Redstate

...Terrorism was different then. It had a chicness to it, which made it seem less like a dangerous menace and more like fashion.

I daresay that the families of the people killed and the people who were left maimed by Red Army and Baader-Menhof tend not to see their "art" as particularly "chic."

Margaret Cho is your prototypical leftist moron.

And the THIRD time as farce.

Except the art is farcical too.

Part of the permanent collection of The Museum of Modern Art, "October 18, 1977," an exhibition by Gerhard Richter.

Gerhard Richter's 15-painting cycle is quite simply one of the most important works of art of the second half of the 20th century. Now in the permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art, the collection of black and white oil paintings drew from ubiquitous photographs of the Baader-Meinhof era. Angering the German public when it first appeared in the late 1980s, it has become recognized as Richter's masterwork.

I would guess Cho has seen this photographic celebration of the beauty of murder.

With all due respect, what exactly is the point of this post? I'm scratching my head tryin' to figure it out.

Here is what I think you might be tryin' to say:

• Anti-War activists are traitors ("the other side")
• Moulitsas supports terrorists because he admires Cho who named her dog after a terrorist.
• Democrats admire the "left's pop cultural icons" who themselves have the Red Army Faction as "chic art figures" and therefore Democrats admire terrorists.

--

All this actually brings to light what a great tragedy the Bush presidency has been. Bush had an opportunity for greatness. Less than 5 years later look at us now. Petty bickering, parsing of inconsequential details for nothing more than the sake of a great big "Gotcha!".

This is all moral relavatism run rampant. Not good.

Well, I'm not sure what points are necessary beyond Cho is a filthy stupid dog and kos is an extreme partisan that certainly is not raising our political dialogue-- quite the opposite.

Does anyone else feel like some days that the blogosphere is becoming more like the MSM and talk radio where we spend more time talking about personalities, (quasi) celebrities, and whatever outrageous/idiotic comment someone said/posted rather than actual substantive issues?

I'm just saying.

No sarcasm.  I have been reading less and less, especially since the Rove/Plame/Wilson thing does not interest me.

But that being said, dailyKos personality and Redstate visitor Maryscott O'Connor has launched her own blog.

A minor point, naming one's dog after a terrorist, and lauding those who do? Yes. But a helpful reminder nonetheless of a phrase worth remembering: they're not antiwar -- just on the other side.

I think it's possible to admire someone "for her unwillingness to step down" without endorsing every single thing that person does.  

Just sayin'.

Well speaking for myself, of course, I always check on someone's dog's name before I express any admiration for them ever.

I had a friend when I was nine, but when I went to his house I found out his dog's name was "blackie".  I never spoke to him again.

All this actually brings to light what a great tragedy the Bush presidency has been.

Oh, of course.  Doesn't everything?

We should let this stuff go by entirely unremarked.

if anyone here supported someone who watched a beheading then proceeded to...

...grieve for Tawid and Jihad, that our actions led to their inestimable anger. I beat my chest and cry out hardest of all for our country, with its government so far from its people that most of us cannot see why anyone might want to harm us, take us hostage, fly planes into our towers, kill us and die trying.

they'd almost definitely be banned rather than cheered and promoted.

any more.

Who was the woman producer who got the Maoist family hour going?

Art becomes poor art in real life, it would seem.

In a way this makes Cho jsut a derivative wannabe.

banning by saying Kos and people like him are nothing more than Strasserites in every sense of the word.  To them the cause is paramount and anything that furthers it is acceptable.  

I'll maybe give it a shot later.

Though I should state I don't think it's really all that relevant. That person 1 admires person 2 for a particular reason doesn't mean that all endorsements, viewpoints, and flaws of person 2 are admired by person 1. If I admire Gandhi's role in Indian independence that doesn't mean I accept or endorse his ghastly solution to the oppression of the Jews by Nazis (Jewish mass suicide, if I recall correctly from the fantastic Orwell essay on Gandhi).

I think Kos was rather specific in identifying particular attributes of Cho's that he likes -- confrontation, exposing hypocrisy, unrelenting fight -- so this broad application of Cho's flaws and idiocies onto Kos, using that as evidence that Kos is "on the other side," is a bit of a stretch IMO. And so I agree with the post below this one by "The Brian."

