text:
- Font:
- +
- -
Guests: Sen. Robert Casey, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Pat Buchanan, Howard Fineman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Dan Lothian, Harry Soyster
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Council of war.
Let's play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews in Boston. Leading off tonight: In the war room. President Obama's top commander in Afghanistan has said if we don't send more troops there, we risk failure. And today the president held his first big strategy session to weigh that request and what the ultimate goal of our Afghanistan policy should be. The key people from the military, diplomatic and political corners of this administration were in the room, including Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, CIA director Panetta and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
And the most important questions they have to answer are: How many troops can we send there? How long are they willing to stay there? And what can they get done? Republican senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Democratic senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania will be here to give their answers to those big questions.
Plus: Republicans want revenge. They're demanding that Democratic congressman Alan Grayson of Florida apologize to House minority leader John Boehner for making these remarks on Tuesday night.
REP. ALAN GRAYSON (D), FLORIDA: If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly! That's right, the Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.
MATTHEWS: Wow. Republicans are trying to frame Congressman Grayson as the Democratic counterpart to Republican Joe Wilson who, as you remember, said to the president in joint session, "You lie." But was Grayson any more out of line than several Republicans who have said that Democrats want to implement "death panels"?
Also, Dick Cheney is drawing fire from a group of retired generals and admirals who says he's scare-mongering about the hazards of closing Guantanamo and relocating those prisoners to American prisons. Two top retired military leaders will be here to talk about their view of the former vice president.
And today, a new Arizona law goes into effect that will allow people to carry concealed guns into bars. Are guns and booze a smart mix?
And finally, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got her shot at being president today—of the U.N. Security Council—and she's not letting anyone forget how much she likes that title. More on that in the HARDBALL "Sideshow."
Let's start with the president's big huddle on Afghanistan. Pat Buchanan is an MSNBC political analyst, as is "Newsweek's" Howard Fineman. Let me go to you, Pat. This is a big question. How many troops do we want to put in Afghanistan, over 100,000? How long do we want to keep them there? And what will be better if we stay there five years, say? Will it be any better for us if we stay five or leave now?
PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Chris, those are the questions that Barack Obama is asking General McChrystal even today. If I give you the 45,000 troops, how long will it take for them to pacify the country and get a government that can stand up and an army that can stand up and control the country?
I think those are very hard questions to answer in the positive in the short term, Chris. And from what I'm hearing from Chuck Todd and others, it seems as though the president is tilting toward more and anti-al Qaeda strategy—in other words, holding off on the troops, the add-on troops to basically control the cities and protect the population, and basically going for a policy of going after al Qaeda.
MATTHEWS: Let me go to Howard on the same questions. How many troops, how long, and what will they get done before they leave? Because eventually, one fact is real, we eventually will come home and the Afghanistanis will run their country—the Afghans will. So what do we get done if we send a lot more troops over there.
HOWARD FINEMAN, "NEWSWEEK," MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, Chris, the interesting thing is that that question isn't just being debated behind closed doors at the White House by military people. It's being debated by people with a lot of political experience, like Vice President Joe Biden, like former senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, by Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff and former member of the House. They're looking at it politically, too, in terms of what they can explain and sell to increasingly restive Democrats on the Hill who are having doubts about it.
To me, the most fascinating character could be Hillary Rodham Clinton. She was outflanked in the Democratic primaries by Barack Obama, who was insisting the key war was Afghanistan and not Iraq. Now she's sitting in the room while Barack Obama confronts the consequences of the way he ran the campaign.
BUCHANAN: Chris—Chris...
MATTHEWS: OK, thank you, Howard. We'll be right back with you and Pat. Pat, hold on there. I'll get back to you later on in the program.
Right now, let's bring in Democratic senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, who's a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Casey, are those the right questions? How many troops can we send over to Afghanistan more than the 68,000? If so, how long do we keep them there? And what can they actually get done if they stay there a significant amount of time?
SEN. BOB CASEY (D-PA), FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: Well, Chris, I think that there are a whole series of questions, those that you mentioned, but many more. We have to get this right on so many levels, militarily and also the non-military questions. Troops and all the questions tied up with that are part of this. But we have to get this right.
I think one thing that's very clear from what we learned in Iraq, we have to get the strategy right before we talk about resources. And getting the strategy right's not going to be a couple of days. I think the president should take all the time he needs to get the strategy right and then to have a discussion about resources. But the Congress has a role to play here, and we have to have a much better debate than we had with regard to the war in Iraq.
MATTHEWS: What do you think, Senator, of the argument, the historic argument that the British went in there and they were thrown out? They killed to the last man. The Soviets were thrown out with brutality. They hated the Soviets. We're in there now. Why do we think we can change Afghanistan? Is that a good argument, that you can't change a country that is Afghanistan, and we're us?
CASEY: Chris, I think you make a good point. I think we have to—in addition to assessing what's happening now and questions of resources and strategy, you do have to look at the history that we know about, the graveyard of empires, the book that was written, all of that.
But I'll tell you, when I was in Afghanistan for two days in August, and then one day in Pakistan, General McChrystal in his briefing to us, in addition to assessing the threats, talked specifically about the history. He has studied the history of what the Russians did well and didn't do so effectively. He studied that history, and I think he's going to—I think he already has incorporated that in some of his recommendations, and I think the president's going to cognizant of that, as well.
MATTHEWS: but isn't there a tissue rejection that sets in, where people in a country, a third world or a fourth world country like Afghanistan, the longer you're there, the more you rot in their eyes? You just become hated, don't you?
CASEY: Well, there's no question that one of the difficulties in coming up with the right strategy but also communicating very effectively with the American people is this strategy is different than almost anything we've ever done. Counterinsurgency by definition is unlike what we did in World War II, unlike what we did in Vietnam even, and other wars. So it's going to be difficult to articulate that.
But I think we have to give the president the time he needs to work with General McChrystal, as well as all of the talented people he has around him on his foreign policy and national security team, to be able to come up with strategies where a lot of it is going to be non-military, engaging the people, developing trust so they can govern themselves, so they can provide their own security with the Afghan army and police and also so that they can deliver the kind of services to people that maybe the Taliban is promising they can deliver.
So it's—there's no question about it that there's a dimension here that is wholly apart from the military strategy. It's political. It's engagement with people on the ground and it's developing trust, and that's not easy to do.
MATTHEWS: Could you defend a loss of a service person over there? I'm sure we've lost them in Pennsylvania. We've lost them all over this state. Can you defend, when you look into the eyes of a parent or a spouse, someone killed in Afghanistan right now is actually making this country safer? Can you make that case right now?
CASEY: Oh, I think we can, Chris. It's very difficult. We've lost more than 35 Pennsylvanians. We have into the several hundreds now that are wounded just from Pennsylvania.
But I do believe that the stakes here are higher than the stakes that we faced in Iraq because of the threat to our own security in that region, meaning the possible threat—not just what's happening in Afghanistan, but what's happening in Pakistan, to make sure that that country is stable enough so that the—any extremist group, whether it's the Taliban group in Afghanistan or Pakistan or whether it's even al Qaeda—that they never get control of nuclear weapons, that they are never able to set up sanctuary in either place.
So the direct threat to our national security is very evident there, and as difficult as is it to make the case for war to any parent, any loved one, to any family member, I think we can make this case credibly. That doesn't mean we have the strategy set forth right now.
MATTHEWS: Do you believe that the Pakistani government is the enemy of the Taliban in Afghanistan—not the Taliban—in Afghanistan—in Pakistan. Do you believe that we're on the same side, we and the Pakistani government, in opposing the Taliban in Afghanistan? Do you believe that?
CASEY: I do. Chris, from working on this in the Foreign Relations Committee—I also chair the subcommittee that has both countries under it but—and also talking to people in Pakistan, and following this—I just spoke to President Zardari the other day. It's very clear this is a different approach now, and candidly, a much better approach from our vantage point, that the Pakistani government has taken with the Pakistani army. General Kiyani is very serious about this, taking the fight already to the Swat valley and also getting to Waziristan. I think they understand the threat now, or at least are reacting to the threat in a much more substantial way than they were a year ago.
So despite all the bad news that we keep hearing about Afghanistan, I think there's some good news to report there. In Pakistan, I think the effort is much more focused and effective to take the fight to the Taliban in—in Pakistan. I think our intelligence sharing is much better. I think you're seeing the results of that.
But we have to continually monitor what's happening in Pakistan. This aid package, the Kerry-Lugar bill, is very important...
MATTHEWS: Right.
CASEY: ... to develop the kind of—the kind of trust that our two governments probably have let break down over time.
MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you very much, Senator Robert Casey of Pennsylvania.
CASEY: Chris, thank you.
MATTHEWS: Let's go right now back to Howard Fineman and Pat Buchanan. Pat, there's a real issue here about America. We're a country, too. Do the American people have it in us to spend five years trying to build a modern centralized government in Afghanistan, with people loving us, with supporting us, with feeding them, building schools, building highways, building latrines? Is that our business, nation building in Afghanistan?
BUCHANAN: You're asking, Do the American people have the patience and perseverance and will to put hundreds of thousands of troops into Afghanistan for five years? The answer to that question, Chris, is no. And just because you asked the right question at the beginning—look, the question for—that Barack Obama ought to ask General McChrystal is this. General, if I give you the 45,000 troops, can you do the job you're talking about, protecting the populations, getting control of the cities, fighting al Qaeda and all these things? Well, how many are you going to need for exactly how long to do it? Because Chris, a majority of the American people already think—oppose the war. A majority don't want the troops going in.
So we've got a short timeframe here. And if I looked at it, I would say, quite frankly, I don't think we have it within us in terms of the value of what we're going to get for it, the possibility of us winning it, and what it's going to cost over that time to really do it. So Barack Obama's got to say, Do we start a new strategy now, or do we do it in a year when this one doesn't work?
MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you, Pat. Thanks very much, Howard, as well.
Let's go to Republican senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia. He's a
member of the Armed Services and Intelligence Committee. Senator
Chambliss, this reminds me of 1968, after Ted, when General Westmoreland
said, We can't win that war in Vietnam with a half million soldiers, I need
I need 250,000 more. That said to me we can't win it. This guy's talking more numbers, when he's really talking, The mission's not working. Do you believe that even with 40,000 more troops that we can achieve the mission of nation building in Afghanistan?
SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R-GA), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Well, I'm not sure that 40,000 is the right number, Chris. I think whatever General McChrystal says he needs is what the number ought to be. It may be more troops now. It could be more later. Could be less later. I don't know.
But here's what I do know. We had an experience in Iraq, where we had a very dysfunctional government because we had a lot of violence going on. When we increased the numbers of troops in Iraq and we had a change in strategy with the surge, we started restoring peace in the whole community of Iraq. And once we restored peace all around that country, then we were able to move forward with having success. We saw stability in the government all of a sudden. We saw the people of Iraq getting on board with us.
Right now in Afghanistan, we have the same scenario. The theater is different. The contrasts are different. But still, we've got to have sufficient troops under General McChrystal's control to establish peace in that country. If we don't do that, then we'll never achieve success.
MATTHEWS: Do you believe—same question I asked before. Do you believe that the Pakistan government, Zardari's government, is really on our side against the Taliban in Afghanistan? Not—they're against their own Taliban, to some extent. Are they really on our side? Because historically, that government has supported the Taliban in Afghanistan.
CHAMBLISS: Well, I mean, obviously, you've—you've hit at kind of the heart of this thing, Chris, because you can't decouple Pakistan from Afghanistan. We've got to have a commitment from the Paks to provide us assistance if we're going to prevail. Otherwise, you're going to continue to have these folks go back and forth across the border.
Right now, I'm not sure the answer to your question is in the affirmative. We haven't seen the right kind of signs coming out of the Paks. But we do know that they're giving us some permission to carry out some military operations that have been very beneficial, and hopefully, we'll be able to continue to have some sort of cooperative spirit with them that will allow us to get a more favorable reaction from the Pak government, as well as from the Pakistani people.
MATTHEWS: What do you think of the government in Kabul? I mean, that election's a little bit murky, to put it lightly. Lots of talks of what we used to call in this country in our big cities "irregularities," meaning cheating. Do you think there was enough cheating by Karzai to steal that election?
CHAMBLISS: Well, I'm not sure whether he stole it or what. But you and I have been through enough elections to know that when you have 100 percent of the vote and a significant vote going to one candidate and all other candidates get zero, something's askew there.
MATTHEWS: Yes. Well, what about...
CHAMBLISS: Again...
MATTHEWS: ... losing—a Georgia boy or Georgia young woman gets killed down there? Are they getting killed for that government that may be crooked?
CHAMBLISS: Well, there's no question but what there's an awful lot of corruption in the Karzai government. That's one of the ultimate issues that's going to have to be resolved. We're going to have to rid that government of corruption, and that's not going to be easy. But we're not even going to be able to do that until we establish peace and have some success in that realm.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
CHAMBLISS: Here's what bothers me about delaying this decision, too, Chris. And that is, we do have Georgians that are dying over there, and I don't like that. I don't like it under the best of scenarios. But here the president has had this report from General McChrystal for 30 days now, as of today, and we still don't have a decision that's been made by the administration on what we're going to do. We've got to move forward, and we've got to be able to protect those folks, and I don't think we're giving them the best protection right now that we can.
MATTHEWS: OK. Well said. Thank you very much, Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia.
Coming up: A Democratic congressman says the Republican health care plan is simply, well, don't get sick. And if you do get sick, die quickly. That's what he said and he's not taking it back. Republicans are crying foul, demanding an apology. But after a summer of lies and exaggerations from, well, the other side, is this one going to stick?
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson of Florida said this about the Republican health care plan. Let's listen.
REP. ALAN GRAYSON (D), FLORIDA: If you get sick in America, this is what the Republicans want you to do.
If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this:
Die quickly. That's right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.
MATTHEWS: Well, Republicans demanded an apology for that.
And, today, the Republican Tom Price of Georgia drafted a resolution of disapproval of what you just heard, just like Democrats did for Joe Wilson, who didn't move forward with it—they didn't move forward with that resolution today.
And just today on the floor, Congressman Grayson said this. I don't think this is actually an apology. Let's listen.
GRAYSON: I'm not going to recount every single thing that I said. But I will point out that, immediately after that speech, several Republicans asked me to apologize.
Well, I would like to apologize. I would like to apologize to the dead. And here's why. According to this study, health insurance and mortality in U.S. adults, which was published two weeks ago, 44,789 Americans die every year because they have no health insurance.
So, I call upon the Democratic members of the House, I call upon the Republican members of the House, I call upon all of us to do our jobs for the sake of America, for the sake of those dying people and their families.
I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America.
MATTHEWS: That's what you call chutzpah.
Joining me now is Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida and U.S. Congressman Dan Lothian of Florida.
Did I get the word right? I think it is chutzpah. I mean, that guy
was asked to apologize, Congresswoman, and he came out and told them, so's
your old man. I have got a bigger charge to make. You're killing people
by the millions.
REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D), FLORIDA: Well...
MATTHEWS: Your thoughts.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: ... if you know—if you know Alan Grayson, you -
chutzpah is absolutely—and you pronounced it right—absolutely what he has.
He has a real dry sense of humor. I know he's been on this show before. I think both his comments yesterday and today somewhat tongue-in-cheek, maybe a little bit more teeth than tongue. But, at the end of the day, he was making the larger point that the Republicans had years to make health care reform a priority. They never did. They have no plan. It's been more than 100 days since Roy Blunt, my colleague in the Congress, their—their—one of their leaders on and point men on health care reform, said they would have a plan. They still don't have one.
And, yet, every year, 45,000 Americans die because they don't have health insurance. And that's the larger point that Congressman Grayson was trying to make. He may have inartfully made it, but it was certainly important to stress that we need to get the Republicans to come to the table, work with us, sit down, and make health care reform a priority, instead of continuing to be the party of no.
MATTHEWS: Take your time now, Congressman Lungren. You have a lot to bite off of right now...
MATTHEWS: ... what she—what the congresswoman just said, what Grayson just said in his, well, doubling down, you might say of his attack on your party.
Is this like what happened with Joe Wilson, the Republican Joe Wilson, who said to the president's joint session out loud, "You lie?" Is what Congressman Grayson said about the killing fields of the Republican health care plan, is that the same misdemeanor, or felony?
REP. DAN LUNGREN ®, CALIFORNIA: I appreciate very much having me on.
LUNGREN: I must say that I thought I was going to be on with a congresswoman. I didn't know I was going to be on with a senator who manages to filibuster and not answer the question.
LUNGREN: Look, the fact of the matter is, he said something he shouldn't have said on the floor. He should apologize, just as my friend Joe Wilson said something he shouldn't have said on the floor, and then he immediately apologized, calling the White House, talking with Rahm Emanuel.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: He didn't apologize on the floor.
LUNGREN: I mean, let's—let's—let's just go and—and do that sort of thing.
The other thing is this. We keep hearing this nonsense that only the Democrats have the wisdom that could possibly deal with health care. We have multiple proposals that have been out there for a long period of time.
There are at least 32 separate amendments that were offered in committee by Republicans, every one of them voted down by the Democrats.
The fact of the matter is, the American people are rejecting their overall proposal.
LUNGREN: The American people, by large numbers, are saying, why not sit down at the table, Republicans and Democrats, and work incrementally on those specific areas that are problems, rather than tossing overboard our entire system and moving towards...
LUNGREN: ... the government takeover of health care.
MATTHEWS: Let's take a look...
LUNGREN: That's what we're really talking.
MATTHEWS: Let's get to that in a minute, but let's take a look at three Republicans.
Here's Republican Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida on health care. Let's listen to her, because I think the tenor of this debate has gone south, negatively.
REP. GINNY BROWN-WAITE ®, FLORIDA: Mr. Speaker, last week, Democrats released a health care bill which essentially said to America's seniors, drop dead.
MATTHEWS: And here's Republican Congressman Paul Broun of Florida.
REP. PAUL BROUN ®, GEORGIA: This program of government option is touted is as being this panacea. The savior of allowing people to have quality health care at an affordable price is going to kill people.
MATTHEWS: And here's Republican Congresswoman Virginia Foxx on health care.
REP. VIRGINIA FOXX ®, NORTH CAROLINA: Republicans have a better solution. It won't put the government in charge of people's health care. It will make sure we bring down the cost of health care for all Americans and that insures affordable access for all Americans and is pro-life, because it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government.
MATTHEWS: Congresswoman, three—three Republicans in a row used language which sounds to me exactly like Grayson's language about the other side trying to kill people. I don't see the distinction.
You first, then Congressman Lungren.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, it is always fun to debate my good friend Dan Lothian. We just came from a Judiciary Committee meeting together.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: But, you know, the—the—the—I'm glad to see that Dan is really arguing the larger points, as opposed to going tit for tat over this speech thing here.
MATTHEWS: But, see, I want to argue the—I want to argue the smaller points.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I know you really want to do that. But Dan and I want to argue over health care reform.
MATTHEWS: I want to—I want to get—I want to get you both in the gutter and start throwing mud at each other.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I'm not...
MATTHEWS: No, what I really want to know is, is there—is there anything that's out of line? The old rules of the House...
