Deleted comments and bannings
[Note: here's the post about Jon Henke and The Next Right.]
As you can see below, dozens of sites have deleted my comments over the years, or they've moderated them away, or they've gone as far as banning me. Reviewing the comments in the entries below will show a pattern: they were on-topic, they weren't abusive, and they pointed out how the author of the post was wrong. When an author deletes one of my comments, it's almost always the case that they're admitting the weakness of their arguments and they don't want their other readers to find out how they're wrong.
When a site deletes (or moderates away) valid comments, they're more than just an echo chamber. Because of their policies, nothing you read at that site can be trusted. You have to check every single thing they say because they've disabled fact-checking. You never know what was deleted, and it might have been a comment that pointed out how they were wrong.
The most egregious case of this was RedState. In 2006, after almost a year and a half of posting entries - not just comments - at that site, I was banned. I have yet to receive any reasonable explanation, and the closest they can to providing me one was based on their misreading of my last entry there.
On the other hand, Washington Monthly deletes comments so quickly and so reliably that it's almost a joke. Note that they've deleted comments without links or just with links to Ann Althouse and National Review. They're very eager to make sure that their readers don't find out how they're wrong.
You might not expect the Daily Caller to delete a comment on a thread taking Popular Science to task for shutting off comments, yet that's exactly what they did .
On Sep. 25, Sean Medlock (the real name of "Jim Treacher") posted "Popular Science shuts off comments, so take your climate denial somewhere else" .
A few days ago, Pethokoukis offered "Is Rubio really about to ruin the Republican Party?" ( peekURL.com/zCrSvv4 ). A comment I left on that post pointing out he's wrong never appeared. Rather than keep you in suspense, here's what Pethokoukis doesn't want you to see :
Back in February of 2009 I posted "Shakesville deletes follow-up comments (Shakespeare's Sister)" about that site run by Melissa McEwan (of John Edwards infamy).
Now, as a follow-up, McEwan has deleted a recent comment I left there (below) and also banned me from leaving future comments.
This only matters if you've heard of McEwan or her site and think she has any credibility. If you have, please go right now and see the deleted comments page for why you can't trust anything you read there.
The post in question is "Thanks, Republicans" (shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2010/11/
thanks-republicans.html) in which she blames Republicans alone for what's discussed in "Some States Weigh Unthinkable Option: Ending Medicaid" (link).
I left the following comment to suggest that she broaden the scope of her blame; it was deleted and then I was banned:
How about reducing low-skilled - especially illegal - immigration? That would free up jobs and reduce spending. Yet, for some strange reason, sites like this support the opposite policy. I guess some things have a higher priority than others.
P.S. The last time I left a comment here McEwan or another admin deleted my follow-up comments. So, if you just see this comment and I don't reply to replies, that's probably the reason.
Obviously, it could be embarrassing for her if her audience finds out just how much of a lil fascist she is, and it would also be embarrassing if some of her audience got the idea that we should support low-wage American workers no matter the impact on the Democratic Party's quest for race-based power.
Ta Nehisi Coates of The Atlantic has a habit of banning those who disagree with him or show how he's wrong, and that means that what he writes can't be trusted: he's disabled fact-checking. Instead of engaging those who disagree and trying to present a counter-argument he's more interested in creating an echo chamber of those who agree with him.
Brendan Nyhan is, per him, the "RWJ Scholar in Health Policy Research at the University of Michigan" and a "political scientist and media critic." Can you trust what he writes? Perhaps in an academic context, but on his blog he's willing to disable "peer review" by deleting comments. When a site delete comments you can't trust anything they write: they've disabled fact checking by their readers.
Sojourners deletes comment showing how Jim Wallis can't be trusted (immigration) UPDATE: they banned me too - 04/23/10
If you trust Jim Wallis or the Sojourners organization, please keep reading. A couple of days ago I left the comment below on one of his blog entries . Despite not violating any provisions of their "Code of Conduct" (printed at ), the comment was deleted. Apparently showing how at least Wallis' position on immigration is that of a charlatan is too much for them.
Shortly after Twitter introduced lists, I made a few as an experiment . One was called "The other side" (twitter . com/24AheadDotCom/the-other-side) which at post time is blank. However, it used to have tweets from @NCLR, and I was going to eventually get around to adding other groups. I don't think I ever sent a tweet to @NCLR, so apparently the only thing NCLR didn't appreciate was being added to that list.