PS: Additionally "anti-war" has pretty much always meant -- religious pacifists aside -- "anti THIS war right now." Which isn't inherently hypocritical because it's a policy or strategy judgement (though it can become hypocritical pretty fast).

PPS: I don't find Cho funny (never have, even when she was an apolitical ethnic-stereotype hack!), and I think some of her political comments are enough to make me generally reticent to say good things about her even outside the purview of comedy.

PPPS: I guess I'm not working very hard after all...

Yes, Cho made a fundamental mistake there that many unreasoning and reflexive Liberals make. They think we need to understand the terrorists and worry about their anger specifically. That's ridiculous.

We need to understand the Muslim street BEFORE people become terrorists and find out why they're making that choice. After they're terrorists there's no real excuse for wanting to know what makes them angry -- or finding out what they want -- because they aren't coming back to the civilized world at that point. They're a lost cause, forget about them.

But the masses of people who are mildly angry at the US -- see latest US popularity poll for the hotspots -- and might lean toward support for the terrorists but not quite, I think we should understand their "anger" and their concerns as a main priority. Their still malleable "hearts and minds" -- tragic as it may be the cliche is useful -- are one of the two major battlegrounds. The other being the "hard" hearts and minds of terrorists, which must be destroyed and not foolishly debated with.

in German cinema, may I recommend Deutschland im Herbst and Die Bleierne Zeit. Both films deal with the events of 1977 and will (if nothing else) stimulate you to investigate this chapter in German history with the  attention it deserves.

Maybe Coulter named her dog "Rover", and that's why Kos doesn't like her.

of my first rule of marital communication.

I never put more time, thought or effort into analyzing something my husband has said than the amount of time, thought and effort I know he put into deciding what to say.

seeing how she did it after graphically describing the video she watched.  

By the way, good luck with the volatile street. [HT: WoC]

Well said. I don't how we got to the point were anything someone on the other side of the politcal spectrum says is called treason. The "stiffling of dissent" indeed!

For the video. I suspect it's lack of supply keeping the price high. Too bad; I would like to see it.

Upthread I noted the MOMA exhibition of Gerhard Richter's Baader-Meinhoff imaginings. Jed Perl blistered Richard in The New Republic, available here.

A prime example here is October 18, 1977, a series of fifteen black-and-white paintings from 1988 based on photographs and video footage related to the story of the Baader-Meinhof gang. This series, in which scenes from the misadventures of the legendary leftist group are given a grainy black-and-white elegance, are a dictionary definition of radical chic. As art, they are numb. As conversation starters, they are just the thing. You can wonder if several prison deaths were suicides, as the official accounts had it, or something else. You can wonder at what the murderous activities of these radicals tell you about German society. Storr has already devoted an exhibition and a book to these works; they are in the Modern's permanent collection.

Come now.  Not anything.  The glorification of terrorist murderers, yes.  The public adulation of those who do, yes.  But not anything.

then we should forget understanding anything about terrorists and just keep killing until "they" are all gone?

Wanting to understand what would drive people to committ such hideous acts is not excusing their behavior. It is the first step in problem solving - understand the problem.

You can be on the offensive and be defensive at the same time. In fact, you should.

Some people are so quick to call someone un-American, or a terrorist sympathizer that they are playing right into the hands of the terrorist.

Ignorance never got anyone anywhere. Think people - don't just react.

You've found the Democratic answer to Ann Coulter, who has been quoted as wishing the terrorists had bombed the New York Times instead. Personally, I'd be happy to dispense with both as serious commentators.

Gah! You linked the very poll I talked about in my post, the "US popularity poll."

And the "mistake" I was referencing was not necessarily her statement, more that she views the world in a way that is mistaken. So I am calling the disease mistaken, that's what I was referring to, not the symptom that was her comment. I hope that's clear.

Are you viewing that as a reason NOT to engage the "Muslim street?" I recognize that term is overly broad, and perhaps am using it because of it's breadth. I view that poll as an argument FOR finding out what -- specifically -- is angering those people so that we can more effectively argue for democracy in those countries.

