LiveBlog: Nick Griffin speech at MSU Friday night

Ah, Ed, but you do refer to Todd Ed, I fully respect your history of civil libertarianism and record of writing, and you are absolutely right here except for Mr. Heywood’s involvement. 

Mr. Heywood however, before he became your associate here, does appear to have advocated for and participated in the melees to stop YAF speakers.  I understand why the issue is personal to him – but he’s not impartial on this issue and too involved personally to meet Michigan Messengers’ ethical standards of reporting it.

On that note, Griffin and Wigington do appear to be repugnant (Griffin statements are certainly that), and Bristow’s judgment in bringing them to campus is questionable.  Does it, by itself, make YAF a hate group?  No.  But they could do far better (and they have – their underbilled speech a couple days ago by Akindele Akinyemi was a superb choice of speaker and they completely wasted his breath by drowning it out with these dunces).

Speech Chetly,

The speech will be posted in its entire run on YAF Watch in the near future. YAF has an amazing ability of taking video and posting the least information possible.

Clearly, the presence of Wiginton at the event proves the link written about, beyond just the administration of a facebook link.

As for evidence, I think any rational person spending even a brief time reading the SpartanSpectator.blogspot.com would reasonably conclude Young Americans for Freedom is hate group.

When they sponsor events  like Koran Desecretion, call on homosexuals to be killed, and use language like “Smash Left Wing Scum,” they are raising to the level to advocating violence against minorities.

As for the agenda, you might be reminded that Mr. Bristow has twice since the listing announcement said the agenda, as it was, was in fact the agenda of the Young Americans for Freedom. In fact in a spartansedge.com interview, months before the listing by SPLC, when asked about the agenda and if it was the agenda of YAF, Bristow specifically said “absolutely.”

Only in one interview following the listing did Mr.Bristow say the agenda was misconstued, and that was with the Lansing State Journal. But he turned around the next day and told the State News it was the agenda of YAF and supported by the group’s membership.

Ah, Ed, but you do refer to Todd Ed, I fully respect your history of civil libertarianism and record of writing, and you are absolutely right here except for Mr. Heywood's involvement. 

Mr. Heywood however, before he became your associate here, does appear to have advocated for and participated in the melees to stop YAF speakers.  I understand why the issue is personal to him – but he's not impartial on this issue and too involved personally to meet Michigan Messengers' ethical standards of reporting it.

On that note, Griffin and Wigington do appear to be repugnant (Griffin statements are certainly that), and Bristow's judgment in bringing them to campus is questionable.  Does it, by itself, make YAF a hate group?  No.  But they could do far better (and they have – their underbilled speech a couple days ago by Akindele Akinyemi was a superb choice of speaker and they completely wasted his breath by drowning it out with these dunces).

chetly wrote

Mr. Heywood however, before he became your associate here, does appear to have advocated for and participated in the melees to stop YAF speakers. I understand why the issue is personal to him – but he's not impartial on this issue and too involved personally to meet Michigan Messengers' ethical standards of reporting it.

You've made an assertion here without evidence. Regardless of whether it's true or not, my position remains exactly the same: any attempts to disrupt the speech, intimidate or commit violence toward the speaker should be met treated as a violation of MSU student rules (if they are a student) or a violation of the law, or both. Griffin is a vile human being whose barbaric views should be protested and denounced, but the expression of those views is clearly constitutionally protected.

On that note, Griffin and Wigington do appear to be repugnant (Griffin statements are certainly that), and Bristow's judgment in bringing them to campus is questionable. Does it, by itself, make YAF a hate group? No. But they could do far better (and they have – their underbilled speech a couple days ago by Akindele Akinyemi was a superb choice of speaker and they completely wasted his breath by drowning it out with these dunces).

