I would hope most people are already reading Roy Edroso's witty anthropological forays into the Right-Wing Waste Land. They'll provide valuable evidence for future civilizations seeking to understand our destruction, and they supply much-needed solace through communal laughter in the meantime.
Recently, he attended CPAC, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference. This archive page has most of his entries. For a shorter overview, there's his Village Voiceroundup of CPAC, and for Esquire, he penned "The 25 'Best' Quotes of CPAC 2011." (Esquire's other CPAC pieces are quite good, too.)
CPAC produced some true gems of logic and rhetoric, but two really stand out for me. Here's #1:
"Our liberties, which have made us great, are now destroying us." - Rev. Michel Faulkner, at the CPAC "Traditional Marriage and Society" panel.
Many right-wingers really do seem to believe that "freedom" should only belong to them. Steve Benen examined various tea party slogans back in August 2010:
This is about "freedom."
Well, I'm certainly pro-freedom, and as far as I can tell, the anti-freedom crowd struggles to win votes on Election Day. But can they be a little more specific? How about the freedom for same-sex couples to get married? No, we're told, not that kind of freedom.
This attitude may be unconscious, or rarely spoken aloud, but it offends right-wing social conservatives if someone outside their tribal group exercises individual rights, without their permission. "Freedom" somehow means superiority, privilege and power – and just for them.
Here's #2:
"It's just like a liberal, they import slaves, they hold slaves, they fight for slavery, they go to war in a civil war to defend slavery. They then install legal discrimination against blacks for a hundred years…" - Ann Coulter.
Coulter is a bullshitter, of course, and doesn't care about accuracy. She's out for a response, normally either outrage or approval. (My long piece on her is here.) But the bullshit factor of this statement is so blatant, not just ahistorical but anti-historical, it highlights that her audience a) doesn't know better, and/or b) doesn't care. Republicans can and sometimes do still claim the legacy of Lincoln and the civil rights movement, but those were liberal Republicans. The abolition, suffragette and civil rights movements are definitional for liberalism. (Civil liberties, ahem.) Anti-historical approaches to the Civil War from right-wingers are nothing new. Still, there is no universe where Coulter's statement is even coherent. Where's her pride of craft? It's not even good propaganda. Nor is it a good pander, even for an audience that believes that conservative chestnut that "liberals are the real racists!" The CPAC crowd is full of the angry white social conservatives who tend to buy into most poisonous aspects of the Old Confederacy myth (and it shows in their racial attitudes). Emotionally if not regionally, they tend to identify with an aggrieved white South. Coulter has simultaneously called the South in the Civil War 'wrong' and 'liberal.' That makes no sense, even in the mind of a right-winger.
I wonder if any of the audience even noticed, though. The Republican Party is entirely plutocratic, and has almost no interest in responsible governance at all. Movement conservatism has even less, and it's nasty, reckless, and sometimes nihilistic. As I've written before, Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck and the rest aren't selling facts, they're selling grievance, cultural solidarity, an emotional truth, and the Two-Minute Hate. Right-wing audiences simply do not care if their leaders are corrupt, incompetent and lie to their faces – as long as they get their scapegoat.
The only thing worse than inane political analysis and obtuse cultural criticism is combining the two. John Cole of Balloon Juice finds this stunning example of "Bad Punditry":
If indications hold true, voters Tuesday will deliver a powerful rebuke to the Obama administration and its plans to transform America. Also, “Toy Story 3” will come out on DVD. These two events are not unrelated.
The piece goes downhill from there, in a Dante's descent-into-the-Inferno sorta way. The author is Andrew Klavan, the same odious dipshit who tried to steal The Dark Knight's popularity to praise Bush and claim vindication for war, surveillance and torture. Backtrack through the Balloon Juice post and you can read the Klavan piece – then solace yourself with it being savagely mocked in the BJ thread. (Some of the commentators at the LA Times, where Klavan's piece appeared, also make short work of it.)
For his analysis of The Dark Knight, Klavan had to ignore key aspects of the actual movie, of course, but that's standard for "conservative" film reviewers these days. His Toy Story 3 piece does the same, but I'd say it's even worse for several reasons. The key one is that Pixar makes truly wonderful movies, and they deserve better than this hack and dolt trying to purloin their work, and crapping all over it in the process. Pixar also deliberately tries to avoid politics in their films (the subject has come up in interviews). This is in part because they're making films suitable for young kids (as well as adults), but also because good storytelling tends to be multifaceted in a way that agitprop isn't. And come on, if the Pixar crew were going to push a political message, it would tend to be liberal-minded, like their neighbors in San Francisco and Berkeley, or like most of the film industry in very liberal (and extremely capitalist) Hollywood. Does Klavan really think Pixar is run by closet right-wingers? Lastly, the analysis itself is extremely dumb, without even the saving grace of some wit or an all-in-good-fun wink for its ridiculously counterintuitive, counter-textual reading. Klavan's "analysis" is reductive, making the film less fun, less moving, less rich. You would have to be an ideological zealot, an inept propagandist or a fucking moron to write that piece. I leave it to discriminating readers to decide the exact nature and composition of Klavan's latest little turd.
This isn't the first time poor Pixar has suffered this sort of Konservetkult abuse. When the fantastic WALL-E came out, conservatives first strongly attacked it because of its environmental themes... but then later, some decided to try to appropriate it as a conservative indictment of the nanny-state. Oh, the humanity. It's a sad waste of life to approach the arts in this way, and I've got much more on this whole mindset in a long post on the most "conservative" films (which also covers Klavan's take on The Dark Knight in more depth). If, for instance, conservative Danielle Crittenden loves Pride and Prejudice, great, and perhaps we can have a pleasant conversation about it. But it's silly and pitiable to insist that Pride and Prejudice is a great "conservative" love story, as if it can only be safely enjoyed after being stamped with the conservative imprimatur, and certified free of thought-crime. Good art is often ambiguous and multilayered, and it's to be enjoyed, shared, reflected upon and discussed, not conquered and enslaved.
