[speechlesstx]

While you might be right and there might be some secret ulterior motive from the writer to evoke thoughts of right-wingers being "extremists" while left-wingers are merely "activists", it is my opinion that's a bit of a reach. :) From the standpoint of a writer, it is cumbersome to use the same term multiple times in a sentence or in a short paragraph; I suspect that is why you see the difference in terms used. It's a pretty short article, only 580 words.

Sorry, I don't buy it. You can parse the use of the word "extremist" all you want and it will not change the fact that this writer suggested "white supremacists," "right-wing extremists" and abortion terrorists were more a concern than al-Qaeda or environmental wackos - in spite of any evidence. The evidence again using their own report on domestic terrorism incidents since 9/11:

The 68 domestic terrorist incidents in the researcher's database since 9/11 break down like this:

36 by Earth Liberation Front
5 by Animal Liberation Front
1 by Revolutionary Cells Animal Liberation Brigade
26 by Unknown or other group

Of the 26 "unknowns":

8 Blamed on or suspected by unknown eco-terrorists, ALF or ELF
9 Anthrax letters
3 Ricin incidents
2 Against the Cuban- American National Foundation headquarters
1 Unclear

Plus these 3:

Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, an Egyptian-born man, opened fired at the El Al Israeli Airlines ticket counter at the Los Angeles Airport (LAX), killing two people and wounding three others.

One woman was killed and five other injured when Naveed Afzal Haq, a Muslim-American man, opened fire on the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle building in downtown Seattle.

Two "unsophisticated" grenades exploded outside a building that houses the British consulate in New York City.

Not one abortion clinic bombing, not one confirmed "right-wing extremist" or "white supremacist" incident. If the writer wasn't simply biased he was damn lazy and didn't do his homework, but this article is offensive and dishonest. I submitted it to Newsbusters the day of this post and apparently they agree with me.

[jillianleab]

The impression I got from the article was that all domestic extremist/activist/terrorist groups are cause for concern. I guess I don't see the use of the word "activist" as more noble than the word "extremist"; to me, they are pretty much one in the same.

Difference of opinion, I suppose... you see conflict and an attack on the right wing, I see a piece talking about domestic terrorism.

And come on, you think that because Newsbusters agreed with you that means you're right? Their motto is: "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias". If that's not a group set out to find conflict, I don't know what one is!

[NeedKarma]

Can we please only use Crooks and Liars as a source for our news? Thank you.

[speechlesstx]

The impression I got from the article was that all domestic extremist/activist/terrorist groups are cause for concern. I guess I don't see the use of the word "activist" as more noble than the word "extremist"; to me, they are pretty much one in the same.

Jillian, I realize I probably won't sway you but nonetheless, the difference between "activist" and "extremist" is not subtle and this 'journalist' knows it. "Extremist" is meant to generate a negative opinion, and besides that - there is no evidence to support their claim. The point is if there are no domestic terrorist incidents attributed to these groups in recent history - 6 1/2 years at least - there is no reason to make it an issue. Don't suggest anti-abortion terrorism is a problem if you have nothing to back it up. Don't suggest right-wing is extremism is a problem if you have nothing to back it up. 42 confirmed acts of domestic terrorism by left-wing extremists plus 8 suspected is a problem. This writer apparently never thought anyone would look up the facts, and the facts matter.

And come on, you think that because Newsbusters agreed with you that means you're right? Their motto is: "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias". If that's not a group set out to find conflict, I don't know what one is!

It's no conflict, if the media behaved responsibly I wouldn't be posting this and neither would they. My position is the same as theirs, "to bring balance and responsibility to the news media." No more, no less.

[speechlesstx]

Can we please only use Crooks and Liars as a source for our news? Thank you.

No, we need a dose of Scrappleface from time to time. :D

[jillianleab]

Jillian, I realize I probably won't sway you but nonetheless, the difference between "activist" and "extremist" is not subtle and this 'journalist' knows it. "Extremist" is meant to generate a negative opinion, and besides that - there is no evidence to support their claim.

As I said, in my opinion, there is little difference between the two. You can't be an activist if you aren't an extremist, and while you can be an extremist and not be an activist, the two don't really fit together. It's my experience people who are highly emotional involving one thing or another, enough that they consider themselves an "extremist" will, in certain situations, at least, be an activist as well.

[QUOTE]The point is if there are no domestic terrorist incidents attributed to these groups in recent history - 6 1/2 years at least - there is no reason to make it an issue. Don't suggest anti-abortion terrorism is a problem if you have nothing to back it up. Don't suggest right-wing is extremism is a problem if you have nothing to back it up. 42 confirmed acts of domestic terrorism by left-wing extremists plus 8 suspected is a problem. This writer apparently never thought anyone would look up the facts, and the facts matter.