When I first saw the SPLC's denunciation of MSU YAF as a hate group, I was skeptical. I do think they have a tendency to throw around that label a bit to casually at times. But they're right. If you bring in openly white supremacist speakers and declare how honored you are to have them even after you've been accused of being a hate group, you've lost all right to complain about the label. I don't believe that bringing in anti-immigration or anti-Islam speakers is evidence of hate. But this isn't even a close call. Nick Griffin and Preston Wiginton are just plain white supremacists. This is no different than bringing in the grand wizard of the KKK, putting out a press release about how honored you are to have him here and then feigning outrage when you get called a hate group. If it waddles and quacks, it's a duck.

Odd Odd that you'd ask questions of me on this, but the answer is, no, not to my knowledge. I've never been a member of YAF, nor have I worked for someone in (or to my knowledge past members) YAF. I'd be surprised if someone I've worked for doesn't have some second-degree of separation association with someone in YAF, but I don't think that is your question.

I have taken an interest in SPLC because of their odd interest in Ward Connerly (who I have provided services to), and because their rhetoric in the media on YAF seemed devoid of evidence.  When I called SPLC earlier this year to ask for something so simple as evidence, I was told to “Google Bristow”.  Obviously, that is a faulty standard of evidence.  When I asked harder questions, I was disconnected and accused of federal communications crimes (apparently, SPLC had received a series of harassing calls at the same time), to which I offered them open access to my phone records through the FBI.  Why my work must always be associated with a client baffles me, but I understand that, given I'm political consultant, people will speculate it.  My best work in the past has always been on my own initiative, and occasionally it generates clients down the road, but

I genuinely believe people are presumed innocent of things until proven otherwise, and I don't like the witch-hunt mentality that the attention to Bristow has created.  I agree that he's too much of an attention-seeker at times and certainly has crossed the lines of social decency.  But you and others give him that attention – too much of it. 

Come on I don't have an obligation to travel hundreds of miles to your speeches, nor do I have a desire to see racists like Griffin and Wiginton speak or give them the undue attention that they don't deserve.

Send me your “evidence” or publish it. If YAF “fits 6 of 8 SPLC criteria,” I'd love to see it.  But don't blame me for not coming to an event where I'm required to spend resources (the time and driving a 100 miles) to see it.  Get your information to me.  Again, you turn on the information consumer and attack your own readers for “their failure” to get information from you outside of MM.  And regardless of whether your readers agree with you or criticize you, its inappropriate and violates the self-proclaimed ethics of this publication.

By the way, you know that I have ALREADY condemned both YAF and SPLC on my blog, if you're reading & referring to Power, Politics, & Money (my personal blog).  I have not “defended YAF” – I've merely said their ridiculousness doesn't rise to the level of hate group and SPLC's attention to them and label degrades the value of the “hate group” status they once did good work with. I condemned Bristow mere responses above this when I said the choice of speakers was stupid.  What do you want from me?  Be precise.

But as to my “un-evidenced” statement (it was opinion, so I'm not sure how I can prove it, but I'll work on that), that you've been too involved in the issue, I'll find the appropriate links to summarize and I'll watch on the 9 minutes of your presentation that appears to be on YouTube (is there a Google version of the video).

Speech Chetly,

The speech will be posted in its entire run on YAF Watch in the near future. YAF has an amazing ability of taking video and posting the least information possible.

Clearly, the presence of Wiginton at the event proves the link written about, beyond just the administration of a facebook link.

As for evidence, I think any rational person spending even a brief time reading the SpartanSpectator.blogspot.com would reasonably conclude Young Americans for Freedom is hate group.

When they sponsor events  like Koran Desecretion, call on homosexuals to be killed, and use language like “Smash Left Wing Scum,” they are raising to the level to advocating violence against minorities.

As for the agenda, you might be reminded that Mr. Bristow has twice since the listing announcement said the agenda, as it was, was in fact the agenda of the Young Americans for Freedom. In fact in a spartansedge.com interview, months before the listing by SPLC, when asked about the agenda and if it was the agenda of YAF, Bristow specifically said “absolutely.”

