Fun With Conservatives

Something I've not done much of in recent years is engage in debate with conservatives. My plan is to start doing that a lot more, particularly when someone goes after me directly. Like our first example, a guy whose name I'll let you figure out for yourself (don't want to promote him), who took umbrage at my recent post on Adam Hasner. A new wrinkle in this argument is that this guy actually is debating me via Twitter @ replies, which is a new one for me.

The gist of the post was that, well, State Rep. Adam Hasner is a hate-monger. My evidence? Three things:

1. He opposes Muslims lobbying the legislature.
2. He supports batshit-crazy anti-Muslim films obsession and The Third Jihad.
3. He was quoted as saying that he didn't care if innocent people were hurt as part of the backlash those films seeks to promote.

None of these are things that Hasner refutes or has every said he disagrees with. And, clearly, if you agree with these things, then you are a hate-monger. That point is not debateable.

My conservative critic doesn't care about things like facts or anything like that. He goes, instead, with the same old conservative arguments.

Youre so quick to paint a good man a hatemonger without fully understanding the man he criticizes. Read up on Mr Bedier.

I did paint Hasner as a hatemonger and that stands fully independently of whether or not Bedier is a terrorist or not. We have no evidence that Bedier is a terrorist. If we did, he'd have been prosecuted and convicted long ago. That hasn't happened. Why? That evidence doesn't exist. Besides, like my original post says, Hasner doesn't just oppose Bedier's rights to free speech and petition, he actively promotes hate-films like Obsession. Even if that weren't true, which is is, he has a 100% rating from the Christian Coalition. By definition, anyone with a 100% from the religious right is a hatemonger. There are no exceptions to this and no possible exceptions to this. The Christian Coalition is a hate group, pure and simple. Beyond that, Hasner hates workers (he's a union buster), he hates free and fair elections (he opposes publicly-financed elections) and he hates pretty much all Floridians (he's an anti-tax crusader). It's clear the amount of his hate knows no bounds, he just has a special hatred for Muslims.

I assume you have seen both award winning documentaries about radical islam, not all muslims. Radical Islam is a threat

Everyone agrees that radical Islam is a threat, just like radical Christianity is. Just like any radicals who promote violence are. And these "documentaries" (read: propaganda films) haven't won awards from any legitimate sources. Anyone can make up a series of awards and give them to anyone they wish. Heck, I've been voted into to halls of fame. I originally created both of them (although I had no hand in voting myself into them), so I don't tout them as proof of my quality as a person. One does not need to see propaganda and hate speech personally to know that it is such, particularly when there are numerous other reliable sources that tell the truth about these films. I have never seen one bit of propaganda from the Ku Klux Klan, yet I know they are wrong. I've only read one statement that Osama Bin Laden has put out, something from 1996, yet I know that everything he has sent out since then is hate-filled propaganda. Same thing with Obsession and anything from the same people. And anyone who defends those films is, by definition, a hate-monger.

Hasner is speaking out against Bedier's ties to radical Islam. Also, where did the "I don't care" quote came from?

He's actually speaking out against Bedier's rights to free speech and to petition the government for the redress of greivances, things protected in the First Amendment. And the "proof" of Bedier's ties to radical Islam is that he was the leader of a local branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. There's no evidence that this chapter had any ties to radical Islam and there's actually no evidence that the national CAIR organization has ties to radical Islam, either, beyond hearsay from right-wing critics.

Are you kidding me? You got the quote from a blog post by John Brown on Topix? You are a joke

No. Don't know who John Brown is, haven't visited Topix. When in doubt, though, fall back on the traditional conservative mode of attack -- ad hominem insults.

There is no evidence of this incident even occurring. Quit sipping the Kool-Aid my friend. It will lead you no where.

Of course there is evidence. There is an eye-witness account that no one denies happened. When it doubt, though, fall back on direct insults and aspersions about my intelligence.

He has neither denied it nor confirmed it, but using hearsay to smear someone is despicable and should not be the "key" to a post.

This isn't hearsay, this is direct witness testimony.

Here's a question. As a professor, would you allow a student to hinge their paper on an unverifiable source from a blog?

As a historian, I'd point out the obvious fact that almost all historical evidence is from unverifiable sources. Secondly, I'd point out that a blog is not a paper. Thirdly, I'd point out that blogs cite other blogs all the time. Fourthly, I'd mention that conservative blogs (and legislators) almost always rely upon such unverifiable sources (like say, when making a film like Obsession).

I'm complaining about a person who takes someone's opinion, and calls it fact. He doesn't need to deny such a ridiculous claim.

I didn't take someone's opinion and report it as a fact. I reported the fact that an eyewitness claimed something happened. And it is clear that conservatives frequently say nonsense like this at public events (see: Tramm Hudson, George Allen, etc.) and if Hasner doesn't want people to think he's a hate-monger, then he should respond to the claim. Especially when he promotes a movie that agrees with the claim that he's accused of making. And if he didn't make the claim, he should certainly repudiate it and tell us how he really feels about the innocent people who can and will be harmed by the promotion of such a horrible series of propaganda films.