So since there have been no anti-abortion terrorist acts in 6 1/2 years it means those groups aren't active? Can't be a threat? Al-Qaeda hasn't attacked us in that long either, does that mean they are no longer a threat? The fact is any sort of extremism, from the right or the left is a problem, and I think that's the point the author was trying to make. Any group who will stoop to violent means to be heard is cause for concern. It doesn't matter if they have been dormant for six years, ten years or thirty years - if they still exist, they are of a concern for safety. Maybe they've been stock piling ammunition. :)

It's no conflict, if the media behaved responsibly I wouldn't be posting this and neither would they. My position is the same as theirs, "to bring balance and responsibility to the news media." No more, no less.

But to you (and to them) balance is the right-wing perspective. I'm not saying the media isn't biased at times, but I think a lot of the bias that is picked out and professed by the right-wingers is embellished. It's more of the "us versus them" thing; instead of either side working toward compromise or a somewhat common position it's "The left likes this? We hate it!" and vice-versa. It's seems like neither side is interested in what is best for society as a whole, just their side.

As I said, I read that article and saw a piece about domestic terrorism as a whole not as a left-wing/right-wing one-is-better-one-is-worse, one-is-noble-one-is-evil issue.

**comment removed**

[speechlesstx]

As I said, in my opinion, there is little difference between the two. You can't be an activist if you aren't an extremist, and while you can be an extremist and not be an activist, the two don't really fit together. It's my experience people who are highly emotional involving one thing or another, enough that they consider themselves an "extremist" will, in certain situations, at least, be an activist as well.

What kind of reasoning is that, "you can't be an activist if you aren't an extremist?"

I attended a Steven Curtis Chapman concert last night, he's a prominent "activist" for adoption. We laughed, we cried, we prayed, we rocked out - and raised over $5000 to help a local family cover the expense of an adoption. He signed up dozens and dozens of other "activists" to take a small bucket and gather change to change the lives of orphans and around the world. That makes him an all those 8 and 9 year old kids walking off with their buckets "extremists?"

So since there have been no anti-abortion terrorist acts in 6 1/2 years it means those groups aren't active? Can't be a threat? Al-Qaeda hasn't attacked us in that long either, does that mean they are no longer a threat? The fact is any sort of extremism, from the right or the left is a problem, and I think that's the point the author was trying to make. Any group who will stoop to violent means to be heard is cause for concern. It doesn't matter if they have been dormant for six years, ten years or thirty years - if they still exist, they are of a concern for safety. Maybe they've been stock piling ammunition. :)

The first thing I said in this post was "Personally I think damage from any extremist is a concern." Regardless of your opinion, this writer was intentionally biased (my opinion) or lazy - neither are excuses. When opening with "when it comes to fears about a terrorist attack, people in the U.S. usually focus on Osama bin Laden," mentioning the anti-abortion cause first and then "on a smaller scale are environmental activists," in spite of the evidence. Do you fear a terrorist attack from an anti-abortion group?

A further look at the evidence reveals the last abortion clinic bombing occurred June 11, 2001. A further look at the evidence they cite, another 68 incidents dating to January 1993:

36 attacks by environmental and animal rights wackos:

20 by ELF
7 by ALF
4 by Coalition to Save the Preserves
4 Claimed by or blamed on ALF, ELF
1 Blamed on unknown environmentalist

17 by or against Middle eastern/Muslim targets/suspects

A Palestinian opened fire on the observation deck of the Empire State Building

A Jewish man (Harry Shapiro) of Jacksonville, Florida placed a pipe bomb at a synagogue to disrupt the speech of former Israeli PM (Peres). The bomb did not explode; instead, it was found by 3 children and passed over to the police on 22 February. The charged man affiliated himself with the American fringe of Islamic Jihad.

Four letter bombs, addressed to the Saudi Arabian newspaper Al Hayat,

Four letter bombs, addressed to the Saudi Arabian newspaper Al Hayat

Four letter bombs, addressed to the Saudi Arabian newspaper Al Hayat

Four letter bombs, addressed to the Saudi Arabian newspaper Al Hayat

A letter bomb addressed to Leavenworth Prison similar to those sent to the Al-Hayat

Four letter bombs were found at the Washington, DC offices of Al-Hayat,

Four letter bombs were found at the Washington, DC offices of Al-Hayat

Two letter bombs, also sent inside musical Christmas cards, were sent to the Federal Prison at Leavenworth, Kansas. They were addressed to "Parole Officer" and postmarked from Egypt.