MATTHEWS: ... when I worked for you people up there in the old days was, you didn't get personal. You didn't accuse the other person of being evil.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Chris, one thing...
MATTHEWS: You could say anything you want about policy.
Go ahead.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: One thing...
MATTHEWS: I'm sorry.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No, no, no, that's OK.
One thing I can tell you is that it is absolutely—there is absolutely no comparison between Alan Grayson's speech and his comments that were in the normal course of the date on—on the House floor than to Joe Wilson's inappropriate conduct that was a violation of the decorum of the House when he shouted "You lie" to the president of the United States during a joint address to the nation.
So, putting that aside, though, the larger point that Alan was making was that the Republicans have simply been nowhere on the issue of health care reform, except to be critical, except to offer nothing constructive to the debate.
And what we need to do is have them—and I—Dan, I will meet you anywhere any time. I would love to sit down to talk to you about the common ground that I know we have on health care reform, and stop arguing about the word choices that we use.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: We need to turn the volume down.
LUNGREN: Well, Chris—Chris...
MATTHEWS: Well, Congressman, I love the idea of a deal.
LUNGREN: ... could I respond a little bit? Could I respond?
MATTHEWS: How would you, if you—I want you to decide...
LUNGREN: Let me just respond a little bit, though, about this idea.
MATTHEWS: If you want to respond. But I have got a better idea.
Why don't you tell me what a deal would be that both sides would agree to, possibly? Is there a deal, in your mind's eye, that both sides can get 51 percent for or 65 percent for?
LUNGREN: Well, I—I think you would find a majority of the Congress, both the House and Senate, saying, set aside this idea of public option and let's work on the very specifics that are necessary out there, number one.
Number two, I think we could sit down and we could talk about, how many are the hard-core—hard-core uninsured in this country? Why are they that way? Let us work to do something on that.
I would hope we could get agreement that we could allow people to purchase policies across state lines, which would allow a multiplicity of plans that would be available.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
LUNGREN: I would hope we could talk about health associations.
I hope that we could talk about exchanges that actually mean something, where we could get agreement...
MATTHEWS: Right.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well...
LUNGREN: ... so that you could have greater opportunity for people, particularly those who are employed by small- and medium-sized businesses.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: You know what?
LUNGREN: Those are proposals that have been out there in detail by Republicans for a long period of time.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Where's...
LUNGREN: But every single one of them has been rejected, even though offered or attempted to be offered.
MATTHEWS: We have to go. We have to go.
I thank you, Congresswoman.
MATTHEWS: We have to go.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, as always.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Thank you.
MATTHEWS: Thank you, Congressman Dan Lothian.
We could do this all hour.
LUNGREN: Thanks, Chris.
MATTHEWS: We're not going to do it.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Bring us back.
MATTHEWS: Up next: Hillary Clinton finally gets to have the title president. Apparently, she says, again, she likes that title—that in the "Sideshow."
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Back to HARDBALL. Time for the "Sideshow."
First up: Old dreams die hard.
Catch what Hillary Clinton said when she got to preside over the United Nations Security Council earlier today.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Thank you so much.
I—I resume now my function as president of the council.
CLINTON: I kind of like being a president. So, I...
CLINTON: This may go on a little longer than anticipated.
MATTHEWS: Well, I have got to give to Hillary Clinton. She's done the job as secretary of state, and she has been loyal.
Now it's time for tonight's "Big Number."
There's a lot of big stories in the news today, which is why I was surprised to see this headline on the front page of "The New York Times" today—quote—"In New Jersey, Would-Be Boss is Big-Boss Fan." That would-be boss is New Jersey's Republican candidate for governor, Chris Christie, who is apparently a Bruce Springsteen fan, a big one.
Just how many Springsteen concerts—this is unbelievable—has Christie attended? Now, this is really something. One hundred and twenty. Is this guy all right? And guess what? Christie is planning to attend the concert tonight at Giants Stadium for Bruce Springsteen.
New Jersey's could-be next governor Chris Christie earns the title of Springsteen fanatic, showing up at an unbelievable 120 concerts—tonight's "Big Number."
Up next: Dick Cheney is under attack from a group of retired military brass, who say he's scare-mongering about the dangers of closing Guantanamo. We're going to talk to a general and to an admiral about Cheney's fear-mongering, as they're claiming.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
SCOTT COHN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I'm Scott Cohn with your CNBC "Market Wrap."
Stocks closing lower today, after a roller-coaster ride marking the end of the third quarter—the Dow Jones industrials down about 30 points. The S&P 500 lost three-and-a-half, the Nasdaq down about one-and-a-half.
News breaking just after the bell—General Motors says it will shut down its Saturn unit, after buyout talks with Penske Motors fell through.
And Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis has just told his board of directors he plans to step down by the end of the year.
On Wall Street, a weak dollar helped the Dow log its best quarter in 11 years, with the major indices turning in back-to-back gains for the first time since 2007. But weak readings on Midwest manufacturing and jobs dragged on stocks today—investors worried a slowdown in the Midwest could signal a wider national reversal. The ISM national report on manufacturing is due out tomorrow.
That's it from CNBC, first in business worldwide—now back to
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
A group of retired generals and admirals are rallying behind President Obama's push to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. And they say that Dick Cheney, the former vice president, and his daughter, Liz Cheney, are using fear in this fight.
Here's Cheney last May speaking to the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute. Let's listen.
RICHARD B. CHENEY, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The administration has found that it's easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo, but it's tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interest of justice and America's national security.
Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And, among these, it turns out that many were treated too leniently, because they cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East. An estimated 14 percent of those released previously are believed to be back in the business of jihad.
I think the president will find, upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come.
MATTHEWS: Well, one of Cheney's biggest allies in this debate is none other than his daughter Liz. Here she is debating Salon's Joan Walsh on CNN last June. Let's listen.
LIZ CHENEY, FORMER U.S. DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: It may be the case that it's easy to sit in Manhattan, or wherever you're sitting, Joan, and say, gosh, these people don't really want to harm us and we really shouldn't detain them.
But, you know, we're at war. And the laws of war very clearly state that...
JOAN WALSH, EDITOR IN CHIEF, SALON.COM: I know we're at war, Liz.
L. CHENEY: ... while you're at war, you can detain enemy combatants to prevent them from returning to the battlefield.
Seventy-five percent of the American people do not think that our government should be bringing terrorists to the homeland. And they're right.
MATTHEWS: Well, with us now, two of those experienced military voices urging President Obama to close Guantanamo.
Retired Army Lieutenant General Harry Soyster is a director—is former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. And Retired Navy Rear Admiral John Hutson is a former judge advocate general.
General, I want you first to talk about this.
The difference between putting the troops—or, rather, putting the bad guys, the terrorists—alleged, some cases, clearly guilty in other cases—in Guantanamo out there in Cuba, or putting them in some maximum-security prison in the United States, what's the difference?
LT. GEN. HARRY SOYSTER, US ARMY (RET): We have them in Guantanamo, of course, today. And Guantanamo is a symbol of everything we've done in the past, in terms of our abuse of prisoners, et cetera, and remains a symbol which we need to remove. We need to remove that symbol as soon as possible, because, in fact, the quicker we do that, the more secure this country will be.
MATTHEWS: Because? Why does the symbol hurt us in terms of our security? How does it work?
SOYSTER: It's an excellent recruiting poster, and has been used, in fact, in the name Guantanamo by Osama bin Laden, himself. And it's used as a great recruiting tool for our enemies. It also has driven a wedge between our allies in—with the same view that it should be closed. And they don't like the symbol either.
MATTHEWS: Admiral Hutson, the Cheneys—rather the Cheney and the Cheney—they pronounce their names differently—have been out there scaring the country, making the point that if you bring these terrorists into the United States proper, into our territory, put them in a maximum security prison, that they will threaten the folk. What do you think of that charge?
HUTSON: I think it's just foolishness, Chris. You know, we're here, this group of admirals and generals, in order to try to debunk the politics and the strategy of fear, and to rely on a strategy of strength. We can bring these people to the United States, put them in prisons in the United States, prisons from which nobody has ever, in the history of America, escaped. And we will be perfectly safe.
This—one thing that Vice President Cheney is right about, this is a national security issue. What he's wrong about is the direction in which the national security interest cuts. The national security interest cuts in favor of closing Guantanamo. General Soyster says taking that iconic image off the table, and putting these people in prisons, prosecuting those people that we can prosecute, transferring the others. But get rid of Gitmo.
MATTHEWS: What do you think, general, is the strategy or the intent of people like Cheney, who are constantly trying to get people's teeth rattling? Constantly trying to get people nervous? Of course, we have to be secure, our country. To have us always nervous, always worried, even about some terrorist getting out of San Quentin or something. What is their strategy, politically?
SOYSTER: Well, I think that is the strategy, to show that we have reason to be fearful, because of the fact that, as they worked the last eight years, they continued to put this country and those who believe in this country, that we have a lot to fear. In fact, we have great faith in the strength of our country, and don't think that we need to be fearful, but, in fact, to capitalize on our strength, whether it's that of our courts, our armed forces or whatever, and maintain our highest ideals.
And we do that by doing the things that we advocate, and certainly not by putting the country in a state of apprehension, fear about what may happen, in this case, releasing—not releasing, but putting prisoners, properly tried, into our prisons inside the United States.
MATTHEWS: Admiral, why do you think a general, in this case, McChrystal's report to the president, was leaked to Bob Woodward of the Post? What would be the strategy behind leaking a memo like that? Do you think the civilian leadership of our country should be basically taking orders from its military commanders?
I wonder—I sense a little General MacArthur action going on here. I wonder why we're reading McChrystal's report to the president before it's officially released. How do we know this stuff?