That said, I think we need one more response to Klavan, and I happen to have Lee Unkrich, director of Toy Story 3, right here:
I'm overdue for a longer post on the increasingly ridiculous Republican candidate for Senator of Delaware, Christine O'Donnell - you know, the woman who's anti-masturbation, anti-sex, anti-evolution, a frequent liar, believes in scientists creating mice with human brains, and who dabbled in witchcraft. But she is the comedy gift that keeps giving, and this item demanded immediate attention.
Starting a political ad like this is a sign that you're in deep trouble:
In the ad Christine O’Donnell immediately sets America’s Tea Bag Fevered Mind at ease by pointing out that she is totally “not a witch”; a statement normally found by the first or second line in every candidates online bio. Right after they don’t mention being born in Kenya. In Christine O’Donnell’s mind, this whole “witch” misunderstanding is really the only impediment to her getting, like 107% of the vote so she just had to come out and say it and, wow, is that a load off her chest, and so it is smooth sailing and happy days are here again and we all can breath a sigh of relief that the anti-masturbating, deadbeat, resume-padding, evolution-denying, Fear of A Braniac MiceMen Planet, daughter of a part-time clown is not a witch.
As commenter Lesley notes, "Strangely she picked a murky blue backdrop and a black dress. What’s missing? A pointy hat." Seriously, why didn't they go with some bright, sunny backdrop and a different look altogether? I suppose this look is supposed to make her look "serious," but it strikes me as a bad choice.
O'Donnell's denial reminds me of an infamous but possibly apocryphal LBJ story, about:
...how Lyndon Johnson first got elected to Congress in 1948 when his opponent was a wealthy and politically favoured pig farmer: 'Lyndon was running about 10 points behind, with only nine days to go... He was sunk in despair. He was desperate... he called his equally depressed campaign manager and instructed him to call a press conference at two or two-thirty ( just after lunch on a slow news day) and accuse his high-riding opponent (the pig farmer) of having routine carnal knowledge of his barnyard sows, despite the pleas of his wife and children... His campaign manager was shocked. 'We can't say that, Lyndon,' he said. 'It's not true.' 'Of course it's not,' Johnson barked at him, 'but let's make the bastard deny it.'
The big difference, of course, is that it's O'Donnell who's smeared herself, over and over again.
Thers at Whiskey Fire passes along this gem from Chuck Norris:
Right at the get-go, John Bolton (George W. Bush's ambassador to the U.N.) poured cold water on that idea in a fiery speech that ignited world condemnation.
As Thers quips, "Because Chuck Norris does not merely mix metaphors, he fucks them up."
Check out the rest of Thers' piece, which is about the coming right-wing apocalypse:
I don't suppose anyone reading this needs it spelled out, but the American right wing is by any rational standard utterly incapable of governance. "The Bush admininistration" is a good example of this. "Any Republican currently running for office" would be another. "We think Christine O'Donnell should be in charge" is, well, dispositive.
No argument here. Maybe if we all start drinking, all those teabaggers running around off their meds will seem more normal.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to people who struggle with public speaking, but, um, that sympathy largely disappears when those people have or seek power.
First up we have Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona, who signed and has championed the state's anti-immigration laws, and falsely claimed that illegal immigrants were beheading people in the desert. In a debate with her opponent in the governor's race, this was Brewer's opening statement:
Brewer ignored questions about her "beheadings" claims multiple times:
Later, Brewer finally made a weak backpedal on her claim about headless bodies. Very big of her. It's a tough standard, being expected to not just make crap up, not play demagogue, and to take responsibility for one's statements.
Next up we have Phil Davison, candidate for Treasurer of the Stark County GOP in Ohio. John Cole describes him sharply as "part Sam Kinison and part Andy Kaufman" (albeit without Kinison's swearing). Be warned that it'll be hard to watch this without laughing:
Cole's comments thread is pretty funny, as well – as folks point out, Davison (who's clearly nervous) has to check where he's from and forgets one of his favorite quotations.
Zandar also points out that Davison pairs well with Republican candidate for Governor of Tennessee, BasilMarceaux. However, Marceaux finished fifth in the GOP primaries, and Davison also lost (Gary Farber gives more background).
As we've seen from the tea partiers, crazy is popular, but not just any form of crazy will do.
I've been meaning to write more about Park51, the proposed Muslim community center that wouldn't really be a mosque and wouldn't be at Ground Zero. However, it seems that there have been 5-10 good pieces per day on it for the past month or so. And while this project never should have been an issue, it was made into one by the usual right-wing noise machine. While some people may be genuinely upset, most of that distress results from exposure to a series of shameless, divisive lies. We've seen this game before. It's not healthy for our national political discourse to be dictated by liars, scoundrels and bigots. And it'd be shame if once again, fundamental rights and basic decency were sacrificed to appease them.
(This is in large part but not entirely a round-up/resource post, so if you've been following this story closely, some of it may be familiar. If nothing else, check out any Daily Show segments you missed, but feel free to skip around.)
The Timeline / Considering the Source
Justin Elliott at Salon has put together a short, invaluable timeline over this "outrage." Some moderate Muslims, previously tapped by the Bush administration for cultural and religious outreach, sought to turn an old Burlington Coat Factory in Manhattan into a Muslim Community Center. (Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is specifically Sufi.) Tentatively named Cordoba House at first, the project was patterned on familiar models such as the YMCA and a local Jewish community center. (The project's developer, New York-born Sharif El-Gamal, has given more background in twointerviews.) The site happens to be two city NYC blocks away from Ground Zero (several blogs and shows have shown photos of the surrounding area). The project received unanimous approval from the local zoning board, and even Fox News covered the story favorably at first.