Only in one interview following the listing did Mr.Bristow say the agenda was misconstued, and that was with the Lansing State Journal. But he turned around the next day and told the State News it was the agenda of YAF and supported by the group's membership.

ex post facto proof doesn't prove the original argument First, whatever happened since SPLC made its announcement does not make SPLC's process any better.  I'm concerned about their process because I see the direction it is heading – as is the direction you are heading (when you attack someone like Dr. Allen for merely holding an anti-preferential-type-of-affirmative-action belief).

OK, after redigging from my original investigation back in march, here's the you tube from Jess Lipowski's interview for the SpartanEdge.

http://www.youtube.c…

Thats' part 2 of the interview – notably at 2:20 thru 2:30 Bristow says he would oppose all-white social groups as well. 

I asked SPLC what they thought of this information specifically (among a variety of other statements, including ones where Bristow admitted/claimed that he was using satire in the 13 point memo, and other statements).

Then there is the video of you attacking a YAFer's camera physically, and telling someone “He's a YAFer” when both they and police try to get you to calm down. 

http://www.youtube.c…

That's the video I relied up above in my statement that you were part of the melee and lost your objectivity. Not that you can't continue to report on the issue on your blog, just that it has become personal for you.  Not that I blame you entirely either given the emotion of the room, and its not something that should be held against you personally, but you made Bristow a crusade.  I'm sure I've been there before, especially on issues important to me or that I thought were important at the time, but I just can't see the value in the diminishing marginal returns of your continued work on this. Even if you're right, you're pounding rubble with 4000 lb bombs.

You say the first 9 minutes of your speech “is out of context”.  Come on.  It's unedited, and YouTube has a 10 minute limit.  It's the introduction.  The superfluous attack on Dr. Allen was 6 minutes in – so the entire context of that is available.  Your attack against Dr. Allen solely as “very conservative” and “against affirmative action” (not exact quotes, but very close) is completely inappropriate discourse.  Maybe you have more evidence against Dr. Allen in your presentation, but given the man's eloquence and brilliance I can't imagine where he has misstepped (and unlike Bristow, Dr. Allen is very clear and experienced). Sure, he was unlucky enough to have accepted the advisory role for Bristow, but my understanding is that student group advisors do not have authority over or make decisions for the group and Allen couldn't have known Bristow would be as foolish as Bristow is. It's no surprise that he would accept a YAF advisor role – the history of the organization is traditionally conservative as is Dr. Allen.

But I'll give you an opportunity with the whole video – make sure you send me a link when its up (my first name at my first and last name dot com).

Finally, I'm stunned that you would imply that I'm not “rational” because I don't agree with you on a purely opinionated question of word definitions — that of whether YAF is a hate group.  First, even if you or SPLC have proved that Bristow is a “hateful person”, and the centerpiece is the 13 point memo, you haven't proven that group is.  While Bristow leads the group, the memo was Bristow's for his personal campaign for student government.  Sullying the rest of the YAF members with your broad brush based on that is inappropriate.  Second, while the things (killing homosexuals) you assert above are as “without evidence” as my claim of your involvement was (sans the link I've provided here in this response), and the milder things like “Smash Left Wing Scum” which should be condemned but arguably should not be labeled “hate speech” (any worse than what some on the left have used against the right – are they “hate groups” – I could make the SPLC list real long if I could include every statement like that), you're getting awfully high on your moral platform to say that your opinion is the only “rational” possible opinion.  Indeed, it proves your lack of distance and lack of objectivity.  I concede that your opinion is a possible interpretation – that is, I don't begrudge anyone the right to disagree with or condemn Bristow as a punk or otherwise bad person (indeed, I have condemned him myself).  But because I do not go far enough, you label me irrational?