I mourn for the victims of Tawid and Jihad, headless and hopeless and names forgotten, their lives used as bargaining chips between corrupt governments where the gangsters rule all. I must also grieve for Tawid and Jihad, that our actions led to their inestimable anger. I beat my chest and cry out hardest of all for our country, with its government so far from its people that most of us cannot see why anyone might want to harm us, take us hostage, fly planes into our towers, kill us and die trying. Most of us don't even know why, which is the saddest fact of all.

though in the defense of Margaret Cho they may be a bit wasted (though its not clear if your point was merely an in thread comment or linked to the larger issue of Cho's commentary)

Association Health Plans - that was the proposal by the Bush administration to let small businesses* pool together to purchase health insurance for their employees like larger corporations and labor unions do.  

Right now I'm still fact-checking some of the claims made by supporters and opponents but it's taking a bit longer to get the details straight.

* Proponents of AHP's have claimed that 60 percent of the uninsured work for small businesses that do not offer health benefits to their employees.  Naturally you can see the importance of a proposal that would enable those businesses to provide insurance for their employees.  Although my policy preference would be to have health insurance and/or 401k's portable with the worker rather than tied to a particular job, this would still be an improvement IMO.

and from the description of Richter's work I can't see myself particularly respecting him as an artist. I don't know anything about him so I can't comment on his political beliefs.

As far as the films go, perhaps you might find them at a university; they are fairly standard fare for German cinema classes. I doubt you'll agree with every aspect of them, but I think you will find them insightful. Rather than distancing you from the subject, as Richter seems to do, they confront you with it head-on, with all the ugly details.

I was afraid that may not be clear. I was inserting myself into Addison and Polyphemus' debate.  

Cho is on her own :)

Kos admires Margaret Cho, therefore everything she ever does can be vicariously attributed to him, and since everyone knows Kos is the voice of the left, they are all traitors to America!  Hooray.

Could we ALL stop playing the game where Margaret Cho and Ward Churchill are the voice of 50% of the country, and Jerry Falwell and Randall Terry are the voice of the other 50%?  Or would both sides run out of stuff to blog about?

She cries for a country whose government is distant from the people and cites things from 9/11 onwards.  Was she crying for that country in 1998?  Or 1993?  Really, if you want to paint me as simplistic/ignorant you'd probably be better off picking a backdrop other than Cho.  

A lot of the political media - both left and right - seems to fuel itself on generating "outrage" over who said what and partisans/ideologues of all stripes (including yours truly) get whipped up into a frenzy and feel compelled to take sides.

How much of "out side" devotes itself to tracking down stupid comments by political operatives, Hollywood celebrities, MSM hacks, and bloggers (heck Opinion Journal and National Review routinely go into the Democratic Underground just to find some hateful comment by a semi-anonymous poster as if that's "newsworthy") rather than talking about substantive issues.  The kind that actually matter because they matter to real people rather than just political junkies and can have a substantive effect on people's lives and consequently can be used to garner support for other issues?

Josh, it strikes me that you are usually the one - and with some justification - to chastise Republicans for arguing over minutia while larger issues go unanswered.  I seem to recall you making this point during the flap over Senator Durbin's remarks or "the Deal*" on this forum.  Seems to me that a comment by Kos is even less important than a comment by Durbin.

Maybe it's time to take a good hard look at whether RedState or the blogosphere in general can move beyond the sensationalism that seems to permeate through the MSM/political media outlets and offer something better.

* Although "the Deal" did have some important policy implications as it will effect the ability of President Bush to get conservative/originalist judicial nominees through the Senate.

No, not everthing. He's doing ok on taxes. His response to corporate corruption was'nt bad and I like his stance on race-based admission/discrimination issues and gun control.

But, let see, I think thats about it.

So then you agree that we should understand why the terrorists do what they do? Fantastic!

is at least as reprehensible as the outtake.

...the way Klinghoffer was dumped off the Achille Lauro.  Ah, Munich.  Those romantic memories.

Wandered with sick curiousity through the Cho blog and was sruck by her blog-roll, in particular the section entitled "Injustice":

FreeMumia.org

FreetheWestMemphis3

FreePeltier.org

SaveKevinCooper.org

SweetAdeline.net

AmadouDiallo.com

Tookie.com

VoicesOfTheFree.org

Actually found something heartening there, that is, the fact the Free Leonard Peltier website had not been updated in more than a year. Not even to note the 30th anniversary of the murders of FBI agents Ronald Williams and Jack Coler on June 26th.