But then, basically, bomb-happy, right-wing, Islamophobic blogger Pamela Geller and the like-minded started a stink over it. Eventually, more prominent right-wing outlets decided to run with the story, facts and decency be damned, and other right-wing political celebrities like Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich decided they wanted a piece of that action.
If you're not familiar with Pamela Geller, this segment gives a good run-down:
I wondered why he didn't cover her most infamous post – a lengthy, psycho post about Barack Obama being Malcolm X's secret love child – but Geller claims she didn't write that, and didn't believe that part – just the parts about Obama not born in America and perhaps being a secret Muslim, I guess. (Hey, even crazy people have to drawn lines.)
There's a debate about how much of Geller's shtick is deliberate lying versus sincere, paranoid bigotry, but with Newt Gingrich, there's no doubt: He's a scumbag and opportunist.
In any case, accounts of this "controversy" that ignore its origins, and elide the facts – it's not really a "ground zero mosque" – do the public a grave disservice.
The Anti-Defamation League
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) received a fair amount of criticism for coming out against the project and basically betraying its own charter. Here's part of their release:
We regard freedom of religion as a cornerstone of the American democracy, and that freedom must include the right of all Americans – Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other faiths – to build community centers and houses of worship.
We categorically reject appeals to bigotry on the basis of religion, and condemn those whose opposition to this proposed Islamic Center is a manifestation of such bigotry.
However, there are understandably strong passions and keen sensitivities surrounding the World Trade Center site. We are ever mindful of the tragedy which befell our nation there, the pain we all still feel – and especially the anguish of the families and friends of those who were killed on September 11, 2001.
The controversy which has emerged regarding the building of an Islamic Center at this location is counterproductive to the healing process. Therefore, under these unique circumstances, we believe the City of New York would be better served if an alternative location could be found.
I've read this about five times now, and I still don't see how they get from the premises in paragraphs 1 and 2 to the conclusions in paragraph 4.
The third paragraph is the weakest of bridges in this regard, not only because paragraph 4 betrays the principles extolled in the first two (though that does sort of give the game away), but for the simple fact that many of the families and friends of those killed believe that the mosque would be a testament to American values triumphing over ignorance.
Myself included. Not to mention, undoubtedly, some of the Muslim victims' friends and loved ones. They count too.
After all, why do some passions and sensitivities get valued over others and, if we must choose, why should we choose to give priority to those responses informed by divisiveness, bigotry and ignorance?
This is shameful for the ADL. Absolutely shameful.
Greg Sargent ripped apart another paragraph from the same statement, and also dissected a subsequent statement by the ADL that wasn't much better (possibly worse). It's disappointing, if not entirely surprising. Glenn Greenwald has documented how the ADL has been selective in its objections at times, and Scott Horton recently wrote about an odd episode involving ADL head Abe Foxman.
Mayor Bloomberg
Whatever his other faults or merits, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave a great speech about religious freedom and cultural tolerance, and how they're central to the city's identity and history:
You can read the speech here. On the same webpage, the video accessible through "More Resources" in the right column is well worth watching. It shows Bloomberg's speech, but also features NYC religious leaders of different faiths (and some with strong ties to 9/11) speaking passionately and thoughtfully on the same theme. The First Amendment, including Freedom of Religion, was obviously a founding principle of America, and it's disturbing to see it assaulted. ("The freedom to worship – or not" is the central idea behind the annual Blog Against Theocracy.)
President Obama
It's currently Ramadan, and President Obama also spoke out in defense of religious freedom at an Iftar dinner:
You can read the text of the speech here. It was a good speech.
Unfortunately, when questioned about the speech, Obama offered a weak follow-up statement. While logically consistent, it undercut the strength of his speech and was never going to appease the Geller crowd anyway.
On August 17, 1790, the warden of the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, Moses Seixas, penned an important letter to the president of the United States. Drawing attention to the devastation suffered by the once prosperous seaport, Seixas also addressed the question of freedom of religion and expressed a hope about what America would become:
a Government which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance—but generously affording to All liberty of conscience, and immunities of citizenship:—deeming every one, of whatever nation, tongue or language equal parts of the great Governmental Machine:—This so ample and extensive federal union whose basis is Philanthropy, mutual confidence, and public virtue, we cannot but acknowledge to be the work of the Great God, who ruleth the Armies of Heaven, and among the Inhabitants of the Earth, doing whatsoever seemeth [to Him] good.
And to this George Washington replied, providing his correspondent the honor of a flattering echo of the original:
The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens.
The Times report from Saturday brings us some voices that recall those of Moses Seixas, including Rabbi Irwin Kula and C. Welton Gaddy. But it also brings us the louder voices of intolerance, including the increasingly shrill leader of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, who does an honest job only in characterizing his own comments:
"Survivors of the Holocaust are entitled to feelings that are irrational," he said. Referring to the loved ones of Sept. 11 victims, he said, "Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted."
American citizens do indeed have the right to be irrational and bigoted. But, as George Washington explained, they do not have the right to oppress their fellow citizens by institutionalizing their bigotry in government action. And, as Moses Seixas explained, those who have survived deprivation and oppression will find better solace in a faith that counsels compassion and community rather than the repression of those of a differing confession.
(I've seen several other bloggers and organizations quote this Washington letter since, but Horton was the first I saw to cite it.)