This site is about compiling information, and I'm willing to reference a wide range of sources as long as they've got something useful. I might not link to them directly, but I'm never going to hide things from my readers just because I don't like the source for one reason or other.
Tea Party Nation cheap publicity stunt? Say they banned Rachel Maddow, but she never joined - 01/07/10
[UPDATE: I changed the title of this post from "Tea Party Nation bans Rachel Maddow seven minutes after she joined; no dissent will be tolerated!" to the present because Maddow says the person who they banned wasn't her: link. I assumed that Teaparty Nation had verified it was her either by doing a reverse DNS or through direct communication. Either they didn't do that, or - as Maddow says - this is just an attempt to get publicity. In either case they don't look too good and me either for not confirming it.]
Tea Party Nation sent out the following email today. They're the group that will be holding their first national convention in February featuring Sarah Palin. The email is entitled "Liberal Troll Alert!"
Please be advised that over the coming weeks, as the National Tea Party Convention draws near, we will in all likelihood be invaded by liberal trolls looking to disrupt the site.
Rachel Maddow joined this morning and we banned her 7 minutes after she joined. I have little doubt she will mention this on her show.
Per our FAQ's:
Note to Prospective Liberal Trolls: TPN does not tolerate liberal trolls. If your sole purpose is to join this site in order to disrupt the flow of constructive dialogue against liberalism, you will find your time here very short. You can and will be banned for being a liberal. If you wish to debate the virtues of liberalism (as though there were such a thing), there are many other sites on the web who will tolerate you. TPN is not one of those sites.
One possibility they aren't allowing for is "trolls" who would do things in a smarter, subtler way: nudging them just slightly even more to the fringe. Or, encouraging them to do things in an even dumber way than they're doing already. Those would be almost impossible to detect.
"American Thinker" edits comment on sad and delusional tea party screed (Thomas Lifson, Ed Lasky) (UPDATE: bans me too) - 12/23/09
Glenn Reynolds linked (pajamasmedia. com/instapundit/90431) to "Why the 'Angry Mob' Is Angry" from the website "American Thinker" (americanthinker. com/2009/12/why_the_angry_mob_is_angry.html) so I went there to find out. It's a cri de coeur (from "Wendi Lynn G", rightmakesmight4all.blogspot.com) that's as hilarious as it as sad, and I left the following comment:
If you had a store that was the only place people could go to buy bread, and people had to wait for hours to get to the checkout counter, some ordinarily honest people would end up stealing out of frustration. We need to fix the checkout counter in our immigration store. Right now, the people our system hurts the most are the people who try to get in legally.
Because I've had problems with comments left there in the past and I may have been banned, I didn't spend too much time on the following comment I left. I got an error message after leaving the comment, probably indicating that I've been banned for showing how he and Bryan Caplan are wrong too many times:
...and, eventually millions of those "ordinarily honest people" would "end up stealing out of frustration", despite the fact that they had no right to the bread in the first place. And, that would build a culture of illegality, impacting everyone in the neighborhood. And, their gov't would encourage them to steal. And, some "cops" (actually, U.S. politicians) would in effect be paid off to look the other way, leading to corrupting the whole system.
Perhaps economists should look at everything involved in what they promote.
See the "column" link above for all the other things Kling doesn't understand.
Steven Landsburg (armchair *at* troi.cc.rochester.edu) is apparently an "economist" who writes the Everyday Economics column for Slate magazine. My June 2007 discussion of a column he wrote about immigration is at the last link, and when I was recently informed by Glenn Reynolds that Stephen Landsberg had started his own blog I left the following welcome message on his site at thebigquestions.com/2009/10/15/up-and-running:
Maybe Landsburg could address the big question of him being a complete idiot:
The comment was put into moderation and based on my logs I know he visited that link, but oddly enough he didn't approve it. Perhaps it was just a bit too antagonistic and I should have snuck it in in order to help his readers see how he can't figure things out. Feel free to see if you can get something past his filter.
I rarely leave comments on the New York Times' blogs because they pre-moderate the comments and very few of mine have been approved. Whether the comments contain a link or not, they tend to point out how the author is wrong or isn't telling the whole truth, and in NYT land that's a no-no.
