Our query, this morning:
Is Alexandranova saying that Dr Sanity’s political beliefs are germane to the healthcare she delivers? Does she have any evidence of that? Is she proposing that medical personnel refrain from having political opinions? Is she suggesting that doctors not be allowed to express their political beliefs? If she is so concerned about that, has she expressed her outrage at the analysts and psychiatrists (example here) that ‘diagnosed’ Mr Bush from a distance- or is her concern only now raised because her self esteem has been maligned? Probably not- and that only serves to highlight her hypocrisy.
Pisqueakova responds (and makes clear that she did not comprehend the questions)
No. I am saying that a medical professional who spews hate all day and who happens to treat the mentally ill might not be the best type of psychiatrist to be practicing at a state hospital. Clearly, you continue to prove my point. I don't care about Dr. Santy's political beliefs. I simply am troubled by her/and your own hate speech, racist views, and aggressive "expertise" in labeling those you disagree with politically. Seems to me the good doctor has an issue with my political views.
Exactly what did Dr Sanity note that was so hateful? Since when are observations that disagree with your own, so awful? While we are on the subject, what exactly are you referring to when you assert that we have engaged in hate speech? Your readers cannot be so stupid as to take it on faith, can they?
Of course, there are different kinds of hate speech. Here is what Alexandranova had to say about Andrew Sullivan:
I know Andrew Sullivan just simply cannot help his obsession with Michelle Malkin. After all, there are few inflatable puppets who can manage to be horizontal and sit on their master’s lap at the same time. Malkin, by the way, is the inflated puppet in this scenario, although Andy can fill in when Malkin is unavailable.
That isn't the money shot, though one could make the argument that her characterization of Michelle Malkin is a bit over the top. She claims to be a journalist but is perfectly happy to use very unprofessional language. But we digress- she goes on to say of Sullivan that,
...I mean really, even a gay man who making his living pandering to homophobes should be able to see just how flaccid his argument is. But then again, a gay man hating gays is the new party platform for the right.
It should come as no surprise that because Alexandranova goes after Sullivan because she doesn't like his politics. She attacks him and his homosexuality, personally. How very tolerant. How very progressive.
We can only imagine what Alexandranova has to say about Condaleeza Rice.
Contrast that kind of hate with Dr Sanity referring to her as a 'drama queen.'
Still, there is more. Alexandranova breezily states,
It is absolutely clear that the Vice President has engaged in criminal activity, that Alberto Gonzales has, that Karl Rove has, indeed, likely the entire administration might end up indicted when all is said and done. But there has never been enough evidence that pointed directly to the President... that is, until now. While the Presidential pardon is in fact completely legal and left to the discretion of the Executive - the moral and reasonable argument here, however, shows that the pardon is part of an ongoing cover-up of criminal activity.
Really? Where are the indictments and convictions? Or is all that is part of a secret conspiracy that you are privy too? In any event, where was Alexandranova's outrage at pardons by other presidents of crimes that were far more egregious? Strangely, we cannot seem to find any outrage at Sandy 'Pants' Berger's theft of NSA documents from the archives.
Nowhere in her screed does Alexandranova address any of the issues that challenge her credibility. Instead, she just refers to those who disagree with her as bigots and haters (textbook projection!).
Alexandranova does raise a fair point.
Since when am I a "9/11 truther?" Come on folks, you have to give one example. Your readers cannot be so stupid as to take it on faith, can they?
Well, you are most proud of your role in a film that implies that steel buildings can't fall down by themselves, imply that there was a dark reason for the Air Force response that you, an Air Force expert cannot understand and that George Bush had prior knowledge of the events of that terrible day. Of course, there are more troubling issues, including the dark reasons George Bush must have had for staying in the kindergarten class...
We'll have more to say after we view the film. From what we have read, the film really apparently appeals to the conspiracy crowd.
This morning, Alexandranova wrote:
Anyone interested in fighting this kind of right wing extremism should consider contacting the Michigan medical association regarding Dr. Santy and ask about the ethics of her behavior.
Now, see if you can connect the dots (clearly, Alexandranova cannot!) Later in the day, we wrote
‘Anyone interested in fighting this kind of left wing extremism should consider contacting the Society of Professional Journalists ethics regarding Larisa Alexandranova and ask about the ethics of her behavior. ‘
SC&A are still precluded from leaving comments on her site- maybe because we just don't goose step to her kapo mindset.
In any event, we hope that Alexandranova will take the time to address the issues we raise.