(Pic Of "Steve Argue circa 1978?)
Add "supporter of imperialist war" to my long resume.
has apparently taken extreme offense at my challenge to his generally fact-less rants on Mumia and has responded
with the kind of "re-adjustment" of the argument as a means of diverting from the issues, while simultaneously undermining my credibility. Now, I am not in the habit of letting things like this go by, even if it is often for my own amusement.
In my article on the blog as well as on a rather boring thread at tribe.net
I set out to rather methodically point out the many discrepancies and inaccuracies in Steve’s rather disjointed and slightly comical rants about Mumia’s case. In any event, Steve has apparently abandoned that debate, the one that he started, in order to author more ridiculous screeds, this time at the Philly IMC
casting me as a war-monger.
I will let Steve’s frothing hysteria about the conflicts throughout the world speak for itself as he clearly is just one of those people that jumps to assumptions about those that they have a quarrel about. My pointing out Jamal’s position on the despots of the world does not automatically assign me a seat at the Bush table of world-domination, except of course if you live in Mumia- Land.
I think, if Steve has friends out there and you are one of them, and you read this, you might want to pull your "comrade" aside and urge him to take some time off. If he keeps going like this he is going to careen into the kind of disconnect from reality that causes you to believe in your own bullshit. Or maybe he has already hit that wall. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. But I guess time will tell.
One thing that is not really up for debate is the fact that he is quite literally full of shit. I mean really, really, horribly out-of-control full of shit. His "work" reeks of frantic cutting and pasting from pro-Jamal sites that are a decade old, masturbation (mental and otherwise) and midnight oil. He is the quintessential embodiment of the kid who got beat up on the regular in junior high and whose hygiene is likely hidden by a heavy layer of Patchouli
I offer as proof of Steve’s allergy to all things truthful and deficiencies in "truthiness" (my homage to Steve Colbert), the following statements of his followed by things that are demonstrable, provable, and recorded truths. For your enjoyment I offer his statements first followed by a brief rebuttal authored by your humble blogger.
"Congress voted 368 to 31 to back the racist frame-up of Mumia Abu Jamal by condemning the decision of the French city of St. Denis to name a street after the innocent death row inmate."
If one were to believe his line of argument you would have to believe that not only is the Philly PD, DA, Mayor, media, etc...complicit with the "frame up" of Mumia, but so to is the vast majority of Congress.
"Not a single Pennsylvania Congressperson voted against the racist resolution. Joining in the racist lynch mob calling for blood of an innocent black man..."
The "Mumia street" bill was not a referendum on Jamal's guilt, innocence, or the fairness of the trial. It is a symbolic statement that reflects the indignation that I can safely argue that most civilized human beings feel when a killer is cast as hero by ill-informed and politically motivated individuals.
"In addition Ed Rendell is a member of the Fraternal Order of Police"
A twenty second phone call to an annoyed PA State FOP member will tell you that Rendell is no member of the FOP.
"The bullets were not rare and in fact according to the coroner they didn't match Mumia's gun."
The bullet that killed Daniel Faulkner was a .38, the same as Jamal's registered handgun. Not only was the gun Jamal's, but he had a holster to go with it. Four of the fiver cartridges were of Federal Plus P manufacture. The deformed bullet removed from Officer Faulkner's skull had a hollow base consistent with this type of ammunition. Although not a conclusive match was made the circumstantial evidence was enough to convince the multi-racial jury who took all of five hours to convict Jamal
"No eyewitnesses saw him shoot the cop, but there were eyewitnesses that saw hiim not shoot the cop."
Four eyewitnesses saw Jamal shoot Faulkner Steve. One two three four.
"He was illegally denied counsel of his choice. His attorney was incompetent."
Jamal picked Anthony Jackson to be his attorney, but decided to represent himself prior to trial. He was allowed to do so until the judge was forced to remove Jamal from this position after Jamal clearly was attempting to undermine the integrity of his own trial. Attorney Jackson was competent. Jackson had defended no less than 20 murder cases, winning 14 of them. Despite trying many cases in which the possible sentence was death, prior to Jamal, Jackson had never had a client sentenced to death.
"Cynthia White was a prostitute working for the corrupt Center City cops and put outside the scene by the actual eyewitnesses, she testified that Mumia killed him but never actually saw anything."
Wrong again. Cynthia White saw just about everything. Read the transcripts
Steve."As for representing himself, Sabo fired Mumia as his own attorney because he was doing too good of a job."
Mumia was doing a fine job making a mockery of the justice system. As for defending himself, he relegated himself to repeatedly demanding that sub-literate, John Africa be his attorney and generally acted like a madman to the point that at least one journalist wondered if Jamal wanted to be found guilty and was "suicidal". Again, the transcripts provide ample evidence of Jamal’s antics.
"Veronica Jones testified for the prosecution"
Steve is wrong on this again. She testified for the defense in both the original trial as well as the PCRA
"William Singletary is a good witness."
I have never ever heard anyone claim that William Singletary is a "good witness". Even Weinglass had to try and cover for Jamal's sole exculpatory witness with the understatement of the 1995 PCRA hearing when he said that "We believe his (Singletary’s) recollection today (of what happened December 9, 1981) is not entirely accurate" And he protested vigorously when this "good witness" was asked in open court about what he saw and heard in 1981 by the DA. If he was such a good witness than why would Jamal's own attorney seek to have his testimony not heard?
The above is just a sampling of Steven’s deranged assault on the truth. He is a veritable repository of nonsense, half-truths, major lies, and minor ones. Yet he claims that I am the one conjuring up falsehoods. He has written this on more than one occasion, but has yet to show that anything that I have written is wrong. So Steve it is put up or shut up time. Either come with facts or don’t come at all.