Peltier's relocation to Indiana made the news today, though.

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- Terre Haute is the new home for the man serving two life sentences for the 1975 slaying of two FBI agents in South Dakota, according to the Bureau of Prisons.

Leonard Peltier's relocation to the United States Penitentiary was prompted by a change in mission at the federal prison in Leavenworth, Kan., where he has been held.

Maximum-security prisoners had to be moved out of the penitentiary so the facility can be transformed into a medium-security institution.

The viciousness continues unfettered in Mumialand, though. This month in Paris, at the Place de la Concorde, a supporter spoke:

I am Sam Jordan and I bring you greetings from our brother, the undefeated revolutionary, Mumia Abu Jamal!

I also bring you greetings from the undefeated revolutionaries Leonard Peltier, Assata Shakur and the great Kurdish leader, Abdullah Ocalan!

You can catch that Assata Shakur teach-in tomorrow in NYC.

And I guess Cho supports the PKK, too.

Thugs, murders and terrorists on a blog-roll. Wonderful.

was her comment.  

It's clear now.

As for the poll.  Look at the "Opinion of Religious Groups" and explain to me how you are going to persuade Saudi Arabia or Syria when relatively moderate countries like Turkey have such a negative view towards non-Muslims.  Also "Growing Role for Islam in Politics".  "Most Favor Growing Role of Islam in Politics".  "Why Islam's Role is Increasing".  "What Causes Islamic Extremism in Your Country".  "Declining Support for Violence Against Civilians in Defense of Islam".  "Confidence in bin Laden as World Leader".  

What I'm saying is "to hell with the street".  Opinions are swinging generally our direction(sloppy term...away from the jihadis) contrary to what the Left was telling us all along.  I can point to it and say democracy and economic liberalism will do just as much to curry favor as abandoning Israel.  And use that to support my views on Iraq.  I can also point to some truly bizarre findings like Turks(I'm assuming Armenians were would beg to differ) thinking Christians are more violent than Muslims or even the dreaded Jews and say the street wouldn't know its backside from a hole in the ground.  I can look at the disparate views in Africa, the ME, and Asia and understand that the "street" isn't monolithic.  And I can look at the poll and see that the problem isn't what we're doing with respect to government and Islam it's what they're thinking with respect to government and Islam.  And frankly there's almost nothing we can do to change that.  Push wider suffrage and radicals are empowered.  Push pluralism in government and radicals are empowered.  Do anything seen as "Western" and radicals are empowered.

Since this is going off on a tangent, let's not forget that Cho took the occassion of a butchered* American to ponder exactly what we did to create Zarqawi's group.  As if something could placate them.  There's no defense of that.

*  Ever notice how the jihadis say "killed" or "executed" when they merely shoot a prisoner in the head yet invariably say "butchered" or "slaughtered" when they behead?  It's as if they've taken Semantics 101 from Professor Chomsky.

see my reponse to Addison and take it up there if you want.

Frankly you can quote the entire thing and it doesn't alter the excerpt one bit.

Falwell, Phelps, or any of the other cretins from the right.  Off the top of my head I can't even remember anyone cheering Ann Coulter.  If they had I probably wouldn't be here.  

that Cho is a comedienne whose naming of her dog after an "art terrorist" might have been meant as a critique of the left's attraction for "art terrorists" and not, as appears to be read throughout the comments here, that she is a supporter of those killers.

To find a kind word about those folks here at RS. I'll be surprised if you do.

I suppose that's possible. I once had two German Shepherds I named Haldiman and Erlichman.

I know popular culture isn't everyone's cup of tea, but I think it holds and captures the interest of many, hence, the term popular culture. Many of us feel it is our honor bound duty to not let the stupidity of those who use their so-called celebrity to promote bad and wrong ideas go unanswered. Yes, you could ignore it, but these things tend to seep into the culture as fact if they go unchallenged.

Cho pines for the day when murder was "chic." (Reminds me of the Saturday Night Live Character: when I was young, we killed people we disagreed with and we liked it!)  I don't think these comments should go ignored or unanswered, if for no other reason than to provide a huge backlog of ammunition to show how dumb celebrities are ruining popular entertainment for us more reasonable folks by clouding up the waters with their asinine, ill-founded and unresearched opinions.