HUTSON: I'm guessing that President Obama, as commander in chief, and General McChrystal, in his capacity, each have a pretty good understanding of what their respective roles are, and President Obama's role as the commander of chief. General McChrystal will give him advice. President Obama will tell him what to do. And General McChrystal will execute that.
So I'm not sure that—why it was leaked, who leaked it. I have no idea. It was unfortunate. But it really doesn't change the relationship of the commander in chief and subordinate general.
MATTHEWS: The "Huffington Post" reported today that a columnist for "Newsmax"—that's the conservative media outfit. He's a fellow named John Perry—wrote a column Tuesday which later was pulled, which in part said the following: "imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled military trained nation builders would replace accountability challenged radical left commisars."
Having bonded with his twin teleprompters the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech making. Isn't this just Loony Tunes stuff, General? We all saw "Seven Days in May." I wonder whether in this country anybody takes seriously the push for the military to grab power?
SOYSTER: Having spent a long time in the military, I don't remember any discussions about a coup. In fact, I think it's a great strength of this country that our military completely understands the role of our civilian leadership and their superiority. We are—have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. It's worked pretty well for a long time. We think it's going to continue to work for us very well.
MATTHEWS: Well said. Who couldn't agree with that? If anybody watching disagrees with that, please leave this country. This is a democracy. The military serves the interest of the country. They do not dictate.
Thank you very much, Lieutenant General Harry Soyster and Rear Admiral John Hutson.
Up next, guns in bars? Guns in town meetings? Why is there such a push to allow guns everywhere? It's happening. This is not paranoia. This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: We're back. Starting today, a new law in Arizona allows nearly 140,000 people with concealed weapons permits in that state to bring guns into bars that don't have signs that say you can't bring guns in here. The U.S. Senate voted a couple weeks ago to deny Amtrak, the railroad company, 1.5 billion dollars unless it allows passengers to transport handguns in their checked luggage.
As the Supreme Court gets ready to look at the constitutionality of local gun laws, is the gun debate moving in the pro-gun action, and why?
It's time for the politics fix, with MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan, and Howard Fineman, who is a "Newsweek" senior Washington correspondent.
Gentlemen, first, you, Pat, then Howard. Is this connected to this fear of government, a sense that you have to be armed to protect yourself from the federals, federalies?
PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: No, I think it's much more, Chris, related to a general fear in society, a sense that things are getting out of control, a sense that the society is decomposing, that the police might not be there to defend you.
People want, in the last analysis, I think, the ability to defend themselves and their families in the ultimate situation, if no one is there. I don't think the idea of people buying guns or conceal carry, for example, such as we have in Virginia, has anything to do with health care or the government of the United States.
MATTHEWS: OK. Howard, why do people want to bring guns into bars? Why do they want to transport them by train? Why are Federal Census takers being killed, hanged, and with the word Fed written on them? I see a connection. Do you?
HOWARD FINEMAN, "NEWSWEEK": Well, I think it's possible, Chris, as a make a mental list of bars to stay out of in Phoenix. I'm sure Pat will be diving right into them, but I'm going to stay out of them. I do think—I do think if you look at the polls—I took a close look at some of the polling on this. Over the last 40, 50 years, there's been a steady decline, really cutting in half the number of people who favor a ban on handguns. From the late '50s, when it was 60 percent of the country wanted a ban on handguns—imagine that—down to less than 30 percent now.
While, at the same time, there has been, especially since Vietnam and Watergate, and a certain presidency we won't mention in past presence, a greater distrust of government, a growing distrust of government. Those lines crossed about 20 years ago. I do think there's a relationship there.
I think people want a certain sense of personal, political security, which, after all, is what the original intent of the Second Amendment, I think, was about.
MATTHEWS: Why do people want guns in bars?
BUCHANAN: Well, conceal carry I can—they want it for the same reason of conceal carry. If they want to go out that night, they want to be able to take it into a bar and not have to leave it at home.
Chris, let me say this, in 1992 I went to California right after the Los Angeles riots, and the Rodney King incident, all that carnage that went on, one of the worst riots in American history. Five hundred thousand people bought guns in the next several months. And a majority of them were women.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
BUCHANAN: This testifies to fear. Take Washington, D.C., Chris, where I grew up, and where you lived for a while in the city. Here are people utterly without any means of protecting themselves in some of these extraordinarily high crime areas. They go to work. They leave a wife and three kids sitting at home. They're terrified something is going to happen because people are dealing drugs in the neighborhood.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
FINEMAN: Chris, can I say, I think there's something to that. I'm just looking at this chart from the Gallup Poll. There was a precipitous drop in the percentage of people who supported a flat ban on handguns in the early '90s. I think there's something to what Pat says on that. There is.
MATTHEWS: I have a big—my own view is it's—to me, I would defend the right of somebody to have a handgun or certainly a shotgun in their own home, especially if they live in a rural area. But to be able to walk around and take it on subways with you, on trains with you, in bars with you, I think is crazy.
We'll be right back. That's just my view. Thank you. We'll be right back with Pat Buchanan, Howard Fineman for more of the politics fix. You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: We're back with Pat Buchanan, Howard Fineman, my two favorites. I mean this. The toughest question in the world is Afghanistan here. It's not about PR. It's not about the next election. It's about American life and what we can accomplish in this early 20th century in the world, especially the fourth world, the Islamic world, far from here. Pat, can we nation build in Afghanistan?
BUCHANAN: I don't believe we can, Chris. There's a culture there and a history and a faith and a tribalism that we're really unfamiliar with in the west. And our guys can do a great job of fighting and winning against wars, against armies and things. But they're not into that.
I do think this, Chris, if we have the choice now, I wouldn't go in to Afghanistan. But we have to realize what happens if we do turn around and walk out or we don't give McChrystal what he wants and this mission fails. It will be a triumph for al Qaeda, for the Taliban.
MATTHEWS: OK, Pat, you ran for president. You must have a presidential mindset occasionally. What would you do? Go in 100,000 troops, 40,000 more, hold what we have now, or reduce? What would you do if you had to be president right now?
BUCHANAN: As of right now, I would not commit the 45,000 troops General McChrystal wants. I don't think he has made them a case—I haven't seen it—that this will do the job. I think this is just the first bet, Chris, and we're starting up the road to far more and more troops. I don't think, ultimately, it can be successful. And I'm not even sure it would be worth it.
MATTHEWS: OK. Inside the war-room photo coming here. We can all watch. Look at that group, two large a group to make a decision. They're all there, including the political guys. Howard, you've got Secretary Clinton there. You've got Rahm Emanuel there. You've got Joe Biden, the vice president. You've got the president.
This is a policy judgment. What do you think is going to happen?
FINEMAN: Well, if my eyesight is correct, I think David Axelrod is there, too, as I look at the photo. And he is the political guy. So, yes, this is a political thing. They're not just looking at the boots on the ground and the situation in Afghanistan, itself. They're looking at how to define the mission both strategically and politically.
Joe Biden's the key. He said, let's hold the territory. Let's not change the nation.
MATTHEWS: OK. Got to wrap. Thank you very much, Pat Buchanan, Howard Fineman. This is the hottest issue right now in our country. Right now, it's time for "THE ED SHOW" with Ed Schultz.
Transcription Copyright 2009 CQ Transcriptions, LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon MSNBC and CQ Transcriptions, LLC's copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.> transcript
Watch Hardball each weeknight
at 5 & 7 p.m. ET
Transcription Copyright 2009 CQ Transcriptions, LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research.
User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user's
personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed,
nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion
that may infringe upon MSNBC and CQ Transcriptions, LLC's copyright or
other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal
transcript for purposes of litigation.>
Watch Hardball each weeknight at 5 & 7 p.m. ET


text:
- Home /
- Organic Gyokuro Okabe /
- Product Reviews
Write Your Own Review
Japanese Tea Infusion Time
Organic, High Quality Matcha from Japan
Shipping & Delivery
Free WorldWide Shipping is effective for all orders of $50 or more. Orders of less than $50 will be billed a flat rate of only $5.00 for shipping and handling. Most of the U.S. orders arrive within 5 days. ( International within 10 days )
We regularly use the USPS, Japan Post and UPS.
These shippers are highly efficient and we rarely have problems with them.
Japanese Green Tea
Product Safety - 2016
For three consecutive years the Shizuoka Prefectural Government has contracted a certified independent agency to test, in its own laboratory, green tea for radiation harvested from all parts of the region. Each year all of the samples tested safe for human consumption in accordance with USA (USDA), European Union, Australian and Japanese government standards.
No unsafe tea has ever reached any consumer.
No unsafe tea has ever reached any consumer.
With the health and well being of consumers in mind, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan has set strict safety standards for green tea. The report "Results of Tests for Radioactivity of Tea Produced in Shizuoka Prefecture in 2013" is available for your viewing at the link below. The samples tested were for "brewed tea" which is the state it is actually consumed. The test results for all the samples were nearly the same. Radioactive Cesium 134 and 137 were near zero while the safety limit is 100bq/1KG. Shizuoka green tea has once again been certified to be absolutely safe for your consumption and enjoyment.
The 2013 report is in Japanese language only but understandable to non speakers and can easily be translated by Google or Bing Translate. The first column of the report lists the number of areas tested. The second column is the type of tea tested. The third column is the name of the area tested. The fourth is the tea harvest date. The final three columns display the test results of Cesium 134, 137 and Iodine measured in bq/1KG.
Customer Service
- Contact us online:
- Send Message
- Our Email Address:
- firstname.lastname@example.com
- Telephone:
- Japan: +81 345 881480
Most Popular

subset: commoncrawl


text:
follow us
More than 100 breweries and cideries poured drinks this weekend—which were the most coveted?
