Digby issues one of the tackiest (and dumbest) hit jobs in her blurgh's sordid and incoherent history. Digby is a dick.
History: Ron Paul issues an unequivocal statement of support for the rights of Muslims in America. Not only that, but he uses the opportunity to roundly condemn Barack Obama's America's War Against Islam. Naturally this offends La Digs, because Paul catches liberals in the sweep of his condemnation. Liberals, you may recall, currently control the legislative and executive branches of our government, and they are directing Barack Obama's America's War Against Islam.
She is outraged, outraged that Paul's J'accuse contained some general economic prescriptions with which she disagrees. Oh. Um. Wait. IT DIDN'T. Dear Digby: do not imply things that can be disproven by following the links that you yourself provide. She says in effect that because Paul has elsewhere and otherwise said things about economic matters that she finds objectionable, ergo his strong statement in support of religious liberty and the rights of private citizens to conduct their own private business on their own private property as they see fit are to be discarded, are of suspect origin and motive. She tars him with the views of his adult son--"his boy"--which is more than mildly amusing since she was just bitching about some or other preacherman claiming that Obama was Muslim by bloodline. How dare they!? Lady, you are a fucking hack.
Paul says that the angry sentiments surrounding the Islamic center are being stirred up by all sides in order to distract from the ongoing theft of wealth and property for the purpose of making a few very rich people even richer. He's right. Digby, a tribalist, wishes to cast this issue once again as nobel Progressives defending religious liberty against the evil, yokel xenophobes of the right:
And anyway, as Greenwald points out today, this is a real issue whether we want it to be or not and it speaks to some very dangerous and important cross currents in American political life. It's not a distraction.Oh, bullshit. Total and utter. Can I just emphasize for the ten millionth time that it is not a conservative government that is currently waging war against Islam. It is not a tea-party protest that is bombing Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and who knows where else. It is not a conservative government that is trying a child soldier for war crimes in a secret trial. Ad infinitum. The popular sentiments shouted at "Ground Zero" are uncomfortable, but they aren't killing Muslims; they are, however, distracting everyone from the bankrupt American military project of killing Muslims. Their superficial anger at Islam is insignificant compared to Barack Obama's real and actual policies toward Islam, which is to bomb the living shit out of it every day.
On a more minor note, Digby doesn't seem to have any idea what a neoconservative is. She seems to believe that neoconservatives are advocates of laissez-faire classical liberalism when the exact opposite is the case. Neoconservatives are social moderates and social democrats on matters cultural and economic. Most of them started out as "liberals". That they became influential in the conservative government of George W. Bush, and that the policies of that supposedly conservative government were then adopted and expanded by the subsequent liberal administration, ought to tell you something about the nature of party divisions within the decision-making echelons of the American State. If, that is, you're not an idiot.
80 comments:
Yes, but, but, Ron Paul is in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act! With a crazy stance like that, he'll never hold an office higher than, say, President of the United States.
That's your name, dude!
Been listening to Sibel Edmunds podcasts, they are very good, highly recommended.
Hey 11:13 - link?
Even when they say something I agree with, my political enemies must be doing so for nefarious reasons.
I keep making the point that if a nation is in a war long enough, sometimes people will come to believe it. The normal human attitude towards enemies is not all peace and love and turn-the-other-cheeky. It is kill 'em all, women and children too, bomb 'em, torture 'em, make them hurt. In WWII, for example, Americans hated Japanese so intensely they were making trophies out of dead Japanese within a year of Pearl Harbor. Can you imagine the brouhaha if someone presented President Obama with a letter-opener made from the arm-bone of a dead Muslim?
What's amazing to me about the Ground Zero Mosque protests is not that they are happening, but that it is only now, after 9 years of war, that a critical mass of our proles are starting to think of Muslims as the enemy. I think we can thank George Bush for that. Obama is saying all the same "religion of peace" stuff, but proles don't believe it coming from a secret Muslim.
bibbidybobbidyboo!
I worked in a DC think tank!
I use a picture of Howard Beale!
bibbidybobbidyboo!
Ron Paul is SKAY-UH-WEEEE!
bibbidybobbidyboo!
PS to IOZ, answering your request to 11:13 nonny:
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2010/08/20/podcast-show-31/
So if the tea party rides this wave of anti-muslim frothing into office, will the wars against muslims stop? Or will we be bombing Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, India, and France?