So it was on Thursday's "CNN’s Special on Latinos Stirs Protests Against Anchor" (link) by Brian Stelter. Readers of that post might assume that Isabel Garcia is just a "civil rights lawyer"; all he told his readers about her is at . In fact, she's a very strong supporter of illegal immigration who, despite being the Public Defender of Pima County, Arizona, carried the head of a Joe Arpaio effigy around like a trophy at a protest. Her group (Derechos Humanos), at least as of 2006, was directly collaborating with the Mexican government. To help the NYT's readers out, I left the following brief comment, a comment that has not been approved two days later:
Now, here's what you won't read from the NYT or hear from CNN about Ms. Garcia:
Links are certainly allowed in comments, at least for some people. See the examples at . So, it's not the link, it's the content. And, while it's not known who didn't approve the comment, the post has Brian Steltzer's name at the top, so he's at least partially responsible.
John Hinderaker warns against "Birthers", after admitting (and showing) he knows little about the issue - 07/30/09
John Hinderaker of "PowerLineBlog!" (I add the exclamation mark for emphasis) offers "Forms of Madness" (powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/07/024151.php). Let me try to remove some of his filler:
[A talk radio show wanted me to discuss the "birthers" and whether they should give it up...] I do think they should give it up, but I haven't studied the issue closely and won't debate anything I haven't studied, so I declined the invitation... Birtherism is nowhere near as crazy as trutherism... [but...] So, birthers, give it a rest...
In case it's not immediately obvious, the following comment I left several hours ago sums up just how dumb Hinderaker is (on this issue; a discussion of everything else he's wrong about is left as an exercise). Note that I'm putting this in the deleted comments category because the comment was not approved. In case it does appear I'll provide an update:
John Aravosis of AmericaBlog confuses the GOP with Amazon.com, hilarity ensues (Chris Frates) - 07/16/09
The GOP has a new web application called the "Obama Card" at gop.com/obamacard. You search for terms and it shows you how much they'll cost you on your "Card". It didn't work for me the two times I tried it, but it appears to be yet another cheap stunt from the GOP; their time would be better spent on, for instance, showing how their opponents are wrong.
Speaking of that, John Aravosis of AmericaBlog offers "RNC Web site promoting anti-Semitic, anti-Latino, and pornographic literature" (link) in which he details several searches he did for items at their "store", some of which brought up salacious or troubling material. What he fails to note is that they're apparently simply bringing in results from Amazon.com, and the images and books shown are from Amazon.com. Instead of being able to understand that, he's trying to blame the results on the GOP.
For instance, he makes a big deal about a search for "jew" bringing up a book called "The Jews And Their Lies". What he didn't realize is that when you do a search for the same term at Amazon.com, that's the first result. Aravosis also didn't bother to do a basic search to see that the author of that book is someone a few people might have heard of, Martin Luther.
You can buy political books from a page on this site and you're encouraged to do so since a portion of the proceeds are used to keep this site on the air. Should I be responsible for what comes up in a search? Will anyone who runs a similar site that displays results from Amazon have to spend their days filtering out the tens of thousands of possibly offensive material?
UPDATE: Chris Frates of the Politico joins in the virtual book burning with "RNC pulls game selling offensive items" (politico.com/news/stories/0709/25069.html). While, unlike AmericaBlog, he points out that the books were coming from Amazon, he doesn't point out that the author of the book listed above was Martin Luther. Nor does he point out that a book called "The Latino Threat" is the second search result for "latino" in Amazon books and is actually a pro-massive immigration tome. He simply ripped and read from AmericaBlog and cleaned it up a bit.
UPDATE 2: The following comment at "The Political Carniva" was deleted (thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2009/07/family-values-rnc-web-site-promoting.html):
Can you trust the "Political Carnival"? Click here and find out.
Back on March 6, Jeremy Leaming of the American Constitution Society offered 'Suit Challenging Obama's Eligibility: "Frivolous"'  about the recent ruling from Judge James Robertson. The comment appeared but isn't there now (webified):
Jeremy Leaming: there's proof that (Ben Smith) is a liar at my name's link. Let me suggest less mindless mocking and more rigorous thinking. If you're not capable of that, the ACS should find someone who is.
Leaming is that site's blog editor (acsblog.org/cat-blog-editors.html). He's also their Associate Director of Communications, and he previously worked for People for the American Way.