Bars & Lounges
Our editors debate the good, bad and douchey of the city's most ubiquitous pub chain ahead of its 20th anniversary.
Sponsored content
We're breaking down who ordered what across the city… and you won't believe some of the answers!
There are a million places to grab a pint or a flight in this city—but these 10 serve up excellent atmosphere alongside their brews.
Can the new English Bay seafood spot win our wine editor's seal of approval?
As you search for the perfect wine for Mother's Day, keep her astrological sign in mind.
News & Events
Dog person? Goat person? We've got you covered.
Arts & Culture
And she's bringing the VSO. Obviously.
Real Estate
The Okanagan makes an easy getaway to another world.
Beautiful boutique hotels that make a visit to our nemesis city worth a trip.
A growing cohort of Indigenous groups taps into the "next big economy": tourism.
Weekend Getaways
One of B.C.'s best laid-back luxury resorts is closer than you think.
Nominations now open for VanMag's annual Best Dressed List.
The locally founded and based Native Shoes is tackling sneaker waste one small step at a time with its latest release.
A place where choosing unique gifts for those on your nice list is a magical experience full of the twinkling lights, sights, and scents of the season.
Restaurant Awards
We celebrated our 30th annual Restaurant Awards at the Shearton Wall Centre...and photographer Allison Kuhl captured the magic.
Our executive editor sits down with some of the industry's finest while suffering through some of the hottest sauce our video team could find. It's about to get spicy.
Made In Vancouver Awards
Vancouver, you're looking good—in large part thanks to the finalists in our Beauty category.
Drumroll, please...
These are the places where Vancouverites make the first impression.


text:
Sidney, Neb. (PRWEB) December 18, 2013
Cabela's Incorporated (NYSE:CAB), the World's Foremost Outfitter® of hunting, fishing and outdoor gear, announced today plans to bring the extraordinary Cabela's retail experience to customers in Fort Mill, S.C., a suburb of Charlotte, N.C.
Construction on the 97,500-square-foot store is scheduled to begin in 2014 and Cabela's anticipates a spring 2015 opening. It will be Cabela's second store in South Carolina, joining the Greenville location scheduled to open in spring 2014. The company also recently announced plans to open a store in Garner, N.C., in 2015.
The store will be located along Interstate 77 across from the Carowinds amusement park on a 20-acre parcel of land currently occupied by the Plaza Fiesta mall. Cabela's expects to employ approximately 225 full-time, part-time and seasonal employees, with most coming from Fort Mill and the surrounding area.
"The overwhelmingly positive response to our recent Greenville and Garner announcements, coupled with the passion North and South Carolinians have for outdoor recreation, encouraged us to open a store in Fort Mill," said Tommy Millner, Cabela's Chief Executive Officer. "We are thrilled to get to work on the project and look forward to opening the doors."
In addition to thousands of quality outdoor products, the store will feature a mountain replica, aquarium, museum-quality wildlife displays, indoor archery range, deli and Bargain Cave. It also will include a full-service boat shop and a comprehensive selection of wildlife and land management products, including tractors, attachments and implements.
Cabela's stores showcase thousands of products, including hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, boating and wildlife-watching gear, as well as clothing and outdoor-themed gifts and furnishings. The company is famous for its strong brand and world-renowned reputation for delivering quality merchandise, value and legendary customer service.
Currently, Cabela's operates 50 stores across North America with plans to open an additional 20 over the next two years.
About Cabela's Incorporated
Cabela's Incorporated, headquartered in Sidney, Nebraska, is a leading specialty retailer, and the world's largest direct marketer, of hunting, fishing, camping and related outdoor merchandise. Since the Company's founding in 1961, Cabela's® has grown to become one of the most well-known outdoor recreation brands in the world, and has long been recognized as the World's Foremost Outfitter®. Through Cabela's growing number of retail stores and its well-established direct business, it offers a wide and distinctive selection of high-quality outdoor products at competitive prices while providing superior customer service. Cabela's also issues the Cabela's CLUB® Visa credit card, which serves as its primary customer loyalty rewards program. Cabela's stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "CAB".
Caution Concerning Forward-Looking Statements
Statements in this press release that are not historical or current fact are "forward-looking statements" that are based on the Company's beliefs, assumptions, and expectations of future events, taking into account the information currently available to the Company. Such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, the Company's statements regarding opening a retail store in Fort Mill, S.C., and opening 20 new retail stores over the next two years. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that may cause the Company's actual results, performance, or financial condition to differ materially from the expectations of future results, performance, or financial condition that the Company expresses or implies in any forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to: the state of the economy and the level of discretionary consumer spending, including changes in consumer preferences and demographic trends; adverse changes in the capital and credit markets or the availability of capital and credit; the Company's ability to successfully execute its omni-channel strategy; increasing competition in the outdoor sporting goods industry and for credit card products and reward programs; the cost of the Company's products, including increases in fuel prices; the availability of the Company's products due to political or financial instability in countries where the goods the Company sells are manufactured; supply and delivery shortages or interruptions, and other interruptions or disruptions to the Company's systems, processes, or controls, caused by system changes or other factors; increased or adverse government regulations, including regulations relating to firearms and ammunition; the Company's ability to protect its brand, intellectual property, and reputation; the outcome of litigation, administrative, and/or regulatory matters (including a Commissioner's charge the Company received from the Chair of the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in January 2011); the Company's ability to manage credit, liquidity, interest rate, operational, legal, and compliance risks; the Company's ability to increase credit card receivables while managing credit quality; the Company's ability to securitize its credit card receivables at acceptable rates or access the deposits market at acceptable rates; the impact of legislation, regulation, and supervisory regulatory actions in the financial services industry, including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act; and other risks, relevant factors, and uncertainties identified in the Company's filings with the SEC (including the information set forth in the "Risk Factors" section of the Company's Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2012), which filings are available at the Company's website at http://www.cabelas.com and the SEC's website at http://www.sec.gov. Given the risks and uncertainties surrounding forward-looking statements, you should not place undue reliance on these statements. The Company's forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made. Other than as required by law, the Company undertakes no obligation to update or revise forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.


text:
Solidarity against online harassment
One of our colleagues has been the target of a sustained campaign of harassment for the past several months. We have decided to publish this statement to publicly declare our support for her, for every member of our organization, and for every member of our community who experiences this harassment. She is not alone and her experience has catalyzed us to action. This statement is a start.
The Tor Project works to create ways to bypass censorship and ensure anonymity on the Internet. Our software is used by journalists, human rights defenders, members of law enforcement, diplomatic officials, and many others. We do high-profile work, and over the past years, many of us have been the targets of online harassment. The current incidents come at a time when suspicion, slander, and threats are endemic to the online world. They create an environment where the malicious feel safe and the misguided feel justified in striking out online with a thousand blows. Under such attacks, many people have suffered — especially women who speak up online. Women who work on Tor are targeted, degraded, minimized and endure serious, frightening threats.
This is the status quo for a large part of the internet. We will not accept it.
We work on anonymity technology because we believe in empowering people. This empowerment is the beginning and a means, not the end of the discussion. Each person who has power to speak freely on the net also has the power to hurt and harm. Merely because one is free to say a thing does not mean that it should be tolerated or considered reasonable. Our commitment to building and promoting strong anonymity technology is absolute. We have decided that it is not enough for us to work to protect the world from snoops and censors; we must also stand up to protect one another from harassment.
It's true that we ourselves are far from perfect. Some of us have written thoughtless things about members of our own community, have judged prematurely, or conflated an idea we hated with the person holding it. Therefore, in categorically condemning the urge to harass, we mean categorically: we will neither tolerate it in others, nor will we accept it among ourselves. We are dedicated to both protecting our employees and colleagues from violence, and trying to foster more positive and mindful behavior online ourselves.
Further, we will no longer hold back out of fear or uncertainty from an opportunity to defend a member of our community online. We write tools to provide online freedom but we don't endorse online or offline abuse. Similarly, in the offline world, we support freedom of speech but we oppose the abuse and harassment of women and others. We know that online harassment is one small piece of the larger struggle that women, people of color, and others face against sexism, racism, homophobia and other bigotry.
This declaration is not the last word, but a beginning: We will not tolerate harassment of our people. We are working within our community to devise ways to concretely support people who suffer from online harassment; this statement is part of that discussion. We hope it will contribute to the larger public conversation about online harassment and we encourage other organizations to sign on to it or write one of their own.