It is no surprise that by mid-2009 I was hearing from the leader of the anti-Obama group the Delaware 9-12 Patriots that the 44th president of the United States "is absolutely not American" while his neighbors were screaming at town hall meetings: "I don't want this flag to change. I want my country back!" These rank-and-file citizens were often echoing what they heard in a 24/7 right-wing media bubble of ratings-driven irresponsibility -- outlandish neo-McCarthyite allegations that Obama had Commies and Maoists working in the West Wing, Glenn Beck's notorious claim that the president has "a deep-seated hatred of white people" and, perhaps more tellingly, of "white culture," and most recently radio's Rush Limbaugh's bizarre charge that Obama is probably the "best anti-American president the country's ever had."...
Which brings us to the present crisis: Mosques in America. It should tell you something that the backlash against Muslims practicing their faith in America is far greater in 2010 than it was in the months immediately following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. That's because the political firestorm with its epicenter in lower Manhattan really has nothing to do with 9/11 or its aftermath, and everything to do with "the Other" the awful forces and fears that have been unleashed in the last couple of years -- fears that craven politicians like Gingrich, Palin and the formerly rational Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota are eager to surf into the White House in 2013. If the Manhattan mosque controversy were really about our 9/11 sensibilities, how does one explain the opposition to other Islamic houses of worship from Tennessee to California to Staten Island?
[Conservative blogger John] Hinderaker is mad that the AP isn't reporting as fact an interpretation of a feeling that some conservatives have about "the currents that swirl through world events." Feel free to snap your fingers when you're done reading. As Dave Weigel writes, "To be American is to agree with John Hinderaker; to disagree is to be a Muslim."
Still, I think on some level, Hinderaker is right. Some conservatives see Obama as being different from them, and they deploy "Muslim" as an epithet to express their suspicion and anger toward him. I'm sure part of it also has to do with conservative elites reinforcing or at least winking at the notion that Obama is being deceptive about his religious beliefs and that describing someone as a "Muslim" is some kind of an insult. As the Pew poll notes, "Beliefs about Obama’s religion are closely linked to political judgments about him. Those who say he is a Muslim overwhelmingly disapprove of his job performance, while a majority of those who think he is a Christian approve of the job Obama is doing." In a less politically correct time they probably would have used a different word.
Back on 8/17/10, Digby posted two of the conservative propaganda videos against Park51. The first one especially is ridiculously deceptive. As Digby quipped:
In case you didn't know, this is a "bigger threat to our freedom than Nazism ever was."
People who live entirely in the wingnut noise machine honestly don't know the truth about the project and are being scared half to death by this propaganda. Those who are apathetic (most Americans) probably think as Kevin [Drum] did, that the "mosque" is being built on the site of the WTC as part of the planned memorial, which just seems odd. I don't think you can underestimate how uninformed most people are on just about anything. But on this issue I think there's a very good chance that they are more misinformed than usual.
I could be wrong, though. Maybe most of the country really believes that it's insensitive for American Muslims to practice their religion near Ground Zero, in which case we have bigger problems.
This is a case of both/and. Many Americans are misinformed on this issue, to the degree they've followed it at all. But a fair number of the right-wing base is opposed to Freedom of Religion for anyone but themselves. (More on this later.)
And so on. With extremely rare exceptions, you can go now through all rightwing sites and publications, from the high-end to the low, and find the same thing: A willingness -- actually, an puppy-like eagerness -- to exploit the basest religious and racial fears for political gain. (More than usual, we mean.)
We might adopt a lofty pose, scratch our chins, and say this speaks poorly of the state of the conservative movement. But whom would we be kidding? There is no conservative movement, intellectually speaking -- merely a consortium of crackpots and bigots who believe that gays are threatening their marriages, rich people are overtaxed, black people are the real racists, and the building of a mosque at the site of a disused Burlington Coat Factory somewhere near Ground Zero presents a graver danger to American liberty than the other mosques already near Ground Zero.
About the most charitable thing you could say for them is: Maybe they're only pretending to believe this nonsense.
The Daily Show is always good and often brilliant, and their segments on this story have been absolutely superb. Here's the first one, which shows that Islamophobia is indeed a factor:
Let's examine the hypocrisies in Fox News' coverage on this issue, look at crappy coverage from "legitimate" outlets, and play the analogy game with tolerance:
Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade are pretty stupid, but there's no way Dan Senor's performance (the name omission) is a fluke. On this issue, he and Dana Perino are evil.
While some people may be genuinely upset about the Park51 project, there's been quite a bit of ignorance of Islam on display. That includes Islam's relation to 9/11, and the vast divide between American Muslims and the extremist group Al Qaeda. Muslims have actually been praying inside the Pentagon for years, and did so after 9/11. Many Muslims were killed in the 9/11 attacks, including at least one first responder.
14% of Americans believe that mosques should not be permitted anywhere in the United States. A clear partisan divide exists over both self-reported understanding of, and tolerance for, Islam. Republicans are far more likely to claim an understanding of Islam either somewhat or a great deal than Democrats: 58.5% of Republicans compared to only 48% of Democrats. Of course, this self-professed understanding doesn’t lead to tolerance; where 25% of Democrats have a somewhat or very favorable view of Islam, only 8.3% of Republicans share the same outlook.
Not that liberals are always right, but this would be in line with the trend of Fox News viewers scoring the poorest on news fact quizzes while being the most certain they were well-informed. I highly doubt most of the Park51 protesters could even name the Five Pillars of Islam. Similarly, it's unsurprising that the crazy, anti-Islamic "Burn the Koran" Christian preacher has never read the Koran. Nor is it shocking that Newt Gingrich's history on "Cordoba" is deceptive at best. On a related "scandal," as Juan Cole explains, claims that Obama was "born" a Muslim are false. Meanwhile, conservative Daniel Larison has two pieces on Imam Rauf and what it means to be a "moderate"Muslim.