Some commendable points First, you make some points worthy of respect.  If you've recused yourself from Lennox-related reporting, that is wise, for the obvious reasons.  But note – my criticism of your conduct in the Lennox video goes beyond your mere physical contact with his camera (and I'm shocked to hear that you filed a criminal complaint, but I guess that matches the Dean Gates strategy).  You state after that to the unseen woman as apparent justification for your action “He's from YAF” (you say here “YAF wasn't responsible for Lennox's “attack”", but at the time you equated him to YAF!!), as if that had any logical bearing on his right to be present with a video camera.  That's where I interpret your bias against YAF, in addition to “my reading (scanning) of the entire YAFWatch blog” you've written and you're use of irrelevant attacks against Dr. Allen, among others. 

Your linkage of this video to the Dean Gates controversy is inapt because they are different situations and should be judged independently.  With Gates, Lennox appears to be seated (or considerably shorter) with his arm and camera at his side when contact is apparently made at a glancing angle, on the other hand it is much more apparent in your case that contact is made and forcefully made.

As to your interpretation of the two videos, you and I must be watching different videos (on both the recent Gates video and the one of you).  Looking at the video of you, I don't see you moving away from the camera or the camera following you – I see you rotating around at an odd angle, and when turning through that circle you realize that Lennox is there.  You may have been surprised, but there is no jerky movements by Lennox toward you, no “shove to your face”, and it does not appear the camera was “6 inches” (for you to connect with the camera with your hand the way you did it would have been amazingly difficult if it was 6 inches from your face – you couldn't have reached outward the way you did).  I see a police office not “pushing Lennox back” but rather pointing at you and advising you of Lennox's rights.

You over-reacted.  That's forgivable.  Should you have been prosecuted for it criminally? Probably not, even though technically it was a battery.  But your version of events here simply isn't in touch with what the video tape shows, and your proclivity to file a police report which may have been false, adds to my concerns.

If you helped YAF against a student mob days ago, I applaud you.  Again, I don't follow every bit of news about you or YAF, nor is it reasonable to expect any reader to do that or be able to.

As to your general point that I am not “questioning the truth” of your “information”, only the “words” used, that is partially correct.  I'm not calling you a liar (or in error) without knowing the falsity of your information, but that doesn't mean I'm accepting or endorsing the truth of the many factual allegations you have sourced poorly with general references as if I had a book knowledge of everything out there.  I question what you provide and source that appears wrong based on its internal inconsistencies, but I leave for the world to decide on what you assert baldly, and I am also questioning your interpretation of the facts in the best possible light to you as insufficient to your case.

Most importantly, you cite what SPLC cited to me in my interview with them.  Hate groups:

All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically based on their immutable characteristics …

How does the 13 point memo express a belief that “maligns or attacks” an entire class of people?  It makes policy recommendations that would deny benefits to groups of people, and give benefits to other groups of people.  If by “attack” you or SPLC mean simply that giving some groups of people more benefits or other groups of people less benefits is an “attack,” then through true irony, yes, YAF is a hate group.  And the University of Michigan, 46 states in the union, and every other person that gives preferences to some  would be “hate groups” too, under the same test. However, most people understand “attack” in the context of “attack and malign” to mean something closer to statements or practices that demean a group or articulate a group's superiority or inferiority (the latter being part of SPLC's definition of attack when I asked). I was careful to ask SPLC if this was what they meant or if it was the broader version of “attack” equaling any denial of political benefits and preferences. SPLC was explicit – preference itself is not an attack, and they also agreed that advocacy against all preference was also not an attack, preferring to focus on whether the hateful believed in superiority or inferiority, that is, the “attack” or maligning must be based on immutable characteristics.

While I sharply criticized (on your own YAFwatch blog I think) Bristow's 13 point memo for being contradictory (the individual points, advocated one at a time, could easily be advocacy for pure equality – for example, arguing to fund a white male support club is no different than arguing for a african-american social group, although i think it personally ridiculous to have either funded by government, and arguing to defund an african-american group so that no one is funded is obviously legitimate (though it “attacks an existing resource given to an entire group”).  Arguing both at the same time obviously suffers the problem of giving a preference to whites, but that's the irony – if preference to whites is wrong …

Clearly, Bristow is guilty of very bad reasoning and carelessness. But you must look outside the memo to find evidence of “hate group” status.  SPLC, when I asked, provided no other evidence (except to say “google him”, which is wholly insufficient as evidence).