For questions about Tor, its work, its staff, its funding, or its world view, we encourage people to directly contact us (Media contact: Kate Krauss, press @ torproject.org). We also encourage people join our community and to be a part of our discussions:
In solidarity against online harassment,
Roger Dingledine
Nick Mathewson
Kate Krauss
Wendy Seltzer
Caspar Bowden
Rabbi Rob Thomas
Karsten Loesing
Matthew Finkel
Griffin Boyce
Colin Childs
Georg Koppen
Tom Ritter
Erinn Clark
David Goulet
Nima Fatemi
Steven Murdoch
Linus Nordberg
Arthur Edelstein
Aaron Gibson
Anonymous Supporter
Matt Pagan
Philipp Winter
Sina Rabbani
Jacob Appelbaum
Karen Reilly
Meredith Hoban Dunn
Moritz Bartl
Mike Perry
Sukhbir Singh
Sebastian Hahn
Nicolas Vigier
Nathan Freitas
Leif Ryge
Runa Sandvik
Andrea Shepard
Isis Agora Lovecruft
Arlo Breault
Ásta Helgadóttir
Mark Smith
Bruce Leidl
Dave Ahmad
Micah Lee
Sherief Alaa
Virgil Griffith
Rachel Greenstadt
Andre Meister
Andy Isaacson
Gavin Andresen
Scott Herbert
Colin Mahns
John Schriner
David Stainton
Doug Eddy
Pepijn Le Heux
Priscilla Oppenheimer
Ian Goldberg
Rebecca MacKinnon
Nadia Heninger
Cory Svensson
Alison Macrina
Arturo Filastò
Collin Anderson
Andrew Jones
Eva Blum-Dumontet
Jan Bultmann
Murtaza Hussain
Duncan Bailey
Sarah Harrison
Tom van der Woerdt
Jeroen Massar
Brendan Eich
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Jean Camp
Joanna Rutkowska
Daira Hopwood
William Gillis
Adrian Short
Bethany Horne
Andrea Forte
Hernán Foffani
Nadim Kobeissi
Jakub Dalek
Rafik Naccache
Nathalie Margi
Asheesh Laroia
Ali Mirjamali
Huong Nguyen
Meerim Ilyas
Timothy Yim
Mallory Knodel
Randy Bush
Zachary Weinberg
Claudio Guarnieri
Steven Zikopoulos
Michael Ceglar
Zachariah Gibbens
Jeremy M. Harmer
Ilias Bartolini
René Pfeiffer
Percy Wegmann
Tim Sammut
Neel Chauhan
Matthew Puckey
Taylor R Campbell
Klaus Layer
Colin Teberg
Jeremy Gillula
Will Scott
Tom Lowenthal
Rishab Nithyanand
Brinly Taylor
Craig Colman-Shepherd
A. Lizard
M. C. McGrath
Ross MacDonald
Esra'a Al Shafei
Gulnara Yunusova
Ben Laurie
Christian Vandrei
Tanja Lange
Markus Kitsinger
Harper Reed
Mark Giannullo
Alyssa Rowan
Daniel Gall
Kathryn Cramer
Camilo Galdos AkA Dedalo
Ralf-Philipp Weinmann
Miod Vallat
Carlotta Negri
Frederic Jacobs
Susan Landau
Jan Weiher
Donald A. Byrd
Jesin A.
Thomas Blanchard
Matthijs Pontier
Rohan Nagel
Cyril Brulebois
Neal Rauhauser
Sonia Ballesteros Rey
Florian Schmitt
Abdoulaye Bah
Simone Basso
Charlie Smith
Steve Engledow
Michael Brennan
Jeffrey Landale
Sophie Toupin
Dana Lane Taylor
Nagy Gabor
Shaf Patel
Augusto Amaral
Robin Molnar
Jesús Cea Avión
praxis journal
Jens Stomber
Noam Roberts
Ken Arroyo Ohori
Brian Kroll
Shawn Newell
Rasmus Vuori
Alexandre Guédon
Seamus Tuohy
Virginia Lange
Nicolas Sera-Leyva
Jonah Silas Sheridan
Aaron Zauner
Christophe Moille
Micah Sherr
Gabriel Rocha
Yael Grauer
Kenneth Freeman
Dennis Winter
Lee Azzarello
Zaki Manian
Aaron Turner
Greg Slepak
Ethan Zuckerman
Pasq Gero
Pablo Suárez-Serrato
Kerry Rutherford
Andrés Delgado
Tommy Collison
Dan Luedders
Flávio Amieiro
Ulrike Reinhard
Melissa Anelli
Bryan Fordham
Nate Perkins
Jon Blanchard
Jonathan Proulx
Bunty Saini
Daniel Crowley
Matt Price
Charlie McConnell
Chuck Peters
Ejaz Ahmed
Laura Poitras
Benet Hitchcock
Dave Williams
Jane Avriette
Renata Avila
Sandra Ordonez
David Palma
Andre N Batista
Steve Bellovin
James Renken
Alyzande Renard
Patrick Logan
Rory Byrne
Holly Kilroy
Phillipa Gill
Leah Carey
Josh Steiner
Benjamin Mako Hill
Nick Feamster
Dominic Corriveau
Adrienne Porter Felt
Allen Gunn
Eric S Johnson
Hanno Wagner
Anders Hansen
Alexandra Stein
Tyler H. Meers
Shumon Huque
James Vasile
Andreas Kinne
Johannes Schilling
Niels ten Oever
David W. Deitch
Dan Wallach
Jon Penney
Starchy Grant
Damon McCoy
David Yip
Adam Fisk
Jon Callas
Aleecia M. McDonald
Marina Brown
Wolfgang Britzl
Chris Jones
Heiko Linke
David Van Horn
Larry Brandt
Matt Blaze
Radek Valasek
Galou Gentil
Douglas Perkins
Jude Burger
Myriam Michel
Jillian York
Michalis Polychronakis
Kostas Jakeliunas
Sebastiaan Provost
Sebastian Maryniak
Clytie Siddall
Claudio Agosti
Peter Laur
Maarten Eyskens
Tobias Pulls
Sacha van Geffen
Cory Doctorow
Tom Knoth
Fredrik Julie Andersson
Nighat Dad
Josh L Glenn
Vernon Tang
Jennifer Radloff
Domenico Lupinetti
Martijn Grooten
Rachel Haywire
Christoph Maria Sommer
J Duncan
Michael Kennedy Brodhead
Mansour Moufid
Melissa Elliott
Mick Morgan
Brenno de Winter
George Scriban
Ryan Harris
Ricard S. Colorado
Julian Oliver
Sebastian "bastik" G.
Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara
Koen Van Impe
Kevin Gallagher
Sven "DrMcCoy" Hesse
Pavel Schamberger
Phillip M. Pether
Joe P. Lee
Stephanie Hyland
Maya Ganesh
Greg Bonett
Amadou Lamine Badji
Vasil Kolev
Jérémie Zimmermann
Cally Gordon
Hakisho Nukama
Daniel C Howe
Douglas Stebila
Jennifer Rexford
Nayantara Mallesh
Valeria de Paiva
Tim Bulow
Meredith Whittaker
Max Hunter
Maja Lampe
Thomas Ristenpart
Lisa Wright
August Germar
Ronald Deibert
Harlan Lieberman-Berg
Alan L. Stewart
Alexander Muentz
Erin Benson
Carmela Troncoso
David Molnar
Holger Levsen
Peter Grombach
John McIntyre
Lisa Geelan
Antonius Kies
Jörg Kruse
Arnold Top
Vladimir G. Ivanovic
Ahmet A. Sabancı
Henriette Hofmeier
Ethan Heilman
Daniël Verhoeven
Alex Shepard
Max Maass
Ed Agro
Andrew Heist
Patrick McDonald
Lluís Sala
Laurelai Bailey
José Manuel Cerqueira Esteves
Fabio Pietrosanti
Cobus Carstens
Harald Lampesberger
Douwe Schmidt
Sascha Meinrath
C. Waters
Bruce Schneier
George Danezis
Claudia Diaz
Kelley Misata
Denise Mangold
Owen Blacker
Zach Wick
Gustavo Gus
Alexander Dietrich
Frank Smyth
Dafne Sabanes Plou
Steve Giovannetti
Grit Hemmelrath
Masashi Crete-Nishihata
Michael Carbone
Amie Stepanovich
Kaustubh Srikanth
Enrique Piracés
Antoine Beaupré
Daniel Kahn Gillmor
Richard Johnson
Ashok Gupta
Alex Halderman
Brett Solomon
Raegan MacDonald
Joseph Steele
Marie Gutbub
Valeria Betancourt
Konstantin Müller
Emma Persky
Steve Wyshywaniuk
Tara Whalen
Joe Justen
Susan Kentner
Josh King
Juha Nurmi
John Saylor
Jurre van Bergen
Saedu Haiza
Anders Damsgaard
Sadia Afroz
Nat Meysenburg
Julian Assange
Dan Staples
Grady Johnson
Matthew Green
Cameron Williams
Roy Johnson
Laura S Potter-Brown
Meredith L. Patterson
Casey Dunham
Raymond Johansen
Kieran Thandi
Jason Gulledge
Matt Weeks
Khalil Sehnaoui
Brennan Novak
Casey Jones
Jesse Victors
Peter DeChristo
Nick Black
Štefan Gurský
Glenn Greenwald
Russell Handorf
Lisa D Lowe
Harry Halpin
Cooper Quintin
Mark Burdett
Conrad Corpus
Steve Revilak
Nate Shiff
Annie Zaman
Matthew Miller (Fedora Project)
David Fetter
Gabriella Biella Coleman
Ryan Lackey
Peter Clemenko
Serge Egelman
David Robinson
Sasa Savic
James McWilliams
Arrigo Triulzi
Kevin Bowen
Kevin Carson
Sajeeb Bhowmick
Dominik Rehm
William J. Coldwell
Niall Madhoo
Christoph Mayer
Simone Fischer-Hübner
George W. Maschke
Jens Kubieziel
Dan Hanley
Robin Jacks
Zenaan Harkness
Pete Newell
Aaron Michael Johnson
Kitty Hundal
Sabine "Atari-Frosch" Engelhardt
Wilton Gorske
Lukas Lamla
Kat Hanna
Polly Powledge
Sven Guckes
Georgia Bullen
Vladan Joler
Eric Schaefer
Ly Ngoc Quan Ly
Martin Kepplinger
Freddy Martinez
David Haren
Simon Richter
Brighid Burns
Peter Holmelin
Davide Barbato
Neil McKay
Joss Wright
Troy Toman
Morana Miljanovic
Simson Garfinkel
Harry Hochheiser
Malte Dik
Tails project
Kurt Weisman
Shaikh Rafia
Olivier Brewaeys
Sander Venema
James Murphy
Chris "The Paucie" Pauciello
Brad Parfitt
Jerry Whiting
Massachusetts Pirate Party
András Stribik
Alden Page
Juris Vetra
Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn
Marcel de Groot
Ryan Henry
Joy Lowell
Guilhem Moulin
Werner Jacob
Tansingh S. Partiman
Bryce Alexander Lynch
Robert Guerra
John Tait
Sebastian Urbach
Atro Tossavainen
Alexei Czeskis
Greg Norcie
Greg Metcalfe
Benjamin Chrobot
Lorrie Faith Cranor
Jamie D. Thomas
EJ Infeld
Douglas Edwards
Cody Celine
Ty Bross
Matthew Garrett
Sam P.