As many folks have pointed out, George W. Bush did reach out to Muslims in rhetoric on occasion, and deserves credit for that. But let's not go overboard, either. He also called fighting terrorism a "crusade." He lied us into a war in Iraq, and mismanaged both that war and the one in Afghanistan. His administration killed thousands of innocent Muslims, and treated others as subhuman, holding them without charges for years, abusing them, torturing them, and in some cases, murdering them in custody. He was the best friend bin Laden ever had. Cheney claimed invading Iraq made sense because the 9/11 terrorists came from the same "geographic base," meaning completely different countries in the region, but he correctly calculated that many Americans can't tell them furriners apart and the press wouldn't bother to explain. There's a looong list of this stuff, of course. Some of Bush's language was pretty good, and much better than the current wingnuts such as Pam Geller. But let's not pretend this bigotry blossomed overnight. It was central to Bush's foreign policy, and bigotry has been central to the GOP's domestic campaigning (scary Muslims, gays, you name it).
It's both disappointing and telling that Bush has chosen not to speak about Park51, because if he took a stand defending it, it could dampen some of the right-wing furor. Perhaps his silence is because he has a book coming out. Meanwhile, Karen Hughes, a Bush surrogate, has said she wants Park51 to move, but has tried not to mention her past working relationship with its imam.
Some counterterrorism experts say the anti-Muslim sentiment that has saturated the airwaves and blogs in the debate over plans for an Islamic center near ground zero in Lower Manhattan is playing into the hands of extremists by bolstering their claims that the United States is hostile to Islam.
Opposition to the center by prominent politicians and other public figures in the United States has been covered extensively by the news media in Muslim countries. At a time of concern about radicalization of young Muslims in the West, it risks adding new fuel to Al Qaeda’s claim that Islam is under attack by the West and must be defended with violence, some specialists on Islamic militancy say.
Former FBI interrogator Ali Soufan has much more on the same theme:
The furor over the proposed Islamic cultural center and mosque near Ground Zero makes me think back to one of the most important lessons I learned from al Qaeda terrorists I interrogated--that they have a warped view of America. To them--and this they get from Osama Bin Laden's rhetoric--the U.S. is a country at war with Islam and Muslims, and so they had a duty to fight us.
While I was serving on the frontlines I found that this distorted view of America was common among ordinary Muslims too, and it was only by correcting this image did we encourage locals to help our investigations and turn against al Qaeda. Our efforts were helped by public statements, like from President Bush in the days after 9/11, declaring that America was at war with al Qaeda and not with Islam. I was in Sana, Yemen, on that day, and I remember our military and law enforcement group feeling encouraged that our leadership understood how to frame our battle.
But while we started off on the right note in dealing with the Muslim world, our leadership soon demonstrated that they failed to understand that our war against al Qaeda was not just a military fight, but an asymmetrical battle for the proverbial hearts and minds of Muslims across the world too...
There are many reasons for supporting the Muslim community's right to build a cultural center and mosque on private property, not least of all the First Amendment of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion. But from a national security perspective, our leaders need to understand that no one is likely to be happier with the opposition to building a mosque than Osama Bin Laden. His next video script has just written itself.
Harry Reid's statement that the project should move somewhere else seemed pretty gutless. Howard Dean was less than inspiring as well. While Dean showed more nuance in his follow-ups, he ignored that this controversy was manufactured, which completely changes the dynamics about coming to some negotiated settlement.
A few conservatives, including Ron Paul, have spoken out for the rights of the project's founders and against Islamophobia. (I agree with Digby's criticisms of the statement's other elements, though.) Meanwhile, lawyer Ted Olson, whose wife was killed in the 9/11 attacks, expressed support for the project: "we don’t want to turn an act of hate against us by extremists into an act of intolerance for people of religious faith. And I don’t think it should be a political issue." That's genuinely admirable.
The Big Picture
The biggest issue is that you either support Freedom of Religion and the Constitution, or you don't. Part of a free society is that other people are free to do things of which you may not approve. Park51 would be built on private property and won approval of the local zoning board. The project has every right to build there, and interfering with that on a governmental level would be a dangerous attack on core American values and laws. As mentioned in an earlier post:
The attacks on mosques and a Muslim cultural center in Manhattan, on religious freedom itself, is the same mentality of torture proponents – we're not safe because we haven't been savage and intolerant enough. It's completely wrong, antithetical to American values, nihilistic and suicidal – we simply can't protect our "civilization" from others by destroying it ourselves.
It makes no sense to say that Islamic extremists seek to destroy America and civilization itself, and "hate us for our freedoms," and then turn around and attack those very same freedoms – ya know, those liberties that form the bedrock of American society and its concept of civilization. But it should be a familiar shtick by now. Regardless, the best way to defeat foreign extremism and intolerance may be through sticking up for freedom here at home - by challenging domestic extremism and intolerance. The Park51 founders claim to repudiate everything Al Qaeda stands for, and have been vouched for on that front even by war hawk JeffreyGoldberg. So why object?
Some protesters of Park51 have said they agree that the project has the legal right to build there, they just object to the location, and they're not bigots. Okay, fair enough. I also don't take issue with anyone who actually lives in New York City, lost friends or colleagues on 9/11, and is genuinely upset (Jon Stewart addressed this in one of his clips). If there's any serious discussion to be had, it's with them. However, this is primarily a neighborhood issue, not a national one, and the question remains: how far away is far enough?