Now you may have come up with other stuff since then to justify SPLC after-the-fact, and I look forward to you posting the video, particularly with respect to clarifying your attacks on dr. Allen (whom you now attack as delusional, and no, I don't read every other publication in your history, nor is it fair to expect me to).  You assert that MSU “policy” somehow requires him to be aware of and approve every word and move of “his” (its not his) group – could you quote that policy exactly and explain how you arrive at that conclusion.

if YOU have read your entire own YAFwatch blog, you'd know that I have condemned Bristow and YAF for engaging in stupid and deplorable stunts when I have occasionally stumbled over there.  i know that YAFwatch adheres' to no journalistic code and you aren't paid for it, so I'd pretty much given up there because you simply ignored my points and the blog became tedious.  I raise the issue here and now because this is a different context.

I'm not asking that you like YAF – I'm asking that your exposure of their alleged wrong-doings be more precise.  That isn't unreasonable, is it?

As to Saul, his quote was simply that he'd been around Bristow several times and never heard anything racist, so he defended him.  I don't see where you have any evidence that Saul isn't telling you the truth as to his experience, and if you haven't proven to him a racist statement by Bristow (other than your assertion of the obviousness of your beliefs) I can't understand why he'd condemn him or allow your desires to dictate whom he throws to the wolves.  On the other hand, I know enough about Bristow to know he's not the “type of Republican” I'd support or want to encourage more of, if he is even really a Republican, or if that is really a relevant question.

chetly wrote

Mr. Heywood however, before he became your associate here, does appear to have advocated for and participated in the melees to stop YAF speakers. I understand why the issue is personal to him – but he’s not impartial on this issue and too involved personally to meet Michigan Messengers’ ethical standards of reporting it.

You’ve made an assertion here without evidence. Regardless of whether it’s true or not, my position remains exactly the same: any attempts to disrupt the speech, intimidate or commit violence toward the speaker should be met treated as a violation of MSU student rules (if they are a student) or a violation of the law, or both. Griffin is a vile human being whose barbaric views should be protested and denounced, but the expression of those views is clearly constitutionally protected.

On that note, Griffin and Wigington do appear to be repugnant (Griffin statements are certainly that), and Bristow’s judgment in bringing them to campus is questionable. Does it, by itself, make YAF a hate group? No. But they could do far better (and they have – their underbilled speech a couple days ago by Akindele Akinyemi was a superb choice of speaker and they completely wasted his breath by drowning it out with these dunces).

When I first saw the SPLC’s denunciation of MSU YAF as a hate group, I was skeptical. I do think they have a tendency to throw around that label a bit to casually at times. But they’re right. If you bring in openly white supremacist speakers and declare how honored you are to have them even after you’ve been accused of being a hate group, you’ve lost all right to complain about the label. I don’t believe that bringing in anti-immigration or anti-Islam speakers is evidence of hate. But this isn’t even a close call. Nick Griffin and Preston Wiginton are just plain white supremacists. This is no different than bringing in the grand wizard of the KKK, putting out a press release about how honored you are to have him here and then feigning outrage when you get called a hate group. If it waddles and quacks, it’s a duck.

Consistency Ed, you’ve maintained a consistent position.  I have no quibbles with it.

Mr. Heywood’s entire body of work provides the evidence of my assertion (and in another thread the editor of this site has quibbled with me because I’ve asked that previous works be linked where relevant).  Follow his own links.  But I’ll provide them, and additional link, shortly in response to his entry.

You are right – Griffin’s views are barbaric and should be protested and denounced (by individuals, not government, although government employees are free to make personal denouncements).  I have consistently joined with you in denouncing Griffin and folks like him. I even denounce Bristow’s actions where appropriate.