And the best I can say in Digby's defense is that Dday is a bigger hack. Or is it Tristero, I forget. One of them's just terrible.
Remember the good old days, when they served up missing white college girls as distractions? And what ever happened to the Balloon Boy? We were promised a reality show, dammit!
dude, google search. I use itunes but Edmunds blog/site is called boiling frogs.
So Digby is still not aware at this stage of the game that Obama is either a neocon, a paid stooge, or at best just a placeholder/fall guy until the shadow govt gets a better stooge in charge? Perhaps some combination of all of these things.
I agree with just about everything you have said about Digby; however I don't agree that the Muslim Cultural Center is ONLY a distraction. It definitely functions as such, but it also seems very much in line with a trend in this country and much of Europe to demonize Muslims. Muslims attempting to build mosques and community centers are being harassed all over the country now. It seems to me that as well as distracting people from important bread and butter issues, these campaigns are designed to increase the level of public consent for the government's anti-Muslim wars.
As with the wars, this anti-Muslim campaign is a bipartisan affair. On the right you have the nutjobs whipping up racist hysteria complemented by Democrats like David Paterson and Howard Dean, seeking a 'compromise' with the Park 51 developers to reduce tensions.
@12:41 - the complement to the rhetorical anti-Muslim crusade isn't Howard fucking Dean. It's Barack Obama, who is conducting a war on Islam. See Leonard's comment above for more details. Void where prohibted.
Mike: The point is that the bipartisan "anti-Muslim" campaign is superficial because it is merely the effect of the U.S. war against Muslims, not its cause. The U.S. routinely kills Muslims not out of racism, but out of imperialist geopolitical interests. The resulting racism of the populace is a useful byproduct.
The "mosque debate" is a distraction because it has nothing to do with what's actually fueling the racism, the irony being that those now supporting the "ground zero mosque" also support the administration whose policies are fueling the racism.
IOZ-
At this point you have established beyond doubt Digby's hackery.
You are obviously intelligent and a fine writer as well, so why do you waste your time reading and reacting to the likes of Digby, Yglesias, etc.? They are nobodies, both in real life and online. Their influence on politics is nil. Those that are n their sway are deaf to your broadsides (btw, did you ever wonder about the people that hang out in the comments sections at Digby's blog, or Atrios'? What the fuck is wrong with those people?) Back to my point: why bother?
@12:41 - the complement to the rhetorical anti-Muslim crusade isn't Howard fucking Dean. It's Barack Obama, who is conducting a war on Islam. See Leonard's comment above for more details. Void where prohibted.
We don't fundamentally disagree. You don't have to convince me about Obama. But his crusade is increasingly unpopular. The domestic stigmatizing of Muslims lubricates the war-making. Howard Dean is the complement to the haters in this particular campaign was all I was saying.
What? Haven't you read Diggy's sneering little screed on uncool Tea Partiers vs Kewl Kid Pwogwessives? Hilarity!
Mike: The point is that the bipartisan "anti-Muslim" campaign is superficial because it is merely the effect of the U.S. war against Muslims, not its cause.
This suggests that what is obviously a controversy concocted by operatives is somehow emerging organically from the public as a result of the wars. The problem with that theory is that support for the domestic anti-Muslim crusade is much higher than support for the wars.
It also seems to me that the original assertion, that the Mosque controversy is a 'distraction' is at odds with the idea that it is the natural, human by-product of the wars. It also seems to be in conflict with the 'racism is the invention of the state' claim made a few days back.
Scratch that last comment about 'racism is the invention of the state' Not thought through and wrong.
support for the domestic anti-Muslim crusade
'public opinion' is fake, Mike. if that's what you're getting at.
Mike: The 'operative concoction' of racism is of course intentional (you're the one who added the 'emerging organically' qualifier), but a byproduct in the sense that it's secondary to, or resulting from, the overall war effort.
(you're the one who added the 'emerging organically' qualifier)
Actually, no. I was paraphrasing the IOZ-endorsed Leonard post and anonymous 1.06 who said the controversy is the 'effect' of the wars.
Our positions are clear:
IOZ and pals, depending on their moods think the Mosque 'controversy' is either a deliberate distraction or the inevitable effect of the wars.
I think it's both a distraction and an attempt to gin up flagging support for the wars and also, probably, support for Israel, since there is clearly Zionist involvement in this.