[If you've heard of and have even a little trust for the site "Shakesville" (of Melissa McEwan fame), read on for why you can't trust what they tell you. Everyone else feel free to skip to the next entry.]
Here's the comment:
Perhaps this site could tell us why BHO supports bills that would take college educations away from U.S. citizens. (He supports both the CA and national versions of bills that would do that). whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2008/12/good-news.html
To recap: BHO supports a bill that would take educations from U.S. citizens. The math is incredibly simple, and illustrated in a way that even BHO fans can understand here: youtube.com/watch?v=WZkvEmSy1vk
Your task: explain why BHO wants to take college educations from his own fellow citizens.
Earlier today, Dave Winer of Scripting News offered "I'd like to have a word with Republicans" (scripting.com/stories/2008/10/05/idLikeToHaveAWordWithRepub.html). Clamping his hands down over his ears just as hard as he could, he said:
Barack Obama is an honorable person. You may not agree with him, or like where he would take our country, that's your right of course, but he doesn't "pal around" with terrorists. I think we all know that, right? If you have any doubts, you can skip the rest of this post, and please don't leave any comments.
Ever the maverick, I left the comment in the extended entry (needless to say, I could have said much more).
My comment was deleted and then Winer locked the thread from further replies. I guess finding out the truth about Obama is just too much for some of his lighter-weight supporters to bear.
10/13/08 UPDATE: He's now moderating comments, and another comment I left on scripting.com/stories/2008/10/12/michelleMalkinLikeHerParty.html wasn't approved. That's also below.
-------------- 10/5/08 comment -----------------
DW: "Barack Obama is an honorable person."
BHO is a serial liar whose campaign has engaged in an extremely sleazy, Chicago-style campaign using proxies, including those in the MSM. You probably haven't heard about most of those lies because the MSM refuses to call him on them: http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007954.html
While he might not *now* "pal around with terrorists", he has in the past. The NYT article linked above was simply a whitewash, the NYT attempting to get in front of GOP ads on the issue. For the truth, follow the links here: http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/008087.html
-------------- 10/5/08 comment -----------------
-------------- 10/12/08 comment -----------------
Since a comment I left on another thread was deleted, this might disappear as well. However, the candidates can't be responsible for things they don't hear, nor is it generally a wise idea to draw attention to those causing disturbances (for instance, Vin Scully didn't acknowledge fans who ran onto the field). The majority of the "hate" involved in this case is coming from the MSM. In their attempt to elect BHO, they're attempting to portray those attending those rallies as violent yahoos and even playing the Hitler card (see a recent Frank Rich column referencing Weimar). Rather than playing along with the MSM's attempts, perhaps Winer should consider acknowledging what they're trying to do. See also this from 10/6:
-------------- 10/12/08 comment -----------------
Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly has scored a hat trick: he or his helpers deleted three comments I left on his entries today. And, the deletions happened very shortly after I left the comments, so obviously they're very worried about their readers learning about the things that Steve Benen isn't willing to tell them.
UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge recently tried to debunk illegal immigration's role in the mortgage crisis. Along with issuing smears, his only data points in support of his position came from data that was over a decade old. Not only didn't he tell his readers that the data was incredibly out of date, but he deleted two comments pointing out that the data he was using was woefully out of date.
One of the comments he deleted was from me:
Bainbridge should be embarrassed: for relying on data that's over a decade old (h/t a previous comment). And, all to support illegal activity, to show that he's one of the "good conservatives", and in order to avoid pointing out the truth and then having the left call him names.
The previous comment referenced above was also deleted; it wasn't adversarial, simply stating that the data was out of date and suggesting that that made it worthless in this case. There was no link and I forget the person's name, but their email address was at watson.ibm.com.
The bottom line here is that you can't trust anything you read at Bainbridge's site, because he's willing to try to silence those who fact-check him. If you're a UCLA student in one of his classes, make sure and double-check every assignment he gives you for anything he left out.
Now, Steve Benen continues that fine WM tradition. The following comment I left on washingtonmonthly. com/archives/individual/2008_09/014836.php is no longer there. Here it is, as posted:
The latest BHO lie appears to be that McCain only supports "reform" for the Irish, when - just like Bush, the MexicanGovernment, and BHO - he wants it for almost everyone.That's a reference to this sentence from the roundup at that WM page:
You can't trust those like Benen who try to mislead you about issues like this.