Nonetheless, SPLC didn’t use Bristow’s speaker’s list as its evidence.  It used a 13 point memo as it’s sole evidence (in addition to the “Google Bristow” statement) – a memo that had points that were mutually contradictory (eliminate women’s groups and create men’s groups, etc.) and appeared to be satirical in some ways.  Neither “Creating men’s groups” (or white cultural associations) nor eliminating women’s groups could, in themselves, be argued as discriminatory, but together, if taken literally, could.  Clearly Bristow was being reactionary to the current state of “multi-culturalism” at universities, which endorses all-black separate graduations and black-only support groups, or the same for other “protected categories,” but discourages such groups for non-protected categories.  His memo, taken non-literally, points out the insanity of that by suggesting a “whites-only” group. When Bristow was asked at the time by a State News reporter on a different YouTube video to articulate his views about the memo, he supported the ending of all the programs and made it clear he didn’t want the whites-only programs, and that he was trying to make a point.  I offered that State News link to SPLC before they made their final decision – they ignored it and refused to consider anything new. Their entire case for “hate group” status was based on that.

This after-the-fact adding to their case may be fun, and is certainly necessary, but it doesn’t make SPLC’s decision or process justified.  You’re right – they have a tendency to throw around that label “casually.”

Do I think Bristow’s actions deserve “sympathy”, or that he has a right to “outrage”.  No. He’s chosen to play on the big field of politics and picked the main arena. I’m just judging both him and SPLC to be wrong here. That’s a pretty equal opportunity critique.

Is the Democratic Party a “hate group” because its leader, Mark Brewer, chose to defend a grand wizard of the KKK in a case?  Of course not.  Bristow may not even have known before he invited these speakers of their ties to white supremacy (Brewer knew, and had a choice to not to represent).  He may have known too, which makes the action very questionable.  But nothing to do with SPLC’s inquiry last year.

Well, the first nine minutes Well, the first nine minutes of your presentation appears to be a mere introduction.  I’d love to see a tape of the rest.

In that nine minutes, you attack former US Civil Rights Commissioner Dr. William B. Allen, the YAF student advisor, on the grounds that he is 1) “anti-affirmative action” 2) very conservative.

Great evidence.

ex post facto proof doesn’t prove the original argument First, whatever happened since SPLC made its announcement does not make SPLC’s process any better.  I’m concerned about their process because I see the direction it is heading – as is the direction you are heading (when you attack someone like Dr. Allen for merely holding an anti-preferential-type-of-affirmative-action belief).

OK, after redigging from my original investigation back in march, here’s the you tube from Jess Lipowski’s interview for the SpartanEdge.

http://www.youtube.c…

Thats’ part 2 of the interview – notably at 2:20 thru 2:30 Bristow says he would oppose all-white social groups as well. 

I asked SPLC what they thought of this information specifically (among a variety of other statements, including ones where Bristow admitted/claimed that he was using satire in the 13 point memo, and other statements).

Then there is the video of you attacking a YAFer’s camera physically, and telling someone “He’s a YAFer” when both they and police try to get you to calm down. 

http://www.youtube.c…

That’s the video I relied up above in my statement that you were part of the melee and lost your objectivity. Not that you can’t continue to report on the issue on your blog, just that it has become personal for you.  Not that I blame you entirely either given the emotion of the room, and its not something that should be held against you personally, but you made Bristow a crusade.  I’m sure I’ve been there before, especially on issues important to me or that I thought were important at the time, but I just can’t see the value in the diminishing marginal returns of your continued work on this. Even if you’re right, you’re pounding rubble with 4000 lb bombs.