Two letter bombs, also sent inside musical Christmas cards, were sent to the Federal Prison at Leavenworth. Kansas. They were addressed to "Parole Officer" and postmarked from Egypt.

Four letter bombs were found at the Washington, DC offices of Al-Hayat

Letter bomb addressed to Al-Hayat in Washington

Four letter bombs were found at the Washington, DC offices of Al-Hayat

A Lebanese immigrant, Rashid Baz, opened fire on a van crossing the Brooklyn Bridge, wounding four Hasidic Lubavitch rabbinical students (one of whom died four days later).

The first World Trade Center bombing

A gunman approached cars at the entrance of the CIA Virginia headquarters shortly before 8AM and randomly fired into several cars with an AK-47 rifle. The suspect in the shooting is 28-year-old Pakistani national.

6 against abortion targets

Unknown Group attacked Abortion Related target (June 11, 2001)
Unknown Group attacked Abortion Related target (Apr. 6, 1998)
Unknown Group attacked Abortion Related target (Apr. 1, 1998)
Other Group attacked Abortion Related target (Jan. 29, 1998)
Army of God attacked Abortion Related target (Jan. 29, 1998)
Other Group attacked Abortion Related target (Jan. 16, 1997)

2 Right-wing extremist Eric Rudolph

2 By lone white-supremacist

1 Murrah Federal Building bombing

1 Against GAP clothing store in Seattle

1 The headquarters of the Nicaraguan Sandinista Liberation Front in Miami was set on fire.

1 Gunmen attacked three prominent Haitian exiles in the Little Haiti area of Miami.

1 Three hand grenades found at British-owned property in San Diego. Responsibility was claimed by the 'Southern California IRA'.

63.3 percent by ALF/ELF or other environmental/animal rights wackos

14 percent by or against Middle Eastern or Muslim suspects/targets

4.5 percent against abortion targets

18.4 percent by other assorted wackos

If I can do the research so can this writer. It's clear from the evidence that as far as "domestic terrorism" goes, ALF and ELF more than dominate the field with Middle Eastern/Muslim suspects/targets in second - especially considering 9/11 and it being the most deadly and devastating. 6 abortion targets attacked in 15 years - the last being almost 7 years ago - is hardly reason for concern, yet this writer chose to list them first. It was no accident.

But to you (and to them) balance is the right-wing perspective.

LOL, this is why I might as well beat my head against the wall rather than discuss this. In the face of overwhelming evidence you not only deny the bias, you make absurd assumptions about me with NO evidence. I stand by my previous comment, "my position is the same as theirs (MRC), "to bring balance and responsibility to the news media." No more, no less." I have no problem with a newspaper, magazine or network having a particular slant, it's even to be expected, but when it comes to news just give me the news - don't give me opinion disguised as news and know your facts.

I'm not saying the media isn't biased at times, but I think a lot of the bias that is picked out and professed by the right-wingers is embellished. It's more of the "us versus them" thing; instead of either side working toward compromise or a somewhat common position it's "The left likes this? We hate it!" and vice-versa. It's seems like neither side is interested in what is best for society as a whole, just their side.

Again I have to laugh. If you want cherry-picking and embellishment, try this. These idiots even pick on the NY Times for "conservative misinformation."

As I said, I read that article and saw a piece about domestic terrorism as a whole not as a left-wing/right-wing one-is-better-one-is-worse, one-is-noble-one-is-evil issue.

Maybe you're just old and jaded! :D

I love it when people insult me in the course of discussion, that's always good for that "us versus them" thing."

[jillianleab]

speech, you asked for opinions. I gave mine. It's not the same as yours. Next time, if you only want people to comment who agree with you, perhaps you should include a disclaimer.

[speechlesstx]

speech, you asked for opinions. I gave mine. It's not the same as yours. Next time, if you only want people to comment who agree with you, perhaps you should include a disclaimer.

Yep, I asked for comments, not insults like "Your panties and in a wad for 'nuthin!" or "Maybe you're just old and jaded!"

And by the way, if you look at top of the page, this is a "forum" where we have "Member Discussions." I realize the left's idea of "discussion" is "you need to shut up and listen to me," but where I come from comments are generally returned in discussions.

[jillianleab]

It seems there are times where you are perfectly capable of taking a bit of a ribbing, and times you aren't. Apparently, in this thread, you aren't. I will go back and edit my posts to remove the offensive comments.

I never said you should shut up and listen to me; if anything, you are saying that to me. I gave my opinion, I commented, I tried to discuss. You proceed to call my reasoning "convoluted" (rather than asking me to explain it further) and say "Regardless of your opinion..." which essentially translates to "Your opinion is wrong, mine is right".