Don't care to enter a debate on the validity of public opinion polls.
it's a complicated case, Mike.
Lotta ins, lotta outs
there's a shrill, shrewish, angrily earnest and affected voice i hear in my head when i read this.
it's what i imagine oberlin sounds like.
lotta strands in ole duder's head.
I wouldn't say it's inevitable -- after all, it was evitable for years. I do think it is an effect of the war. But that does not exclude the "it was manufactured" thesis; human events are complex. Proles are proles, not intellectuals. They do not think up or spread new ideas, but neither are they particularly stupid. They selectively adopt ideas proffered by intellectuals according to their own view of things. "Ground Zero Mosque" resonates; "Park51", even though it seems to be the thing's official name and is endorsed by wikipedia does not resonate.
As for it being a distraction, I find the notion reeks of condescension. Maybe proles shouldn't care about what they care about -- but, they do. Given that they care about this issue, I see no way in which it is a distraction. No, this is a real issue in a way that, say, the latest unnamed bailout bill isn't. Say what you will about its evitability, the West's confrontation with Islam is not a minor thing. Precisely how we fly the plane of state into the mountain of debt is.
@Leonard: To your first comment — I've got plenty of friends/family/acquaintances among the proles, and it's pretty fucking far from "just now" that a significant mass of them are coming to think of Muslims as the enemy. They've been willing to think of Muslims as the enemy for years, champing at the bit even to get the party started; had 9/11 not primed the pump, World Islam was still the available and ready-made successor to the shuffled-off Soviet Union in popular end-times/American triumphalist mythology.
What there hasn't been till now, because it hasn't been useful till now, is an organized, mainstreamed movement of Muslim-hating. Leave Digby's tribalism, her political naivete, out of it: there is obviously a segment of the ownership that does, indeed, see significance for its interests in this readily deployable set of lumpen hatreds. Pace IOZ, it isn't "all sides" that are taking advantage. Doesn't mean Obama's not a murderer, doesn't mean he's not basically a duskier George Bush; but there's still some not entirely marginal value, I think, in not having to live in an America where Tea Party-style mobs are calling (are being deployed in order to call) most of the shots.
Nothing like not entirely marginal value to cheer one up. Party on!
not having to live in an America where Tea Party-style mobs are calling (are being deployed in order to call) most of the shots.
You incorrectly assume that policy decisions are made according to the opinions of voters. Bush didn't give much of substance to his 'base' of voters in the same way that Obama hasn't delivered much to his. U.S. foreign policy will continue to be primarily fashioned according to what elites think will make the nation most powerful, not according to the whims of prole racism, etc.
@Anonymous 4:51 - "U.S. foreign policy will continue to be primarily fashioned according to what elites think will make the nation most powerful"
I think it's more like they'll make foreign policy decisions based on what will make them look cooler to their fellow neck-stepper-onners. These "elites" are only elite in the sense that their unfortunate, short sighted and totally personal decisions of total stupidity result in putting in motion enormous catastrophes. When you or I fuck up, someone doesn't get seconds. When they fuck up, missiles are launched and a family killed. The "elites" are wrapped in bubble wrap made of sycophants and are never made to feel the consequences of their decisions except in maybe a cold shoulder at a fundraising event or a half-assed op-ed that disagrees with their tactics, which they read while eating caviar omelets.
@Mike 2:49
What nazitroll, A. Schicklgruber-fetish blogs are all down?!?
WTF, can't a man enjoy an exchange on social and kultur issues of Empyre's Central Asia follies without running into a retard shouting "JOOOOOZ!"?!?
Capt'n Obvious
Yes it is a 'conservative' government just not a fully Republican one.
If you want to get on IOZ's shit-list, just go ahead and diss Ron Paul. Just go ahead and do it, motherfuckers.
Anyway, speaking of digby hackery, you saw this Grayson post, right? Anarchists!!!
What there hasn't been till now, because it hasn't been useful till now, is an organized, mainstreamed movement of Muslim-hating.
Yeah, right, except for the government of the United States of America and its friend, the Armed Forces. To be fair, the American state doesn't actually hate Muslims. It just finds it necessary to kill a whole lot of them.
Well it's okay to kill Muslims if you're not guilty of of actually hating them, the hating rather than the killing being the offensive part.