You say the first 9 minutes of your speech “is out of context”.  Come on.  It’s unedited, and YouTube has a 10 minute limit.  It’s the introduction.  The superfluous attack on Dr. Allen was 6 minutes in – so the entire context of that is available.  Your attack against Dr. Allen solely as “very conservative” and “against affirmative action” (not exact quotes, but very close) is completely inappropriate discourse.  Maybe you have more evidence against Dr. Allen in your presentation, but given the man’s eloquence and brilliance I can’t imagine where he has misstepped (and unlike Bristow, Dr. Allen is very clear and experienced). Sure, he was unlucky enough to have accepted the advisory role for Bristow, but my understanding is that student group advisors do not have authority over or make decisions for the group and Allen couldn’t have known Bristow would be as foolish as Bristow is. It’s no surprise that he would accept a YAF advisor role – the history of the organization is traditionally conservative as is Dr. Allen.

But I’ll give you an opportunity with the whole video – make sure you send me a link when its up (my first name at my first and last name dot com).

Finally, I’m stunned that you would imply that I’m not “rational” because I don’t agree with you on a purely opinionated question of word definitions — that of whether YAF is a hate group.  First, even if you or SPLC have proved that Bristow is a “hateful person”, and the centerpiece is the 13 point memo, you haven’t proven that group is.  While Bristow leads the group, the memo was Bristow’s for his personal campaign for student government.  Sullying the rest of the YAF members with your broad brush based on that is inappropriate.  Second, while the things (killing homosexuals) you assert above are as “without evidence” as my claim of your involvement was (sans the link I’ve provided here in this response), and the milder things like “Smash Left Wing Scum” which should be condemned but arguably should not be labeled “hate speech” (any worse than what some on the left have used against the right – are they “hate groups” – I could make the SPLC list real long if I could include every statement like that), you’re getting awfully high on your moral platform to say that your opinion is the only “rational” possible opinion.  Indeed, it proves your lack of distance and lack of objectivity.  I concede that your opinion is a possible interpretation – that is, I don’t begrudge anyone the right to disagree with or condemn Bristow as a punk or otherwise bad person (indeed, I have condemned him myself).  But because I do not go far enough, you label me irrational?

Some commendable points First, you make some points worthy of respect.  If you’ve recused yourself from Lennox-related reporting, that is wise, for the obvious reasons.  But note – my criticism of your conduct in the Lennox video goes beyond your mere physical contact with his camera (and I’m shocked to hear that you filed a criminal complaint, but I guess that matches the Dean Gates strategy).  You state after that to the unseen woman as apparent justification for your action “He’s from YAF” (you say here “YAF wasn’t responsible for Lennox’s “attack”", but at the time you equated him to YAF!!), as if that had any logical bearing on his right to be present with a video camera.  That’s where I interpret your bias against YAF, in addition to “my reading (scanning) of the entire YAFWatch blog” you’ve written and you’re use of irrelevant attacks against Dr. Allen, among others. 

Your linkage of this video to the Dean Gates controversy is inapt because they are different situations and should be judged independently.  With Gates, Lennox appears to be seated (or considerably shorter) with his arm and camera at his side when contact is apparently made at a glancing angle, on the other hand it is much more apparent in your case that contact is made and forcefully made.

As to your interpretation of the two videos, you and I must be watching different videos (on both the recent Gates video and the one of you).  Looking at the video of you, I don’t see you moving away from the camera or the camera following you – I see you rotating around at an odd angle, and when turning through that circle you realize that Lennox is there.  You may have been surprised, but there is no jerky movements by Lennox toward you, no “shove to your face”, and it does not appear the camera was “6 inches” (for you to connect with the camera with your hand the way you did it would have been amazingly difficult if it was 6 inches from your face – you couldn’t have reached outward the way you did).  I see a police office not “pushing Lennox back” but rather pointing at you and advising you of Lennox’s rights.

You over-reacted.  That’s forgivable.  Should you have been prosecuted for it criminally? Probably not, even though technically it was a battery.  But your version of events here simply isn’t in touch with what the video tape shows, and your proclivity to file a police report which may have been false, adds to my concerns.

If you helped YAF against a student mob days ago, I applaud you.  Again, I don’t follow every bit of news about you or YAF, nor is it reasonable to expect any reader to do that or be able to.