I don't know how to further discuss this with you other than to say I disagree. I've said, multiple times now, that I think the article intended to focus on all domestic terrorism, not left or right-wing terrorism. What more can I say? You don't have to agree with me, but that's my opinion. I see no significance in the use of the words "extremist" or "activist" when coupled with one group or another. I see no significance in the order in which the groups appear. You see that - I don't. We disagree. It's not important to me that you agree with me, why is it so important to you that I agree with you?

And I'm not a lefty.

[jillianleab]

Can't remove my "panty" comment - the edit button isn't there anymore. Let this post serve as me retracting that remark.

[speechlesstx]

It seems there are times where you are perfectly capable of taking a bit of a ribbing, and times you aren't. Apparently, in this thread, you aren't. I will go back and edit my posts to remove the offensive comments.

Jillean, I get a little passionate over both media bias and abortion issues, combine the two and look out :D

There was no need to remove anything. The ribbing I can take, what I don't abide well is misrepresentation. This was the only thing that really bothered me: "But to you (and to them) balance is the right-wing perspective." That's not me.

And please, don't confuse my describing a tactic of "the left" with you personally. Trust me, if I had meant "you" I would have said "you." Nevertheless, my apologies if you were offended. But still, 63.3 percent of domestic terrorist attacks in th past 15 years were by ALF/ELF or other environmental/animal rights wackos! ;)

[speechlesstx]

Can't remove my "panty" comment - the edit button isn't there anymore. Let this post serve as me retracting that remark.

Don't sweat it, I'm really not that rigid, lol. :)

[jillianleab]

But still, 63.3 percent of domestic terrorist attacks in th past 15 years were by ALF/ELF or other environmental/animal rights wackos! ;)

That's true, and I agree with you there. The article would have been better if the author had done more research and inserted such figures, as then there would be no room for interpretation on what he wrote and what he meant.

You might be right - the whole article could be a veiled attempt at slamming the right-wing by a left-wing media unit; or it could be a journalist who didn't think his words out carefully enough to avoid conflict and offence. Does that make it excusable? No, but it doesn't make it malicious either.

Does this mean we're friends again; I don't have to add you to my ignore list? :p

[Allheart]

That's true, and I agree with you there. The article would have been better if the author had done more research and inserted such figures, as then there would be no room for interpretation on what he wrote and what he meant.

You might be right - the whole article could be a veiled attempt at slamming the right-wing by a left-wing media unit; or it could be a journalist who didn't think his words out carefully enough to avoid conflict and offence. Does that make it excusable? No, but it doesn't make it malicious either.

Does this mean we're friends again; I don't have to add you to my ignore list? :p

Psssst Jill pssssst - don't let this get out... he tries to not let it out... but he really is a sweetie (just like you)... but you have to promise not to tell :D

[jillianleab]

psssst Jill pssssst - don't let this get out...he tries to not let it out...but he really is a sweetie (just like you)...but you have to promise not to tell :D

I know, Allheart, I know! He's also passionate and opinionated and stubborn... oh wait, I think I'm describing myself! :)

[Allheart]

I know, Allheart, I know! He's also passionate and opinionated and stubborn.... oh wait, I think I'm describing myself! :)

Not at all...

Let's see

Passionate + Opinionated + Stubborn + Leaves the toilet seat up = aaaaaah MEN :D

[speechlesstx]

That's true, and I agree with you there. The article would have been better if the author had done more research and inserted such figures, as then there would be no room for interpretation on what he wrote and what he meant.

You might be right - the whole article could be a veiled attempt at slamming the right-wing by a left-wing media unit; or it could be a journalist who didn't think his words out carefully enough to avoid conflict and offence. Does that make it excusable? No , but it doesn't make it malicious either.

Aha, now that is a thing of beauty :)

Does this mean we're friends again; I don't have to add you to my ignore list? :p

[speechlesstx]

Not at all...

Let's see

Passionate + Opinionated + Stubborn + Leaves the toilet seat up = aaaaaah MEN :D

OK, now we are WAY off track. I'll grant you this much, when we get a new single young girl at work and the subject of men comes up I tell them to remember "all men are scum" and they'll be fine. :D

HOWEVER, on the subject of toilet seats... why should men have to put the seat down? My wife says she sometimes goes in their in the dark and doesn't want to fall in because I left the seat up. Granted, that's nasty but I ask you which is better, looking before you sit or realizing the hard way that we forgot to lift the seat a few minutes earlier because we forgot that we had put it down?

[jillianleab]

I have my hubby trained to put the seat AND lid down; does this make him less of a man? Should I start a new thread so we can address this properly? :D