Meanwhile, I'm not convinced most of the Park51 protesters fall into those categories. Some of the protesters simply don't know the facts, and believe the Fox News propaganda instead. (I'll link this Mrs. Polly interview again. There's also Eugene Robinson's column one and discussion, and column two and discussion. They're occasionally eye-popping.) There is ignorance about Islam and/or bigotry out there, as the national anti-mosque incidents show. Many of the loudest protesters live nowhere near Manhattan, and tend to attack New Yorkers as a cultural elite, yet see no contradiction between that and trying to claim 9/11 as theirs alone. The most prominent critics of the Park51 project have been Pam Geller, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and the Fox News crew. All of them fit one or more of the three characteristics on the wingnut checklist I proposed the other day: liar, extremist, asshole. What prominent critic of the Park51 project has described it honestly? Has any prominent critic acknowledged how this controversy was manufactured? Seriously, has there been one on the national stage I've missed?
The Park51 founders are free to discuss their proposed center with any concerned locals. But on the national stage, any "debate" shouldn't be dictated by the dishonest, paranoid or dishonorable. I agree with Glenn Greenwald that this issue is not a "distraction" – it's uncovered some important, familiar issues of fear and bigotry, and is a classic example of the right-wing noise machine at work. And it would be shame if once again, fundamental rights and basic decency were sacrificed to appease a bunch of dishonest, hateful, screaming brats.
While I try to avoid All Things Palin, sometimes the snowbilly grifter (as dubbed by TBogg) is hard to ignore, and this little tale from the other week epitomizes both her and her right-wing pals.
Phase One: A Palin Incident
This silly tale started with an incident in Homer, Alaska, which Sarah Palin was visiting for her reality TV show. A resident, Kathleen Gustafson, put up a banner declaring Palin the "worst governor ever." Palin stopped to protest. Here's the video of the encounter:
Gustafson's main objection seems to be that Palin quit halfway through her term, a fairly common, mainstream criticism, whatever her other views. Alaskan blogger Shannyn Moore, who's from Homer, gives much more background. Palin's bodyguards trying to block the filming is obnoxious (apparently one man might be her husband). According to Moore, they later tore the sign down. The oddest moment is Palin's grimacing shtick when Gustafson mentions she's a teacher.
Phase Two: Palin Defends/Attacks
Palin generally makes the news, and in this case she was criticized. Palin predictably manned her Facebook parapet to complain about the reaction to her behavior:
The LSM has now decided to use this brief encounter for another one of their spin operations. They claim I – wait for it – “appear to roll my eyes” when the lady tells me she’s a teacher. Yes, it’s come to this: the media is now trying to turn my eyebrow movements into story lines. (Maybe that’s why Botox is all the rage – if you can’t move your eyebrows, your “eye rolling” can’t be misinterpreted!) If they had checked their facts first, they would have known that I come from a family of teachers; my grandparents were teachers, my father was a teacher, my brother is a teacher, my sister works in Special Needs classrooms, my aunt is a school nurse, my mom worked as a school secretary for much of her professional life, we all volunteer in classrooms, etc., etc., etc. Given that family history, how likely is it that I would “roll my eyes” at someone telling me that they too work in that honorable profession? Stay classy, LSM.
If you're not fluent in Palinese, "LSM" stands for "lamestream media." As Roy Edroso comments:
I'm actually sympathetic toward her on this score. But you know what would have really won me over? If she'd compared this attention to her facial expressions with the attention also absurdly paid to the facial expressions of Al Franken by wingnut shit-stirrers.
But that would never happen. Not only because -- to use a phrase traditionally employed by gomers -- it doesn't fit the narrative, but because it would require Palin to show sympathy for someone other than herself.
And I've never seen her do that.
She does defend her kids, but only when she fantasizes that they've been attacked by the media -- which isn't really a sign of interest in their welfare, but of an interest in the exploitive possibilities of one's own family that would have embarrassed Richard "Checkers" Nixon.
In other people's families, she's less interested...
He's got more (and head over for his links). But yeah, Palin is hardly pushing for substance in the political discourse, and never has. She hides behind her Facebook screeds (some of them surely ghost-written), allowing her to throw crap at others, make news and rarely answer questions from a reporter or citizen. It's the classic right-wing model, perfected by Ann Coulter – seek credit for saying something "provocative," but refuse any accountability for what you say. Palin lives for the cheap political attack herself, and loves media attention, even if – hell, especially - when it's negative (from a non-Fox News source, that is).
While the Homer incident was trivial in the grand scheme, Palin's rebuttal remains unconvincing. Hey, who are you going to believe, her or your lying eyes? She comes off as pretty snide and obnoxious in the video. It's far down the list of reasons not to vote for her, but it smacks of the same "mean girl" persona many female writers identified in Palin back during the 2008 presidential campaign. After Gustafson says she's a teacher, Palin seems to be playing for the audience, mostly her daughter, something along the lines of "Figures" or "Oh, we all know what commie liberals those teachers are!" There are a few different interpretations of her reaction (read the post and comments here, for example), but it sure looks like Palin is disparaging teachers as a general group and/or Gustafson personally. While I have no doubt that Palin dislikes teachers' unions - a lamentably common conservative position, and one cited by some of Palin's defenders on this - she doesn't mention them during the incident, nor in her Facebook post. (By the way, did you know who's in teachers' unions? Teachers.) Palin mentioning the teachers in her family in her Facebook post isn't an exoneration; it's further condemnation, because she should know better.
Indeed, the entire GOP should know better. Earlier this month, House minority leader John Boehner attacked the bill to help states keep teachers, police officers and firefighters employed, because he claimed it was "a pay-off to union bosses and liberal special interests." Republican opposition was near-unanimous. The bill finally passed, and as Steve Benen points out, it was both "good policy and good politics" – but Benen also notes that now some Republicans are charging that it was some grand Democratic Party-schoolteacher conspiracy. Seriously. It's become increasingly common to see the Republican Party run against the middle class, which amounts to horrible policies and shouldn't be good politics, but that's the reality. Arnold Schwarzenegger has attacked teachers, nurses and firefighters out here in California, and George Will and other conservatives have attacked teachers (as well as teachers' unions) for decades now. (On a related note, I agree with Digby that this article is one of the stupidest I've ever read.) In any case, it's predictable rather than implausible that a conservative, especially one with Palin's anti-intellectual shtick (and history of bullying librarians), would attack teachers in some fashion.