As a professor, your posts are held by some to a certain academic standard. I guess they set the bar pretty low at TCC.

Complete and utter nonsense. There is no professional or ethical standard that applies here. Besides, any teacher I've ever had would allow someone to include eyewitness testimony as a bit of valid evidence in a paper (or a blog post). They would have a problem if an entire case was made on one bit of evidence, but that's not what I did. I said it was part of a pattern and provided other examples to support the claim. But, when in doubt, fall back on the old conservative argument of insulting not only me, but an entire educational institution.

The point of the whole thing is, of course, that this guy likes Hasner because both he and Hasner are conservatives. And he doesn't want to believe that conservatism promotes extreme viewpoints. But it does. And, by definition, conservatives are extremists. Hating people because of their religion or party or race is part and parcel of the conservative tradition in the United States and Hasner (and my commenter) proudly defend that tradition.

Adam Hasner Is A Hate-Monger

Rep. Adam Hasner apparently opposes freedom of speech for Muslims. A group of Florida Muslims wants to go to the capitol during the session and lobby on behalf of education, healthcare and the economy. He automatically assumes they are terrorists and that they hate Jews.

His evidence? The leader of the group, Ahmed Bedier, once worked in a local office for the Council of American-Islamic Relations. The right wing has an extreme grudge against CAIR, which they claim is a front organization for Hamas because, well, they're Muslims.

His problem with them? He's afraid that if they lobby the legislature, then maybe legislators will turn anti-Isreal? I'm not sure about that one, his logic is a bit crazy.

His solution? Frantic e-mails to lobbyists and calling together the non-existent Jewish caucus in the legislature.

This could be just a bit of run-of-the-mill prejudice and ignorance, but it isn't, it's part of a bigger pattern on Hasner's part. Hasner is a promoter of batshit-crazy anti-Muslim films Obsession and The Third Jihad. These films effectively portray all Muslims as potential terrorists and call for the West to "wake up" and do something about the problem. In that way, they directly influence Americans to engage in discrimination, and potentially violence, against peaceful, law-abiding Muslims.

Hasner was confronted about this:

Immediately following the film, Florida’s State Majority Leader, Rep. Adam Hasner of Delray Beach, Fl, gave a brief presentation to the audience where he praised and gave support for the film. He was then asked by a gentleman from the audience how he felt about the backlash that might occur towards peaceful Muslims as a result of the film. After pausing for a moment, he boldly proclaimed, “I don’t care.”

Get that? Hasner doesn't care if law-abiding, peaceful Muslims are harmed by anti-Muslim propaganda -- a backlash that could potentially include violence. Hasner doesn't care. He has his prejudices and he's sticking to them.

From the Blogs

Progressive Pensacola: Grand jury: investigate Sansom

Re-Creating Tampa: SansomWatch - The Gift that Keeps on Giving

Blast Off!: Today's Daily Schadenfreude: Ray Sansom

Progressive Pensacola: Sansom: A failed Speaker

Pushing Rope: The Ray Sansom Scandals

Franklin Sands' Remarks on Speaker-Designate Dean Cannon

“On behalf of the House Democratic Caucus, I offer warm congratulations to Representative Cannon. We look forward to serious discussions with him and his colleagues about the people’s business and how the Legislature should combat the economic challenges facing Floridians.

“As Representative Cannon and his Republican colleagues surely know, Florida is in a serious economic crisis. Our people are deeply worried about their jobs, their financial future, and their children’s education. Today should be a day to begin the healing in a bipartisan manner.

“Like Governor Charlie Crist, Florida House Democrats believe it is vital to use the federal economic recovery funds to resolve our current state budget crisis. We are hopeful that the governor’s wisdom on this matter reaches Representative Cannon and his colleagues in the House Republican Conference.

“It wasn’t ‘borrowing and rampant spending by the private sector’ that created this crisis. Rather, Florida is suffering significantly because of many factors, including the significant tax giveaways under Republican Jeb Bush’s administration.

“The impact of the Bush-era tax cuts is costing the state an estimated $3-billion or more annually. Failure to close loopholes that favor the very rich and special interests are the real culprits. These are the issues that we hope Representative Cannon and his colleagues show the courage to address in the upcoming legislative session.”

Clearly, there are two ways to balance a budget -- cutting spending and raising taxes. We've tried cutting things. It doesn't work and it has many other negative effects. It's time to raise taxes on those who use more government resources than anyone else -- the rich.

Is Sansom's "Temporary" Resignation from Speaker Post Legal?

Rep. Jim Waldman doesn't think so. I don't either.

Dear Chair Galvano,

As a member of the Florida House of Representatives and the House Rules Council, I am requesting your opinion on whether Speaker Sansom’s recent memo recusing himself from his duties for a temporary period, subject to his decision to reverse his recusal, is permitted under House Rules. Based upon my reading of our rules, it is not permitted and his action should be deemed either a nullity or a resignation necessitating an election for a replacement Speaker.