Vidar Waagbø
Raoul Unger
Aleksandar Todorović
John Olinda
Graham Perkins
Casa Casanova
James Turnbull
Eric Hogue
Jacobo Nájera
Ben Adida
If you would like to be on this list of signers (please do — you don't have to be a part of Tor to sign on!), please reach us at tor-assistants @ torproject.org.
This is outstanding. Thank
This is outstanding. Thank you so much everyone for standing up for what's right, and standing together in solidarity.
I was a victim of such
I was a victim of such harassment, and the best thing to do is to give as much publicity as possible, to it.
As much publicity as
As much publicity as possible?
Isn't that just what trolls seek: publicity, attention?
Wouldn't ignoring them completely be the most effective response?
Anonymity can and is
Anonymity can and is targeted at supporting speech.
Threats can and are targeted at silencing speech.
Supporting speech means opposing threats, not opposing anonymity.
Thanks so much for this Statement.
FYI: I have copied and pasted above a Link to an alleged "Start Page" Request that I have recently started receiving periodically, asking me to enter a CAPTCHA CODE to "verify" who I am...which I now think is "Spoofing" of my particular personal desktop computer, rather than "spoofing" of the Tor Network itself...but in case I am wrong about this, I thought I should alert the Tor Community to this "dynamic"...
(When it first happened, I had to enter a CAPTCHA Code for every single Search I did that day -- which quickly alerted me to the fact that this was "wrong wrong wrong"...I now simply close out my Tor link whenever this happens and/or delete and re-download Tor...)
I am female and the subject of ongoing harrassment -- along with other members of my family -- to the point where I had to physically relocate from one area of the country to another...
Thank you again very much for your Statement...It made my day...
Not all search services will
I can't tell if your solution is a bad idea. Better be safe than sorry, it's a personal choice what you do.
Thank you.
Thank you.
thumbs up!!
thumbs up!!
Well said!
Well said!
Well said.
Well said.
Moral authority of the
Moral authority of the complaint is really weakened by having specific concern only for the fashionable and politically "correct" categories.
Good point. I think
Good point. I think everybody who signed onto it would be happy to expand the set of minorities that it talks about.
I'm really hoping this will turn into a larger group of people talking about the bigger issues -- and to make that work you're right that we're going to have to embrace even more diversity and even more differences.
Pretty sure anon means that
Pretty sure anon means that you only specifying women and minorities can imply that harassing, say, white men would be acceptable. You should fix the post to say that harassment of anyone, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation, is unacceptable. Else you're just going to be a magnet for criticism.
To each fight, its stand.
To each fight, its stand. The day white heterosexual male get systematically harassed online we should make the stand. Repeating that same message over and over again isn't such a bad thing.
I am a white male, and one
I am a white male, and one of the people on this support list doxxed my entire family down to SSN and street address!
You have one "Rachel Haywire" aka Rachel Ellen Mendelson listed as one of your supporters. This woman has doxed my entire family, down to social security numbers and street address. And she is currently under investigation for burning (ie deliberate ARSON) the very address she made public threats regarding.
see :
In fact, Rachel "Haywire" is one of the most notorious stalkers and online harassers in the entire history of the internet!
Did you just use an
Did you just use an antiharassment pledge to harass someone?
You did.
You're exactly the sort of person that this petition is opposed to. Why are you here?
You are right. we should be
You are right. we should be against any form of harassment (and also supporters of free speech which is no contradiction) - but you are missing the point.
"We know that online harassment is one small piece of the larger struggle that women, people of color, and others face against sexism, racism, homophobia and other bigotry. "
Is there a lot of harassment against women in the scene mentioned? yes
Can we find a lot homophobia ? Yes
Should we therefore stand up again the harassment against say rich heterosexual white men? No
In my opinion we have to fight the struggles of the society that we live in.
The rest we can leave to philosophers and their ivory towers.
And there you fell into the
And there you fell into the logic trap "*rich* heterosexual white men".
Since when has every hetero white male been rich, successful and generally immune to woes and worries of life?
As I fall into the category of hetero white male, why should I support any initative worded in this way? Almost all organisations, statements, missions and initiatives choose to support "minorities" and expressly not me or mine. In fact any positive selection bias for a minory directly means I'm being targeted.
I've been the subject of extensive bullying and my eldest son experienced some truely horrific cyber-bullying prior to his suicide.
He wasn't gay, female, black, trans, or any other supported minority and guess what? There was little to no support because he wasn't in a minority group; we were treated as if our accident of birth somehow gave us an amazingly ability to simply not be affected due to an offset held "in general by being a hetero-white male".
Either we stand against harassment in its entirety and present truely integrated response that is blind to sexuality, race, gender, and other -isms or you are still perpetuating that we are not all humans together without divide.
"In fact any positive
"In fact any positive selection bias for a minory directly means I'm being targeted."
If you think that any attempt to help a minority targets you, than you are part of the problem. This isn't a zero sum game.
And you "conveniently"
And you "conveniently" miss the point in your reply by deliberately reinterpreting what was stated in an attempt to prove your own agenda.
It was specifically called out as "positive bias" as the problem and you change this to be "any attempt" in order to discredit the experience and opinion without addressing the underlying issue.
Exhibit a negative bias towards a minority set in any group and it will be quite rightly called out as homophobic, racist, sexist, pick as appropriate; everybody agrees that this is not the "done thing". To not assist somebody because of their you are creating a negative bias against individuals because of positive bias for a sub-set of the remainder of the population.
The linguistic fallacy committed in your reply leaves you making a heterophobic, sexist, and racist comment, but I'm guessing you either do not see/recognise it or feel its fair game because the poster has identified themselves from a different group to yourself.
Frankly it is frequently a
Frankly it is frequently a zero sum game or near as damn it year-on-year.
Compasion fatigue, limited charity funding, limited job markets that are forced to meet population demographics, these all lead to zero-sum balances.
Why compound this by making stances supporting only minorities affected by an issue rather than tackling the issue itself?
[ submitted Wednesday 28
[ submitted Wednesday 28 January 2015, modified from earlier version originally submitted circa 25 December]
Amen to this finely-worded, highly germane post.
I am sorry about your son and I wish you well.
Let me also point-out that white heterosexual males (at least those who don't apologize for who they are) are not the only category that falls outside of the favor and protection of prevailing politically and socially correct orthodoxy. Homosexuals who reject the entrenched culture and approved positions of the "Gay" or "LGTBQ" community are also met with much hostility, rejection and even vitriol and abuse.
More on this can be found at any number of dissident pro-homoerotic sites on the web. (Many should come-up with a search for the term frot, the safe, egalitarian, dignified, painless form of male homosexual intercourse that is advocated by many such dissidents.)
If you only fight against
If you only fight against harassment against certain groups you're not really against harassment. You're for protecting certain groups. And that's a very noble cause and one I personally wish you the best of luck with. But if you think you can fix the specific problem of online harassment by only dealing with it when it affects certain people you'll never really succeed. All you're doing is patching up damage. That's a notable cause but not helping in the long run. Men are harassed the same reason women are. Whites are harassed the same reason Asians, blacks, or any other group is. Because people are assholes. Whatever solution we come up with to stop online harassment needs to work for everybody or it won't really work for anybody.
Tor Developers, you want this blog post to start a discussion of bigger issues than just the particular case of your own developer being harassed. A agree completely. You'll know best how Tor can be exploited for harassment. You can help deal with the technical aspects and those don't discriminate between targets. We can't stop Tor from being used for bad things. But we can help all people defend against them efficiently.
It already does say that.
It already does say that. There's nothing to fix.
No it doesn't. Saying "we
No it doesn't. Saying "we are against harrassment of women in minorities" IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM can be read as "but harrassment of cis white hetero men is fine". Not unless you are an idiot. Being against one thing cannot be read as being for its opposite. This is the kind of petty horseshit that drags discussion down. The English language means things, and if you claim someone supports majority harrassment merely by opposing minority harrassment that says more about you than about the speaker.
So, if I wrote an article
So, if I wrote an article about protecting straight, white males, only idiots would call me mysogynistic/racist/homophobic because of it?
Because if you truly believe that, you must think we have a lot of idiots around.
These are young techie libs
These are young techie libs with lib education that do not have historical fact from before the 1960's when education created scientist and engineers based on facts and rewarded hard work. So do not expect too much just take tech stuff and apply to your own apps. We whites are done in US so follow mideast developments and if and when a safe opening for work/living take it. ISIL wasted any religious connection with the west so there is no Hollywood effec but mideast can be a self-contained commonwealth when religious ISLAM focuses on development instead of self destructive fanatics wasting manpower but the feminist and gay problem is taken care of. Plus some alliance between the Semites is foretold untrusted but still aligned. And orthodox Christian and Jews just pay the unbeliever tax.
Have you met humanity? There
Have you met humanity? There are an enormous number of idiots. Truly vast.
Least we forget. True
Least we forget. True freedom of speech means taking the good with the bad. It means we must hear the voices of those with whom we may not agree. It means we must give everyone a voice to be heard.
Having said and keeping in mind the above, this doesn't mean we must allow those who seek only to denigrate and belittle or threaten a voice to spread their hate. Freedoms come with responsibilities. Anonymity is not a veil to hide behind while seeking to spread hate, fear, abusiveness, intolerance, and fear. It is a means to give a voice to those who want to speak their minds. To speak out from positions of possible retribution for revealing truths that could get people hurt for speaking out on them. It provides a route for making known information we all need.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Benjamin Franklin.