McCain wants a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants ... from Ireland.It also references Benen's habit of trying to pretend that McCain has flip-flopped on amnesty.
"They want us to forget the insults we've put up with, the intolerance," the television ad's announcer says in Spanish as a picture of Rush Limbaugh appears onscreen with quotes of him saying, "Mexicans are stupid and unqualified" and "Shut your mouth or get out."This isn't the first time that Obama smeared Limbaugh, and there's much to discuss about this ad. First let's deal with the misleading Rush quotes. The first quote is actually from 1993 (link):
"They made us feel marginalized in a country we love so much," the ad continues. "John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote and another, even worse, that continues the failed policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families."
[The radio ad goes on:] "Don't forget that John McCain abandoned us rather than confront the leaders of the Republican Party. Many of us were born here, and others came to work and achieve a better life for their families -- not to commit crimes or drain the system like many of John McCain's friends claim. Let's not be fooled by political tricks from John McCain and the Republicans. Vote so they respect us. Vote for a change."
"If you are unskilled and uneducated, your job is going south. Skilled workers, educated people are going to do fine 'cause those are the kinds of jobs NAFTA is going to create. If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do -- let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."The Obama campaign misquoted Rush by omitting the context; the context certainly doesn't show Rush in a good light, but it's far different from what the Obama campaign is trying to do: pretend that Rush said that all Mexicans are "stupid and unqualified". The BHO campaign is lying.
The second quote is just as bad; it was actually from a satire in which Rush proposed a series of draconian immigration laws, only to reveal at the end that those were the actual laws of the Mexican government (link). "Shut your mouth or get out" was actually his distillation of one of Mexico's laws; see for instance this example of meddling foreigners being ejected from Mexico. For video of Rush's satire, see this.
And, the first quote referred to "Mexicans" in the sense of "Mexican citizens who live in Mexico". Democrats frequently have trouble understanding the fact that (according to our laws), Mexicans can't vote in U.S. elections. Only U.S. citizens can, including those of Mexican descent. Certainly, those U.S. citizens of Mexican descent will sympathize with actual Mexicans, but some in the former camp look down on, say, illegal aliens. Obviously, to the BHO campaign there's little difference between an actual Mexican and a U.S. citizen of Mexican descent.
And, of course, some segment of immigrants do come here to engage in criminal behavior, and all those in the U.S. receive a wide range of public benefits. Those who are low-wage workers - the great majority of illegal aliens from Mexico - do take more than they pay in. And, the crimes committed by immigrants would not occur if they weren't here in the first place. As is their habit, the BHO campaign is trying to shut down a discussion of vital matters rather than having an open debate.
As for who's helping Barack Obama spread his lies:
* The first link is to an Ed O'Keefe post at the Washington Post. Needless to say, he just passes the ad on without doing what I did: spend a few minutes searching. Please write the WaPo and ask them to stop helping BHO lie: ombudsman *at* washpost.com
* Ben Smith of the Politico likewise can't be bothered to do even basic research; he also refers to the largely non-existent "anti-Immigration wing of the Republican Party": politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_vs_Rush_en_Espanol.html
* Mark Silva of the Chicago Tribune (mdsilva *at* tribune.com) also can't be bothered to do simple searches: swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/limbaugh_latinos_tv_ad_wars.html
* Eric Kleefeld is yet another searchophobe: tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/obama_spanishlanguage_ad_ties.php
UPDATE: Rush comments on this here; he also calls Obama a liar who took Rush's quotes out of context.
UPDATE 2: The end is nigh! Worthless hack Jake Tapper fact-checks the ad and the BHO campaign's response to his concerns, finishing by saying "the Obama campaign has crossed a line into misleading the viewers of its new TV ad" (blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-1.html).
* Mori Dinauer passes along the lies (prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=09&year=2008&base_name=lightning_round_fiorina_gets_w)
* Jeralyn Merritt does the same, only worse (talkleft.com/story/2008/9/17/172619/529)
* Alex Koppelman comes close, but does including Rush's objections to the ad (letters.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/09/17/obama_limbaugh/view).
* Eunice Moscoso of the Austin American Statesman does provide the McCain camp response to the ad (defending their previous support of amnesty, a support that continues) but fails to note that the BHO campaign lied. A comment I left has not been approved (link)
* Nick Timiraos of the Wall Street Journal includes some of the response from Limbaugh here, but also downplays the extent to which the BHO campaign took the quotes out of context. A quote I left was deleted; I left it again and that might be deleted as well.
