in the news that there was a right-wing teach-in yesterday. I wonder if any of the speakers there made any really stupid, offensive comment that could be blasted out across the country as representative of the entire right.

Do you mean the part about the US threatening Egypt?

Let's see. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey ...

Don't forget: Coulter was fired (not defended) by the National Review for her most inflammatory remarks.

I really, really like Teresa's initial idea, and part of it's appeal is that it's so ecumenical: the set of stupid people coincides with every other set of people. So recognizing membership in this grouping as more important than membership in or association with other groupings (liberal/conservative, nazi/commie, republican/democrat/green, etc.) would be very useful.

It's a little sad that the responses turned so rapidly to offensive and defensive positions along the left/right front... Our stupid people are more abused for their public imbicilty than yours! See how unfair it is!

Would it be more fun and productive to look at DeGenova (who clearly did mean what he said, if you read his clarification in the Spectator) and Coulter as members of the same group.

Then these Us Vs. Them arguments could turn to something more productive. Someone could say, "hey, one of you people (Savage/DeGenova) just said something stupid: see how stupid you guys are!" To which his ideological opponent would reply, "No, no (Savage/DeGenova) isn't one of us, hes a stupid person, just like (DeGenova/Savage)." Chorus:
"Boy, those stupid people sure are dumb!"

Then everybody gets on with something meangful, beautiful or useful... sorry for the unbridled fantasy there...

Yes!