I'm new to RedState.org but I really love the fact that you can pick and choose the topics you want to read and discuss, and simply ignore the others. I think the diary feature is great as well, but am heeding the warnings to make sure I have hopefully have something of substance to say before posting anything.

Both sides do this:  "OUR nutjobs are totally marginalized and you're being unfair to single them out, but YOUR nutjobs are embraced as the heart and soul of the party!"

Kos says he admires Margaret Cho.  The White House calls Falwell to solicit input on the Supreme Court nominee.  Some kid in the West Village wears a Che t-shirt.  We could go on all day like this.

othe is wrong.

A bit tongue in cheek, although not entirely, I do think the moonbats on the left are given much more status in the DNC than the moonbats on the righ are in the RNC.

I thank you for linking to the piece, by the way. It was a good read.

When you accuse someone of treason against America because of the name of their dog, you don't really need to post something praising Ann Coulter.  The tenor of the statement kind of speaks for itself.

circles make me dizzy. I was trying to take part in your discussion but you don't seem to want to play fair. No biggie. Moving on to more stimulating chat...

no need to respond.

If they went by your standard, I'd certainly lose my few remaining lefty friends. My dog's name is George Doublieux (South Louisiana spelling).

I'm sure, if I wasn't just a little nobody from Louisiana, the lefty websites would roundly condemn me for naming my dog after a terrorist.

It's not suprising, you're sentiment. I don't disagree with you per say. However, I ask, have you seen those works?

Doesn't the right love the idea of an absolute? In this case, it can be argued quite succinctly that the works in question do not glorify the raf at all.

While they address certain issues regarding media, the photograph in particular, as well as various styles akin to their context's such as a press photo or a highschool grad photo, the paintings also address issues of memory, obviously. Don't forget the obvious, they were teenagers, who failed in their goals, and who were executed. The paitings are blurred for particular reasons. Gerhard Richter is vehemently against ideology. He witnessed the worst of them.

arguing that Art is in opposition to your beliefs, or more appropriately, the phrase - guns don't kill people, people do - is really an argument against history as a collection of documents all together.

Art, especially in a museum setting, is like an artifact, it is a visual record, of a passed event, culture, etc. And if then, your beef is with the person, then I would have to say, and I think you'd agree that if change is on the agenda sheet, constructive criticism is the greatest means toward achieving that goal.

"Their still malleable "hearts and minds" -- tragic as it may be the cliche is useful -- are one of the two major battlegrounds. The other being the "hard" hearts and minds of terrorists, which must be destroyed and not foolishly debated with."

The mission is a worthy one, but the way you put this reveals the same kind of hubris that allowed the Iranian revolution to occur under our noses. Don't think about people as "malleable". Tell the truth, and fight the right fight so telling the truth isn't hard.

Don't be Kermit Roosevelt.

Fine, I won't think of people as "malleable" as long as during the 2008 election you promise not to go after swing voters because people's opinions aren't malleable. You may have some quibble with the term "malleable," you may be wary of certain hamhanded tactics, but the underlying concern that people aren't persuadable or that the attempt to persuade them is hubristic is absolutely not valid IMO.

Now, I also believe we should fight the right fight and tell the truth. I don't see any clash between the attempt to persuade and going to great lengths to maintain the moral high ground. I think those two must go hand in hand.

especially if you are trying to diet.

of terrorism* and blames the U.S. when Zarqawi kills an American what exactly would you say?  I think the OP said "with the other side" but if you want to go the extra yard and say "treason" then knock yourself out.

*  I guess terrorism that targets capitalists is "chic" but not that which targets randomly.  

Link.  It's a whole three posts below this one but I'll play down to the competition this once.

any Redstater might have any reason to be mad at the ACLU?

Two words, Maryscott:   Boy Scouts

I wish her well on her blog.  And her worship of her Blogfather.

I didn't intend to target you. It just reminded of a certain recurring theme in the analysis of the "Arab Problem" that bothers me. I detected nothing but good intentions in your post, which is why my original response bore the header that I gave it.

There, I said it.

(Arsenal.)