* Beltway lightweight Ana Marie Cox links to the Tapper piece, but fails to note that taking quotes out of context was involved, only saying "An ad attempts to tie McCain to some particularly unpleasant Republicanness [in this case, a closed borders approach to immigration], but it turns out McCain was not at all associated with that particular nastiness." (link)
* Kathleen Hennessey of the Associated Press discusses a BHO campaign stop and works this in as well: One [BHO] commercial airing in Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado links McCain to comments apparently hostile to immigrants made by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh. (link)
UPDATE 4: Even a day after Jake Tapper called the ad misleading, others are valiantly struggling with the truth.
* Tim Gaynor of Reuters offers "Controversial Obama ad revives immigration issue". He includes the muted response from McCain and correctly points out that, at the end of day, BHO and McCain are basically on the same page on this issue. However, Gayner completely fails to point out the problems with the quotes. A comment I left was not approved. (link).
* "shovelhood" shows the level of thinking at DailyKos by noting that Rush says the quotes were taken out of context... then using other quotes in an attempt to show that Rush is a racist and without dealing with the quotes in the ad. Whether that's an intentional attempt at distraction or an issue with the thinking processes of "shovelhood" isn't clear. Some commenters don't care about the ad being misleading, but a couple do seem to expres qualms about the BHO campaign lying (dailykos.com/story/2008/9/18/154144/680/122/602969).
UPDATE 5: Ed O'Keefe at the Washington Post - the blogger who first started promoting BHO's lying ad - offers a bit of a non-correction correction in "McCain Camp Decries Obama Spanish Ads" (link), which links to both Rush's comments and those from Tapper. I suppose the latter were key; when another member of the "club" points out that you've promoted a lying ad you just have to admit defeat.
UPDATE 6: The end is nigher! In an editorial, the New York Times says "Mr. Obama's retaliatory ad, also in Spanish, was just as fraudulent. It slimed Mr. McCain as a friend and full-bore ally of restrictionists like Rush Limbaugh, even though Mr. Limbaugh has long attacked Mr. McCain's immigration moderation. It quotes Mr. Limbaugh as calling all Mexicans stupid and ordering them to "shut your mouth or get out," which he never did.".
UPDATE 7: Rush offers "Obama Is Stoking Racial Antagonism" here. This has provoked a new round of those willing to lie for Obama at any cost to whatever reputations they had.
* Digby (digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/black-kettle-by-digby-limbaugh-is-so.html) offers "Black Kettle". It uses the "shovelhood" technique (see above) without even acknowledging the bit about the BHO campaign taking quotes out of context. The quote she provides as a distraction from the original lies is probably taken out of context as well.
* Jonathan Stein from MoJo links to the Rush piece, and continues to take his second quote out of context. (link) Unbelievable? No, just in line with his previous "thinking".
* Adam Serwer first admits that the quotes were taken out of context and that' was "stupid". Then, he launches into the "shovelhood" technique (link).
UPDATE 8: Joe Klein offers "Take It Down, Barack" (link). Klein is such an obsequious hack that even Jake Tapper calling BHO out wasn't enough. It took a far greater authority to spur him to action: "The New York Times editorial board--once again calling a lie a lie--slams both McCain and Obama for their Spanish-language ads about immigration policy. I've given up any hope of McCain running an honest campaign, but if Obama really wants to present an honorable alternative to McCain's non-stop sleaze, he should take down his immigration ad immediately."
UPDATE 9 (9/22/08): * Mark Silva of the Chicago Tribune (mdsilva *at* tribune.com) - even after all the above - continues trying to help BHO lie (swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/john_mccain_immigration_reform.html) by saying "McCain's Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, has been going after McCain lately on immigration -- attempting to tag the Republican with radio's Rush Limbaugh and intolerant words that the talk show host has had for immigrants in Spanish-language ads airing in hotly contested Western states."
Alternet frequently posts articles supporting illegal immigration, and until the last two incidents I've been able to post a dozen or two comments pointing out issues with those posts without a problem. Due to the non-abusive nature of my comments, the issue is that Alternet is afraid of an open debate and only wants an echo chamber.