I think the best thing about Digby is that you could point out to her that she's literally accusing people of thoughtcrime and she would look at you with big dumb cow eyes and say no, no, that's what conservatives do.
Once again, IOZ, you are so angry (about everything all at once, I guess) that you are incoherent. Hard to say whether I might agree with you or not.
there's still some not entirely marginal value, I think, in not having to live in an America where Tea Party-style mobs are calling (are being deployed in order to call) most of the shots.
Mob rule is a terrible thing. But there is no chance of it happening here outside of inner cities. Non-hyphenated-Americans are more sheepish now than they have ever been, and they will be even more tomorrow. 20 cops could shut down those silly mosque protests by politely demanding that the protest disperse. The right has no leadership to organize a fight.
Yes, you can still fire up the proles into a moderately convincing simulacrum of a mob with enough heat and oxygen applied, but getting fires started now is nearly impossible compared to the old crazy America. C02 is pervasive, and the wood is punk.
This mosque thing will pass, going down as another ignominious defeat for the right, with all participants scorned and reviled by all goodthinkers. The proles are crazy to invest it with such energy -- but no, not really. Not crazy: they just know this thing is counting coup on them, they can't accept that passively, and they are ignorant and/or stupid enough to think that their numbers matter in "democracy". The proles will never understand that Muslims are allies of the ruling class. They will always fall for the mirage of democracy and end up being sold out yet again. The future is John McCain being elected by, and betraying conservatives, forever.
The blue IV line is deeply embedded, ducktaped in, and the lumpenvoter likes it.
IOZ is so cool.
Americans must be distracted during the looting because um, they may cancel their cable subscriptions. Or something. I vote that it's being done for the LULZ and/or someone is winning a bet. You have to admit it's all pretty entertaining.
That is all well and good, but I still find teabaggers to be distateful.
"Mob rule is a terrible thing. But there is no chance of it happening here outside of inner cities."
fuck you
Leonard is outpacing Inky in the "who's more afraid of urban negros" footrace.
Actually, Captain, I think that Leonard was paying the, "urban negros" a compliment, even if unintentionally so.
Shorter short-lived nonny rejoinder:
IOZ you are angry/too cool for school/a Paulbot/whaddaboutTparties.
Leonard said:
"Non-hyphenated-Americans are more sheepish now than they have ever been, and they will be even more tomorrow. 20 cops could shut down those silly mosque protests by politely demanding that the protest disperse. The right has no leadership to organize a fight."
True, but when the hell do you think the cops would actually do such a thing? Kinda like how in Weimar the Freikorps were given a fairly free hand, as it was ultimately in the interests of the powers-that-be....
Damn, they actually deleted my comment on that Hullabaloo thing.
These fucking amateurs.
I was banned sometime in the spring of 2009 by digby. I said nothing outlandish or personal just that her blog should cut the crap with the Sarah Palin bullshit day after day as it was a completely transparent distraction.
btw/ I spent way more time than I should have reading comments at reason.com. Good fucking grief. Scratch a Rand find a Rove.
Ethan:
From the Grayson post:
"I don't know why they want anarchy. In fact, they don’t know, either. Even they don't know what kind of inner darkness causes them to seek wars without end, to burn the planet, to welcome poverty for so many, to leave the old and the sick helpless, to cheer oil in the Gulf. I've spoken to enough of them to be able to tell you that they themselves don’t know why."
Anarchists? I thought he was talking about Democrats.
Nony, the cops would not do such a thing, because they won't have to, because the law-abiding whites who are the tea party and the mosque protests won't get violent. Too much blue pill. So your analogy to the freikorps fails: if those protests got violent, you'd see the police shut them down. If the tea party adopts violence, or even condones it by any member, it will be crucified in the press, marginalized, and cease to be. It won't.
Spaulding, recognizing that blacks have a different culture from proles, and that the ruling class despises one group but not the other, and treats them differently -- that is not about fearing blacks. It's about grasping the obvious when it is conveniently in front of one's nose. Blacks might get mob rule because they would be allowed to by the ruling class, who are, as you may have noticed, not very black. Whites could not, because a prole mob is dangerous to progressive rule and would be shut down.