Seriously--blogs spend enough time on "X said something stupid!" stories, at the expense of things that actually happen. Now we're moving onto "X said something nice about Y who said something stupid that X may or may not have known about and she named her dog after a terrorist" and therefore  "they're not antiwar--just on the other side?" Who is "they" specifically?

Ok. I can completely understand the concern. I think that the malleability of the Muslim world can't be depersonalized or patronized. It can't be seen as something we can manipulate with a few slogans and mere posturing. That's a sure way to lose. If the government isn't careful -- doesn't learn about the concerns of the populace or falls into orientalism -- there's no question American hubris could destroy any chance of a pro-democracy movement in the Middle East.

We have to convince them via our actions, and via our support for true democratic systems in those countries and not the puppet states that we create only to watch crumble into violent anti-American dictatorships in a few decades.

So I'm pretty sure I agree with you. I just didn't know exactly in what context or to what extent you were referencing hubris vis-a-vis the democratization of the Middle East.

...then what is meant by being "on the other side"?

We don't regularly troll around places like Stormfront and highlight the outrageous remarks of the Nazis, or browse around Pravda and find the ridiculous things said by the Communists.

So why should we constantly point out how far out there "Kos" is?

Of course, I already went over this in my diary here.

(And yes, for you Kos visitors, I am lumping him in with Nazis and Communists.  His contempt for American life makes him no better than they are.  So there.)

PS: Additionally "anti-war" has pretty much always meant -- religious pacifists aside -- "anti THIS war right now." Which isn't inherently hypocritical because it's a policy or strategy judgement (though it can become hypocritical pretty fast).

If by "pretty much always" you mean prior to 1965 you could periodically be right.

The peace movement in the War of 1812 were New Englanders who were financially devastated by the British blockade. During the Civil War the peace movement were primarily copperheads. In the run up to World War II the peace movement was an amalgam of America Firsters, sympathizers with the Bund movement, and yes the American Communist party which was still supporting the Molotov-Ribbentrob Pact.

So I would contend that today's anti-war movement follows in a long tradition of movements which either provided aid and comfort or adhered to our enemies.

Fred Phelps?

Tim McVeigh?

Eric Rudolph?

Do those people represent your viewpoint? Do those people speak for you?

I do not believe they do, based on my understanding of your writing and your explanations of your political and moral beliefs.

However, those people are/were separated from you by about as many degrees as Margaret Cho is separated from Kos.

They get and give money within the same networks that you operate, that Mike Krempasky operates, that Richard Viguerie, Morton Blackwell, Paul Weyrich, or any of a host of other conservative activists operate.

Does that mean that a liberal in opposition to your politics (as I generally am) is justified in smearing you, your website, your colleagues on that website, or the people associated with you with their actions and statements?

Name the conservative function where Eric Rudolph was a keynote speaker.

And Tim McVeigh got money from Richard Vigurie or Paul Weyrich or "the same networks that you operate."

Has the thought occurred to you that your post is moronic under a best case scenario?

Emphasis on moron, I think.

First, I started with Randall Terry and then went "more extreme" from there.

I did so for a reason - that would be one of many ways to play the game of degrees of separation.

I would appreciate it if, if you are going to go to the extent of name-calling, that you would take the time to figure out that the list in my list was, in fact, ordered....should I number it next time?

And Randall Terry is most certainly well-connected into some of the same networks as you folks, yes?

your claim that Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh were funded by conservative sources.

You have a one time chance to document or retract.

Formerly RedDan, eh? Once banned, forever banned. Well your subterfuge earned you a trip to The Pile™.

Well.  Suffer the children to speak it.

I operate networks. Oh man, I need a better table at the Caucus Room.

to an online Constitution?  

I can support the ideals of the Palestinians or Tibet or Taiwan without being an avowed enemy of Israel or China.  I can also tell which emotions are proper for both beheading movies and Bonsai Kitten.  

FYI, Bonsai Kitten is a well-known hoax.

Of an invalid syllogism.  BZZT!  Please try again.

To diagram: If all A are B, and all C are B, then all A are C.  Fallacy of the undistributed middle.

If all Kos's are people who like Margaret Cho, and All Margaret Cho's are people who admire terrorists, then all Kos's admire terrorists.  You haven't established a real connection.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

To me, "on the other side" means that someone is an enemy of America.  For a US citizen, being an enemy of America is what we call treason.