Here's the email they sent me:
AlterNet commenting privileges suspendedAs previously discussed, I can't find those "community policies" and they didn't respond to the email I sent after the earlier comment was removed.
Grounds: Violations of AlterNet's community policies and/or complaints from other readers.
Here's the comment that apparently caused the ban, which still appears at post time on alternet.org/blogs/peek/93035:
The people being discussed are IllegalAliens, i.e., citizens of another country who are here illegally. Needless to say, giving them discounted educations would encourage even more people to come here illegally with their children. In other words, it would be horrible public policy. Not only that, but every college spot or discount given to an IllegalAlien is one that's taken away from our own fellow citizens. That's even worse public policy.
(Note: the last time I posted a comment here, Alternet deleted it. Hopefully that won't happen again.)
I've left several comments on Alternet's immigration entries, and as far as I know none had been deleted until the last. That last comment was left on the entry "Minutemen Scream "F@$k You Brown Boy!" at Latinos Attending Obama Talk" by Kyle de Beausset (alternet.org/blogs/peek/91440). That post is just the latest in that leftwing site's long line of far-left articles supporting illegal immigration; note that in contrast to some other leftwing sites, left-leaning commenters occasionally call Alternet on their biases.
The comment is included below; how exactly it violates their "community policies" isn't clear since I've been unable to find out what those are. It doesn't seem to violate the rules of other sites, and I'm going to ask Alternet to explain exactly what the problem is.
De Beausset (aka "kyledeb") operates the site Citizen Orange (citizenorange.com) and contributes to The Sanctuary (thesanctuary.soapblox.net) and he starts the post with the following:
I'm here in San Diego where Barack Obama just spoke at the annual National Council of La Raza (NCLR) conference. NCLR flew me out here and provided with me accommodations at the luxurious San Diego Marriot Hotel Marina. I was given the opportunity after I helped publicize NCLR's latest We Can Stop the Hate video using Digg and StumbleUpon, among other new media tools.
The comment that was deleted follows; unfortunately, I forgot to call them on their false headline in that there was just one supposed "Minuteman":
Thank you, Alternet!
Whenever someone's confused over the meaning of the word "irony", I'll send them to this post. It's truly ironic that the only incident of racism at a La Raza convention Alternet can find is an alleged incident from one loon. "Brown boy" isn't exactly a common slur, and it's quite likely that it was said in response to him being called "white boy". There are also plenty of goons on Alternet's side. Oops: I didn't mean to reduce myself to the NCLR-funded kyledeb's side by engaging in guilt by association.
If Alternet is going to continue publishing open borders articles, let me suggest at the least getting better writers.
Youtube's "Citizentube" (citizentube.com) apparently doesn't want to hear from citizens, because that blog where they post promos for Youtube's political ventures has stopped allowing comments on their entries. They used to allow comments, but they've even gone as far as deleting all comments which were left on their past entries.
I blame myself, since I pestered Youtube's Steve Grove by leaving the three comments in the extended entry, none of which are there anymore.
[PBS re-posted my comment; see the update.]
The Public Broadcasting System (PBS) has a relatively new effort called "Engage"  in which they solicit feedback from their viewers. However, they only want the "right kind" of feedback and are willing to delete or ignore comments that are critical of their (public) network. In this particular case, a comment I left that was critical of Gwen Ifill appeared and then was later deleted. The whole sequence of events - and the comments in question - are included below. If the reader thinks the comment shouldn't have been deleted, please contact PBS and let them know what you think:
I'm also considering filing a FOIA request related to this issue; the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has claimed that they're exempt but has also admitted that they'd comply with FOIA. Yes, I realize that in the greater scheme of things a deleted comment isn't that big a deal. However, PBS is a publicly-funded entity that's supposedly impartial, so such a reaction is justified.
Here's the sequence of events:
1. I tried to leave a comment on the post pbs.org/engage/blog/folks-back-home-are-talking-about-obama-mccain on June 9. It was put into a moderation queue, but never appeared. Now, certainly, some bloggers might not even be aware that they have a moderation queue or it might be so clogged that they ignore it. You can see that as the first comment in the extended entry .
2. I tried again with a different comment on a different post (pbs.org/engage/blog/five-good-questions-gwen-ifill) on June 25. That also was put into the moderation queue, and it also never appeared.