I think this is the crux of the matter concerning anonymity in general and specifically. There is no (or should not be) debate that freedom of speech should be protected vigorously and without restraint.....up to the point that it should also be respective of others rights and be done responsibly. We fear to speak out a lot of times due to the repercussions from those who do not want a particular truth brought to light. Those who abuse this freedom are not worthy of being protected.
I think everybody who signed
I think everybody who signed onto it would be happy to expand the set of minorities that it talks about. [emphasis mine-anon]
I see, so only "minorities" are worthy of being protected from harrassment or having a stand taken against harrassment of them. Anyone not in a category that enjoys protected minority status is fair game.
That sentence of yours was more revealing than I think you ever even began to realize. (And will remain so regardless of how you may attempt to backpedal from it.)
There is no expression of
There is no expression of specific concern only for certain categories, whether fashionable or not, or 'politically correct' or not. The statements made cover everyone, and should be left to stand.
Suck it Gamergate.
Suck it Gamergate.
why? GamerGate is anti
why? GamerGate is anti harassment and these people also are. Good news for everyone unless you're a horrible person.
You must be living in a
You must be living in a fantasy world gamergate was created to harass women lol
If you a truly that ignorant
If you a truly that ignorant of the topic, it's best not to post until you do some research.
Unfortunately, no. As much
Unfortunately, no. As much as I'd love GamerGate to be the cause of harassment (because that would mean it's a tiny, tiny fringe of the online world that just started last august), no harasser, troll or any other bad people has ever waited until August 2014 to be a bad person.
Anita Sarkeesian has been routinely harassed and threatened since as far back as 2012, two years before GamerGate came to existence. And don't get me wrong it's absolutely awful and I'm glad the Tor community condemns strongly this kind of abuse. But it proves how unrelated to GamerGate these behaviours are.
There certainly is many harassers inside GamerGate, it would be delusional to deny it. But neither is this what GamerGate is about at its core, nor has any of those harassers waited for GamerGate to harass anyone they don't like.
GamerGate is not a harassment campaign. Neither it is a movement "for ethics in video games" to be honest. The best way to describe it is to call them a movement fighting against a far-left community (of indie developers and video games journalists) pushing for radical liberal changes of behaviours in the video games industry. A far-left community which hasn't been absolutely clean either regarding online harassment, by the way.
Stupid people are stupid regardless of the movement they associate with. Regarding online harrasment of women in particular, it was ongoing long before GamerGate started and will continue long after GamerGate dies. That's a sad thing to say, but it's a fact.
"Far-left"? Only in the
"Far-left"? Only in the weird carnival mirror of US-American politics. We here in Europe call that "center".
We here in Europe call it
We here in Europe call it 'centre'!
Disagreed (I'm the Anon who
Disagreed (I'm the Anon who wrote the piece you just answered by the way). I am European, I usually vote for center-left parties (except for the latest EU elections, I voted Pirates), and the people I see GamerGate fighting against are borderline too far-left even for parties such as Die Linke, Parti de Gauche or Podemos. It may be close to the ideas of Vänsterpartiet and/or Feminist Initiativ in Sweden but with more sectarism.
To give you an idea of how unsimilar it is to European center parties, these people (the targets of Gamergate) are also the ones who wrote pieces of news such as "I don't care if you landed a spacecraft on a comet, your shirt is sexist and ostracizing." (you may have heard of it - if not : one of the guys in charge of the Rosetta/Philae mission was bullied and shamed to tears by those people for wearing a shirt that depicted women hodling big guns and being arguably scantily clothed).
I have yet to see any center party in Europe shaming a scientist because his shirt was "too sexist". Actually, most European leftist to far-left feminists I know found that - this time - it was going too far. Probably because Europe is less prude and anti-sex than the US are.
Basically, from what I've seen (I've lurked a lot in both "parties" main gathering places), GamerGate is basically a backlash against those radical feminists and their close allies trying to push their agenda in the gaming community. This plus the gaming community having a strong habit of overreacting.
This is not a far-right vs moderate battle, even by European standards. More of a battle between moderately conservatives vs. far-left radicals.
There certainly are many trolls who took part in the movement and harassed women (and men too by the way - Phil Fish and Jonathan McIntosh both have it rough too) : GamerGate gave them visibility and an opportunity. But it's neither the goal nor the majority of the movement. It's just that these kind of despicable people will seek any opportunity to further their despicable actions, as this very blog post we are commenting on unfortunately proves.
The bottom line is that GamerGate is certainly not what the medias depicted (the "misogynists harassers" story is mostly bullsh*t)... nor is it what the GamerGaters claim they are (the "ethics in video games" story is equally bullsh*tty). It's a political battle between two opposed political sides, both claiming their view is the only good video games community, both claiming anyone who disagrees with their side is the "ennemy", and both competing for the title of "biggest victim of harassers from the other side". The difference is that one side has access to the media to have their version of the story covered (as many people of their side are journalists) while the other does not.
"The bottom line is that x
"The bottom line is that x is certainly not what the medias depicted" -- I bet we can all agree on that, for pretty much all values of x.
And, with this I'm going to cut off the Gamergate discussions here, since there are other forums for arguing about Gamergate, and while it's related to a bunch of people here deciding and pledging to stop passively ignoring harassment online, I don't see how turning this into a Gamergate discussion is going to help in any way.
In what alternate reality is
In what alternate reality is that true ? The Gamergate bros' whole reason for existence is to harass and intimidate women who speak out against misogyny...
"horrible person" is just a
"horrible person" is just a longer way of saying "gamergater"
++ !
++ !
Good job guys, you have done
Good job guys, you have done a great job, just keep it up.
Everything in the world
Everything in the world that can be helpful or harmful according to the type of using it . Such as gunpowder, knife and etc
Tor also is not Exceptional Of this rule
human rights defenders use tor As surgeons use knives
intruders use tor as thugs use knives


text:
After posting some questions about sin and our response to it, I decided to go back and read what John Wesley wrote about "The Duty of Reproving Our Neighbor."
The sermon is interesting as a piece of pastoral teaching, although it is not generally considered one the doctrinal standards for Methodism. The Scriptural reference for the sermon is also interesting. It takes Leviticus 19:17 as its text, which comes right before Leviticus 19:18, which many will identify as the source of the second part of the Great Commandment.
In this post, I will attempt to recount briefly why Wesley said we should correct our neighbor when they sin, under what conditions he said we should do this, and how he said we should do it.
We ask why we should take up this practice. Wesley's sermon passes over this question quickly because to him it requires no argument to carry the day. We should correct those who sin because Scripture commands it and because it is the loving thing to do. Allowing a person to sin or to do things that lead to sin is to hate them in our hearts.
With that settled, he spends the greatest part of the sermon on questions of technique.
First, he warns us not to attempt to correct anyone over a matter about which there is honest dispute whether it is a sin or not.
A thing may possibly appear evil to me; therefore I scruple the doing of it; and if I were to do it while that scruple remains, I should be a sinner before God. But another is not to be judged by my conscience: To his own master he standeth or falleth. Therefore I would not reprove him, but for what is clearly and undeniably evil.
As examples, he cites things that he says not even people who do them will defend, or defend long when pressed. He lists drunkenness, profane cursing and swearing, and profaning the Lord's Day. In our day, we cannot help but notice that many Christians and pastors would dismiss the last two items as harmless. But still, we can find sins that most people would agree are evil. It is to these that Wesley said we should confine our work of reproving.
This first condition, of course, raises some interesting questions about the hot-button issues of sexuality that so occupy us. Does that fact that we have much dispute about them make them things of a disputable nature that Wesley says should be off the table for mutual correction? His object appears to be to call people into line in a way in which they would agree is best, so I suspect that is the case, especially when we consider another suggestion he makes.
Wesley argues that we should correct even those who are like the "swine" that Jesus tells us not to throw our pearls before. Even those who reject the gospel, Wesley writes, when they do something that they know to be evil, we should correct them. Notice again that Wesley is arguing that our correction be in line with the values and norms of the one being corrected. We are calling them to a standard that they already embrace. We are not arguing them into agreeing with us, but calling them to act in line with their own beliefs.
But then how are we to do this?
Wesley writes that it must be done in a spirit of love, with humility, and in meekness. He warns against looking down on the one we correct or having any trace of anger in our words or demeanor. He says we should be serious, except in rare cases where jesting will do. He says we should be discerning about whether many words are needed or few or none at all. He says we should trust in God to guide our words and advises using the words of Scripture where appropriate. A large part of the sermon is taken up with this kind of coaching on technique.
Then, Wesley closes the sermon, which is dated 1787, with a call to Methodists to take up the practice again.
I have now only a few words to add unto you, my brethren, who are vulgarly called "Methodists." I never heard or read of any considerable revival of religion which was not attended with a spirit of reproving. I believe it cannot be otherwise; for what is faith, unless it worketh by love? Thus it was in every part of England when the present revival of religion began about fifty years ago: All the subjects of that revival, — all the Methodists, so called, in every place, were reprovers of outward sin. And, indeed, so are all that "being justified by faith, have peace with God through Jesus Christ." Such they are at first; and if they use that precious gift, it will never be taken away. Come, brethren, in the name of God, let us begin again!
I take from this sermon that all Christians should view it as a duty to speak words of gentle correction when anyone in our life does what they know to be evil. In our age, it might be hard to identify all cases of this. We view a lot of things as harmless or even good that our ancestors found evil. Nonetheless, we are called, Wesley argues, to correct each other when we go astray.