Rule 1.1(a)(1) requires the house to “choose a permanent presiding officer designated Speaker”. Rule 2.5 states that: ‘The Speaker pro tempore shall exercise the duties, powers, and prerogatives of the Speaker in the event of the Speaker’s death, illness, removal, or inability to act, until the speaker’s successor is elected.”

These two rules together mean that the pro tempore only exercises the Speaker’s duties temporarily, until a new Speaker is elected. Since there is no time limit specified, it should be inferred that it would be for a reasonable time. However, the Speaker pro tempore only assumes this role upon the Speaker’s death, illness, removal, or inability to act.

The first three requirements clearly do not apply. It might be argued that the Speaker has an inability to act, but I would argue that that is not the case. Instead, he might not believe he can be effective or he might want to devote more time to other endeavors, but he certainly has the ability. As used in the rule, the term “inability to act” appears to imply mental incapacity and the parallel of physical illness.

If it were the case that there was an inability to act, we might have interpretation issues regarding who decides whether the inability exists and who decides when the ability returns. The rule contemplates an election of a successor in any event and it clearly contemplates a permanent replacement. Further, since it says “in the event of” and not “during” such inability, this would mean that it would be unclear as to whether the substitution of power could even be temporary.

Regardless, these questions are moot because we do not have not have a case where Speaker Sansom has an inability to act. Perhaps our rules should allow the Speaker to suspend his or her duties for other reasons, but they do not.

Respectfully, I am asking for your opinion as Rules Chair as I believe the integrity of the Florida House of Representatives demands that we follow our rules.

Very truly yours,

Jim Waldman
State Representative, District 95

Is Sansom's "

It's Official, the Special Session Budget Is A Failure for Florida

The budget proposed by legislative Republicans is short-sighted, economically naive, immoral and the exact type of thinking that got us in the budget mess we are in now. Instead of doing the right thing and closing tax loopholes for the wealthy, Republicans are cutting essential services, mortgaging our future and raising fees (a.k.a. "taxes") on those less able to pay. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Overall, the "savings" in the new budget is $2.8 billion. The budget will be voted on Wednesday.

Among the key things on the chopping block:

$20 million from the Florida Forever program that buys up land for conservation purposes. This effectively shuts down the program for the year. I wonder how much of Florida's beauty will be destroyed in that year.

$480 million in education funding. This is shameful. We already have the lowest spending in the country on education and this will make it worse at a time when we also have the lowest graduation rate in the country. Like I said, mortgaging our future.

$321 million in construction projects, which could be good or bad, depending on what the projects are.

$437 million in other cuts. I'd like to see more details on these, although I have a feeling we aren't talking about good cuts here.

$1.5 million cut from the governor's office. Not a lot of money is saved here, but it's at least a good sign that the governor is going to face some of the same kinds of cuts everyone else is.

$100,000 by getting rid of a state aircraft. Okay, this one is definitely a good idea, too. It saves little money, but it is a good symbolic gesture.

One bright spot is nursing homes, which through a bit of budget creativity (why couldn't they have done this elsewhere?), will gain funding through cuts because they'll be able to qualify for more federal grants. I wonder how many other federal grants we didn't get because nobody tried to get them.

The other aspect of the "compromise" budget wherein there were really few compromises and few changes apart from what Republicans came to Tallahassee with is raids of various trust funds, some of which are permanent. Here's what they are taking:

$700 million from the Chiles fund, designed to pay for child welfare, child and elderly health care programs and anti-smoking efforts. The money is supposedly going to be paid back, unless there is an emergency. Who wants to bet that "emergency" has already been designated and this money won't be paid back? And since this fund pays for these programs based solely on the interest, this is a huge cut, taking out more than half the assets in the fund, meaning little is left to pay for these vital programs.

$190 million from a trust fund designed to provide low-income housing. I can't imagine that we'll have any need for low-income housing during a depression. At least we'll have good roads to drive on, thanks to Mike Fasano, who saved money for them (but not for any people, apparently).

$400 million from the Budget Stabilization Fund. This is a terrible idea considering the state of the economy and the almost universal projections of further economic decline. As Alex Sink said, this could leave us unable to meet our obligations down the road if things keep getting worse.

$381 million from other trust funds. Obviously, I'd have to know more about which trust funds to know if this is a good idea. Based on the rest of this crappy budget, I'm guessing these are bad things to be stealing money from.

And they propose increasing traffic fines, dropping the ability to get discounted fines for going to traffic school and taking away the power of judges to waive fines. Seems pretty clear that these increased taxes will disproportionately affect people at the bottom end of the economic spectrum -- increasing taxes on the poor.

Senate Democrats all voted against this proposed budget, except for waste of space Gary Siplin.

The problem looks to get worse, too, as the deficit for next year is projected to be over $4 billion. I can't imagine what they'll cut next time.

William March had this to add:

The legislation implementing the cuts is almost too difficult for a laymen, including reporters, to follow unaided.

Weren't Crist and the Republicans supposed to bringing "plain language" to the government? Another broken promise. Add it to the lists of promises our Republican leaders have broken to the Florida public since they came to office. There are so many of them, no one will even notice this new one.