Phase Three: Right-Wing Bloggers are Go!
Here's where it gets interesting (if both odd and familiar) for me. If you check out memeorandum, the initial incident got a surprising amount of coverage – but then things just kept on rolling. Right-wingers sought to defend Palin, which is fine, but those defenses became increasingly nutty. Palin's fans are pretty zealous, and it's a right-wing blogger standard that their "citizen journalism" actually means "mobilizing to slander innocent people who don’t share your political views." (The right-wing crusade against Graeme Frost is still the nadir.) Sure enough, right-wing bloggers quickly set out to dig up dirt on Gustafson.
A few outlets, including Yahoo, uncritically passed on right-wing attacks against Gustafson. The three big attacks were that Gustafson wasn't really a teacher, that she confronted Palin as a stunt for a local radio show, and that she was a singer in a drag queen band. (Follow the links at the bottom of the Yahoo post.)
I happened to see the Yahoo piece, and was mildly curious about how they'd cover the incident. I followed their links, and saw that one of bloggers attacking Gustafson was Jim Hoft, a.k.a. GatewayPundit. He claimed the teacher that Sarah Palin mocked wasn't really a teacher. My first reaction was, "So what? That doesn't change that Palin mocked the teaching profession." My second reaction - knowing Hoft's track record on accuracy about, well, anything - was "I wonder how long it will take for Hoft to be disproven?"
Guess what's coming next, kids?
Phase Five: Reality-Based Bloggers Debunk the "Scandal"
Jim Hoft's post title at First Things blared, "THAT WAS NO TEACHER… Unhinged Leftist Who Confronted Palin Is a Singer in a Drag Queen Band (Photo)." Oh, he had the goods, all right:
The leftists were outraged that Sarah Palin had the nerve to confront this angry “teacher.” Teachers should be respected.
It’s just too bad she’s not a teacher. Kathleen Gustafson is a singer in a drag queen band.
(HOMER TRIBUNE/Randi Somers) – Director Kathleen Gustafson (left) steps in to provide harmony as Hedwig (Atz Lee Kilcher) polishes up his performance at Pier One on Aug. 28.
Kathleen Guftafson is not a teacher. She’s a theater tech… And a liar.
You just can’t make this stuff up.
Most of Hoft's links went to a post with running updates by conservative blogger Macsmind –this being the key one:
UPDATE: Here’s a story about her singing abilities with a drag-queen band. Whoohoo!
That's where Hoft got the photo. The thing is, if you bother to, y'know, actually read the linked story, it's a about a one-man show/musical with a cult following called Hedwig and the Angry Inch, which was made into a 2001 film. So Gustafson isn't a singer in a drag queen band (not that there's anything wrong with that), and teaching theater tech is, um, teaching. Obviously the queer stuff gets them all excited, but Hoft, Macsmind and other conservative bloggers who pushed these charges were inaccurate, whether through malice, ineptitude or some mix of both.
Still, even if they were accurate – so what? How would any of it exonerate Palin? Even if Gustafson wasn't a teacher, Palin still approached her, was still snide to her, and still disparaged teachers. The same holds true even if Gustafson does some local radio show. I don't think most people are dumb enough to think that every Alaskan adores Palin, who was widely criticized over quitting the governorship, or that every Alaskan hates her, either. So why attack Gustafson? Because some people - in the supposedly liberal media, who conservatives despise anyway - thought the incident made Palin look bad? The facts remain that while the conservative base adores Palin, she's extremely unpopular with Americans as a whole - and mostly, the more they've seen of her, the less they like her. This incident isn't liable to change her ratings much either way. This was just another right-wing smear job, attempted as a distraction – and an unsuccessful, clumsy one at that.
Er, it appears she is directing a production of Hedwig and the Angry Inch. As one commenter at the theocon First Things notes:
Ahem – “Theater Tech” is the name of the class. It teaches highschoolers how to create sets, lighting plans, build props, etc. Her collegue Amy Christenson isn’t a “Music” and Mark Robinson isn’t a “Choir” all by himself. The word that follows their names is most likely the name of the class they teach.
And she’s not a singer in a Drag Queen band, she’s obviously directing the stage play “Hedwig and the Angry Inch.” If she was in the Sound of Music, would you claim she was an Austrian au pair?
There's more:
The…ahhhh…”drag queen” who is actually the character Hedwig, the star of the play, is Atz Lee Kilcher. We long-time Alaskans know him as one of the musical Kilcher clan whom I watched perform when they were kids. You would know him as Jewel’s brother.
Hoft did eventually post an update, though, linking one of Sullivan's posts:
UPDATE: The Palin-haters now claim that “theater tech” is the name of some class they teach in Alaska. Sure it is… Keep spinning libs.
Wow. Just – read that one again. Wow. I sorta envision Hoft, cursed and foiled again, spitting that out hatefully, vowing revenge and disappearing in a cloud of smoke.
Here's the thing. The original incident was pretty minor. You can think Palin's generally a swell person and was the best governor ever, but yeah, she was snide to a citizen and disparaged teachers. It ain't the end of the world, but neither of those moves was surprising. I'd think most Palin devotees would just say, "That Homer woman Palin was talking to had it coming!" and be done with it.