As to your general point that I am not “questioning the truth” of your “information”, only the “words” used, that is partially correct.  I’m not calling you a liar (or in error) without knowing the falsity of your information, but that doesn’t mean I’m accepting or endorsing the truth of the many factual allegations you have sourced poorly with general references as if I had a book knowledge of everything out there.  I question what you provide and source that appears wrong based on its internal inconsistencies, but I leave for the world to decide on what you assert baldly, and I am also questioning your interpretation of the facts in the best possible light to you as insufficient to your case.

Most importantly, you cite what SPLC cited to me in my interview with them.  Hate groups:

All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically based on their immutable characteristics …

How does the 13 point memo express a belief that “maligns or attacks” an entire class of people?  It makes policy recommendations that would deny benefits to groups of people, and give benefits to other groups of people.  If by “attack” you or SPLC mean simply that giving some groups of people more benefits or other groups of people less benefits is an “attack,” then through true irony, yes, YAF is a hate group.  And the University of Michigan, 46 states in the union, and every other person that gives preferences to some  would be “hate groups” too, under the same test. However, most people understand “attack” in the context of “attack and malign” to mean something closer to statements or practices that demean a group or articulate a group’s superiority or inferiority (the latter being part of SPLC’s definition of attack when I asked). I was careful to ask SPLC if this was what they meant or if it was the broader version of “attack” equaling any denial of political benefits and preferences. SPLC was explicit – preference itself is not an attack, and they also agreed that advocacy against all preference was also not an attack, preferring to focus on whether the hateful believed in superiority or inferiority, that is, the “attack” or maligning must be based on immutable characteristics.

While I sharply criticized (on your own YAFwatch blog I think) Bristow’s 13 point memo for being contradictory (the individual points, advocated one at a time, could easily be advocacy for pure equality – for example, arguing to fund a white male support club is no different than arguing for a african-american social group, although i think it personally ridiculous to have either funded by government, and arguing to defund an african-american group so that no one is funded is obviously legitimate (though it “attacks an existing resource given to an entire group”).  Arguing both at the same time obviously suffers the problem of giving a preference to whites, but that’s the irony – if preference to whites is wrong …

Clearly, Bristow is guilty of very bad reasoning and carelessness. But you must look outside the memo to find evidence of “hate group” status.  SPLC, when I asked, provided no other evidence (except to say “google him”, which is wholly insufficient as evidence).

Now you may have come up with other stuff since then to justify SPLC after-the-fact, and I look forward to you posting the video, particularly with respect to clarifying your attacks on dr. Allen (whom you now attack as delusional, and no, I don’t read every other publication in your history, nor is it fair to expect me to).  You assert that MSU “policy” somehow requires him to be aware of and approve every word and move of “his” (its not his) group – could you quote that policy exactly and explain how you arrive at that conclusion.

if YOU have read your entire own YAFwatch blog, you’d know that I have condemned Bristow and YAF for engaging in stupid and deplorable stunts when I have occasionally stumbled over there.  i know that YAFwatch adheres’ to no journalistic code and you aren’t paid for it, so I’d pretty much given up there because you simply ignored my points and the blog became tedious.  I raise the issue here and now because this is a different context.

I’m not asking that you like YAF – I’m asking that your exposure of their alleged wrong-doings be more precise.  That isn’t unreasonable, is it?

As to Saul, his quote was simply that he’d been around Bristow several times and never heard anything racist, so he defended him.  I don’t see where you have any evidence that Saul isn’t telling you the truth as to his experience, and if you haven’t proven to him a racist statement by Bristow (other than your assertion of the obviousness of your beliefs) I can’t understand why he’d condemn him or allow your desires to dictate whom he throws to the wolves.  On the other hand, I know enough about Bristow to know he’s not the “type of Republican” I’d support or want to encourage more of, if he is even really a Republican, or if that is really a relevant question.