3. I tried to leave the last message again on June 26, and this time I used a different user name (NoMoreBlatherDotCom instead of LonewackoDotCom), and I also removed the 'http://' which was in front of one of the links. That's the second comment in the extended entry. 
Success! The comment appeared.
However, when I checked back the next day, the comment was gone. PBS had deleted the comment, despite it not violating any of their listed rules: it was on-topic, it didn't contain profanity, and it wasn't a personal attack but simply a discussion of PBS' and Ifill's low journalistic standards.
Note that at the Gwen Ifill link, almost all the comments are supportive, with some even gushingly so: inquiring about who does her lighting, suggestions that she take Tim Russert's place, and so on. Also, a comment containing a link in the body has been there since I left the second comment. If their rule is that comments containing links are moderated, that means that that comment was approved by a moderator and thus they do pay attention to that queue. And, if PBS objects to me including links, then they're playing favorites, saying that a link to metagovernment.org is OK but not a link to my site. Note that for the final comment both links were in bare format, which the user would have to copy and paste into their browser. Note also that there are about 35 comments at the Ifill link, yet there are 63 anchors (the part after '#' in a comment's individual URL) used. That implies that several comments were deleted. What did they say?
UPDATE: PBS sent this response to my email:
Thank you for bringing your comment to our attention. We've taken a look at your post in light of our terms of service, and we've concluded that we should have allowed it on the site. We reposted your comment yesterday afternoon... As the Engage initiative grows and more people participate in our discussions, we're continuing to evaluate our moderation policies. Feedback like yours helps us clarify our thinking about these issues, and we appreciate it.
 Their "Engage" site started in October but I found out about it due to a BlogAds campaign they're running. The reader might want to send this URL to sites that are running their BlogAd.
 HERE'S THE FIRST COMMENT I TRIED TO LEAVE; THIS WAS MODERATED BUT NEVER APPEARED:
PBS and NPR are just leftier versions of the MSM, and neither do any real reporting and instead just push their agendas.
Examples I can provide come from the topic I cover: immigration.
1. The NPR debate was a sham:
2. NewsHour segments on the topic almost always feature "debates" with two people on the same basic side:
3. Instead of following the money, NPR offered a tear-jerker designed to make illegal immigration acceptable:
 HERE'S THE SECOND COMMENT I TRIED TO LEAVE; THE FIRST VERSION WAS MODERATED BUT NEVER APPEARED, THE SECOND VERSION OF THIS COMMENT APPEARED AND WAS THEN DELETED:
1. Back in 2006, you offered two guests discussing an issue, and they turned out to be on basically the same side. Have you considered that debates between two people who basically agree is how things were done in the Soviet Union and how things should not be done in the U.S.?
2. At a "average voter" panel you moderated, a supposed "regular voter" (who turned out to be a wonk) made various inflammatory claims, none of which you called him on. Why didn't you do that? Was he a "plant", similar to what CNN did with audience members with their debates? And, why couldn't you find a regular voter who supports our laws?
For an unknown reason, on June 10, 2008 Jake Tapper of ABC News posted an entry entitled "Dragged Kicking and Screaming, Tancredo Will Pull Lever for McCain". The reader might remember that from a couple months ago, yet Tapper posted it like it happened just recently and with no acknowledgement that it was old news (link). The Tancredo quote referencing Hillary Clinton as a contender should have been a clue, but I guess Tapper needs all the help he can get. Note also that the earliest comment on the entry is from June 10, and that it's currently in their "Recent Posts" sidebar item.
I left the following comment, which was deleted. Note that I used the name "TLB" and with a link to this site. It can't just be because I used a link, since someone else whose comment remains on the page has a link, and surely they must know that since there are nofollow tags on the links there's no "danger" in letting people put links there, right? So, I'm forced to conclude that ABC News doesn't want people to know that Tapper is serving up old news.
Here's the shocking comment that ABC News doesn't want anyone to see:
Perhaps someone should tell Tapper that the linked article is from two months ago. Someone should also tell him that Barr's position is more or less the same as McCain's.
Xeni Jardin is a lightweight supporter of illegal immigration and pseudo-hipster (tech division) who blogs at BoingBoing. She offers "Online game teaches immigrant kids about rights of due process" (boingboing.net/2008/05/01/online-game-teaches.html) about a video game which portrays a superhuman ICE agent oppressing people of color (and one young lady from Poland) over legal immigration edge cases (icedgame.com).