But no, the right-wing smear machine cranked up as usual, and true to form, came up with nothing of substance. Moreover, Hoft and the faithful are so rabidly partisan, so fervent in their defense of the divine Sarah, they're unwilling to acknowledge even basic facts, and refuse to accurately represent the articles they themselves link. They're just denying reality. That's what amazes me (and why I've written this looong post). They're prepared to go to the wall over this?!? I mean, come on, Jim Hoft is really going to claim that the state of Alaska doesn't have a class on theater tech and that teaching it isn't really teaching? Is that supposed to convince anybody who isn't on his side already, not to mention a complete zealot or hack?
At this point, I almost have to believe that Jim Hoft is pulling our legs, because I find it hard to believe that even he is this dim. Even given conservative hostility toward the arts, and the typical dynamics of right-wing, knee-jerk smear campaigns (here in defense of one of the most vapid politicians ever to grace the American political stage), it's pretty bad. And, ahem, as a former theater teacher, occasional director and techie, and vagabond thespian (it's legal now in California), I feel compelled to respond.
Hey, Jim Hoft, did you know? Theater is actually one of several art forms that's been central to Western civilization for over two and half millennia. That's not all! Many high schools and colleges teach classes about it! Theater is so popular, in fact, that it breaks into other classrooms - why, you can find students reading plays by that Shakespeare fellow in English classes! Not only that, some students put on school plays, which gets 'em some culture, and provides many the climatic scene in one of those motion picture thingies (another one of the arts) like Dead Poets Society or Love, Actually. And – shockingly enough – some classes teach students how to put on those plays! It turns out that microphones, speakers and lights don't magically work all on their own. Granted, it does take more effort to put on a real play than spewing inaccurate, intolerant bullshit constantly - but we find it's worth it.
Phase Seven: More Flailing, More Mocking
The nutty defenses of Palin didn't stop there. Over at Michelle Malkin's site, Doug Powers also claimed that "theater tech" meant Gustafson was lying about being a teacher – and again, mysteriously, why this would affect the initial criticism of Palin has never been explained. Powers continued:
When Palin asked Gustafson what she did for a living, and she said she was a teacher, that’s where eyeroll-gate started.
Oh, I don’t know, maybe Sarah somehow knew that Gustafson is also the director/singer in a drag queen band, that it was possibly a radio stunt or that Gustafson is (or at least was) president of the Kachemak Bay Family Planning Clinic — you know how the pro-abortion folks love Sarah.
Uh, how did Palin know any of this? Her awesome psychic powers? It's interesting that Powers is conceding the reaction, but come on, is this remotely plausible? Not to mention, Palin "somehow knew" Gustafson wasn't a teacher and was a singer in a drag queen band - when neither of these is true? It's like George Bush's all-knowing "gut," I guess. Hey, if Powers wants to argue that what makes Sarah Palin special is that she just somehow knows things that aren't true, I'm going to agree with him.
At least one other conservative blogger, Devonia Smith, took a similar tact. After repeating Hoft's charges about Gustafson not being a real teacher and a singer in a drag queen band, she wrote:
Although the liberal opinion seems to be that Sarah appeared to roll her eyes because the protester was a teacher; conservatives are certain that the knowing look exchanged with her family was because Sarah never believed for a minute the protester was a teacher. That Sarah Palin, she's a smart lady - and she was right to suspect that the "teacher" was not your ordinary classroom teacher.
Uh, okay then. Her "Mama Grizzly Sense" was tingling? (The same one that steered her brilliantly through the Couric and Gibson interviews, and so many other debacles, perhaps?) Funny though, Palin herself denied or downplayed that she rolled her eyes, but Smith also concedes this. I'm also guessing Smith's idea of "ordinary" classroom teachers neither teach theater nor dislike Sarah Palin, because come on, who's ever heard of such things? And again, Palin somehow knew or 'suspected' things that a) weren't true and b) wouldn't exonerate her anyway? It's really just a cheerleading "I like Sarah Palin" post (Smith seems to have many of those).
To recap, Palin denied or downplayed her facial reactions. Most right-wing bloggers seem to have abandoned that strategy. Instead, some conservative bloggers claimed Palin was exonerated because... Gustafson was a horrible person somehow, while others claimed Palin was exonerated because... Palin has Sherlock Holmes deductive powers or psychic abilities or something - that furthermore told her things that weren't true. Again, I think just saying "Screw you, liberals!" would be more honest than these elaborate, befuddled machinations.
Meanwhile, if you're more of a mind to mock Palin, here's Kristen Schaal on The Daily Show, some liberal mama grizzlies, and Jacob Weisberg on the qualities that make Sarah Palin special: "Palin's exuberant incoherence testifies to an unusually wide gulf between confidence and ability."
This was a pretty silly non-scandal. It's nothing compared to Breitbart's smear campaign against Shirley Sherrod, or the current loathsome attacks on the "Ground Zero Mosque," which would actually be a Muslim community center with a prayer room, located two long city blocks away (and out of sight) from Ground Zero. But many non-scandals seem to follow this basic pattern.
And surely we can all get along. Remember, implicit in most conservative defenses of Palin, including her own, was the notion that disparaging teachers was bad. That's progress, in a way. So I guess at least we all agree that teachers are wonderful, and we can hug, share a beer or two, and support our local arts scene by buying a ticket to the summer community theater show. Hey, maybe they'll be performing this little number:
Kwahng-Yi on guitar, ladies and gentlemen.
(Edited the last section for clarity. A late night.)
For those of you keeping track at home, in the right-wing world view, investigative reporting on a public figure who's right-wing is stalking, while viciously attacking a 12-year accident victim is the Lord's Own Work.
In other words, as always, for movement conservatives, their key "principle" is that they they are always good and in the right, and their perceived foes are always evil and in the wrong. Reality, facts, consistency and honesty simply don't matter. Add in spite, and rituals of tribal identity asserting both their superiority and victimhood, and that about sums up the entire movement.