If you have a different interpretation of "on the other side" to offer, I'm all ears.

You're the one who replaced the OP's text with the "treason" line afterall.  How about you find the definition of treason then get back to me and explain exactly why it is you thought the OP was talking about that.   Once you get over that hurdle I'll help with any of the following words you're having trouble understanding:

I can support the ideals of the Palestinians or Tibet or Taiwan without being an avowed enemy of Israel or China.  I can also tell which emotions are proper for both beheading movies and Bonsai Kitten.

The dictionary definition of treason is "Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign."  I can't imagine what "on the other side" means, if not "on the other side of the USA," but I will invite you for a third time to provide an alternate definition if you like.

How is it that the kids can look up Nizkor but can't understand what they read?

Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

But even your snippet wouldn't necessarily apply to Cho unless you know more about her than I.

Possibly on this side?  Or this side. Or this one.  This one?  Hrmm, probably not.  But I think it's safe to say "other side" lies somewhere between here and here.

Since you're not posting examples of RS doing something similar to what Kos did I figured I'd rev up the old semi-hidden search engine.  Here's a reference to Ann Coulter by an editor:

We are in a 30 second soundbite culture, so naturally the substantive are at a disadvantage. You can't do justice to serious and substantive points in 30 seconds, after all. So instead, the microphone is ceded by disillusioned policy and substance wonks to people like Ann Coulter and Randi Rhoades who grab and utilize it with a vengeance.

Hrm, seems like an aspersion more than praise me thinks.

To face it directly posed the danger that I would have to describe it accurately, first to myself and then to others. That could only give aid and comfort to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and all the other Usual Suspects the left so regularly employs to keep from seeing its own reflection in the mirror.

Hrm, another aspersion.  And also the only reference to Falwell spit out by the search.  The search for Randell Terry turned up zero mentions.  Any other suggestions on where to find RS doing something similar to the Cho endorsement?  I mean other than your dictionary, of course.

Ever drink a Coors beer?  Owned by one Adolf Coors.

Gudrun is a name.  An uncommon name, but more than one figure in history has had it.  The  historical Gudrun was an incredibly violent woman, which one would expect from the wife of Attila.  'But even that Gudrun got her name from someone else.  Perhaps little george shold not accept campaign contributions from anyone named Adolf.  It crappy beer anyway.

He's saying that As support Bs, and Bs support Cs, so As are condoning the support of Cs.

well have set a record for a posting career.

but it is telling that not a single person at RS is willing to offer an explanation or a defense of the "other side" comment.  Strikes me as a cute way to call someone a traitor while remaining ambiguous enough to deny it later.  But for a fourth time, if you want to offer an explanation of what it means, feel free.

My original point, which I gather you never read, was not that Jerry Falwell is the voice of the right; in fact, I called for both sides to stop playing the game which involves labelling Jerry Falwell as the voice of the right.  But since you insist on having that argument anyway, I find the fact that the White House consulted Falwell regarding the Supreme Court pick to be a lot more meaningful than whether commenters at a conservative blog idolize him.

I stand by my comment that the Ward Churchill/Randall Terry game is stupid and both sides should stop playing it.

Possibly on this side?  Or this side. Or this one.  This one?  Hrmm, probably not.  But I think it's safe to say "other side" lies somewhere between here and here.

that?  I can't read Trevino's mind but "treason" didn't pop into my mind when I read his OP.  

My original point, which I gather you never read, was not that Jerry Falwell is the voice of the right; in fact, I called for both sides to stop playing the game which involves labelling Jerry Falwell as the voice of the right.

Yes, I read it.  It was in response to a story about Kos embracing Cho, right?  On RS, no?

But since you insist on having that argument anyway, I find the fact that the White House consulted Falwell regarding the Supreme Court pick to be a lot more meaningful than whether commenters at a conservative blog idolize him.

Is Trevino the name Bush uses here?  If so I might have to apologize for some of the comments I made at his expense.  If not then what's your point?

I stand by my comment that the Ward Churchill/Randall Terry game is stupid and both sides should stop playing it.

Agreed.  But Kos != the Left.  But it does strike me as a cute way to denigrate Trevino's post while remaining ambiguous enough to deny it later.