IOZ has it about right: generally I meant it critically, but there is also something of a compliment there. It's a compliment in the sense of recognizing that blacks have obtained a bit of political power within the system. It's not a compliment when you think about how, namely, that they are a client class of progressives, and at least IMO are getting royally screwed in the bargain. They give progressives power and get... what? Drugs, crime, imprisonment, unemployment, replaced in the labor force by Mexicans... but, but... affirmative action! R-E-S-P-E-C-T! But hey, that's just my opinion, whereas the power is real. So you can see it IOZ's way if you like.
When it's White people in NYC protesting a mosque, the powers that be allow it to happen. It's a narrative they want to happen, a distraction they want people to see. The more people talking about it, the better.
When it's brown people protesting in NYC, the powers that be have the cops beat them down because they don't want that narrative happening, and it never reaches the broadcast news or the cable news.
Where have you gone, Balloon Boy? A nation turns it's lonely eyes to you, woo,woo,woo
I do believe Leonard and Inkberrow come from the same keyboard. I do believe it. I also believe both personae will deny their unity.
If not the same human, at least the same intellectual (sic) fundaments and rhetorical leanings.
I don't think skin color is the relevant factor here. You have one group of people protesting the right of another, marginalized group to build a community center. The ruling class has no dog in that fight.
It's when people (white or brown) protest the government (or governments, in the case of the UN, or the G8, G20, etc.) that you get the cop beatdowns and not much press.
here you go zencomix.
Sometimes the ruling class will silence a story because they have a dog in the fight. I'm sure the US Government's relationship with China had something to do with the beatdown of flag waving Tibetans.
Sometimes the ruling class will fluff a story because they have a dog in the fight. Sometimes the dog is "catapulting the propaganda", sometimes it is merely a distraction.
If the ruling class has no dog in the "Ground Zero Mosque" fight, then why do they keep fluffing the story with opinions and TV time?
replaced in the labor force by Mexicans
How many black people are complaining about not picking crops for below minimum wage?
just when i thought that digby post was the dumbest thing i'd ever read, amanda marcotte finds a way to top it:
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/libertarianism_is_fundamentally_anti_human/
she says libertarians are immoral because they put people ahead of institutions and then uses thomas jefferson to make her point... meaning she implies that the declaration of independence offers some sound refutation of libertarian philosophy.
I'm sure there are certain factions within the establishment who feel they benefit from keeping them anti-moslem fires stoked at all times, and I'm sure the controversy itself is considered useful for various reasons. But I can't imagine that the ruling elite really care whether a muslim community center gets built four blocks from ground zero. That's what I meant by not having a dog in the fight. None of their interests are directly threatened. A bunch of anarchists protesting the G8 summit, or at one of the political conventions, on the other hand, and now we're talking about a direct confrontation with the system and time to start cracking heads.
invoking a "ruling elite" is an anthropromorphization along the lines of saying that the sun moves across the sky because it is being pulled by apollo's chariot.
also, who's to say that the world we inhabit is a creation of these elites as opposed to the exact opposite. in a democratic society it seems just as likely that ruling elites are the shadows that commoners project on the wall for their own entertainment and edification.
Leonard, I'm also thinking of your recent comment (last couple weeks or so?) where you made it clear that the real "criminals" in this country, by your definition, are the ones who commit petty crimes in the inner city. I'm seeing a theme developing here, is what I'm saying.
lulz @ in a democratic society
Captain S and Charles F---
I don't speak for my son Leonard, but it may well be that every example you note is in direct response to IOZ Central Casting's decision to cast African-Americans and Muslims as all-purpose Victims of America (bloody re-peats!).
You don't notice this corollary emphasis because it's long been an article of faith for you and most of your fellow commenters here.
Son? Bah. I'm older than you. Or at least, wiser. I was here first, anyway, and also I capitalize sedately. I do, of course, appreciate your presence here as another skeleton at the feast.
Captain, you were probably thinking of this post, in which I cruelly demonstrated at least passing knowledge of the actual official statistics on crime in America, sadly lacking in most upright progressives. (You, too, can experience the frisson of thoughtcrime if you dare, using official US Government stats here.) Do let me rebut your presumption: criminals are by no means limited to the inner cities. However, as you suggest, there are certainly a disproportionate number of them there! Go see for yourself! Not actually in the inner city, mind you -- that's dangerous and difficult. Via official government statistics.
I think your racism detector is quite oversensitive. It zooms off the chart at the very mention of the word "Negro" or racial differences! Black people are distinguishable from white! The Negro leagues! The old Negro space program! That sort of squeamishness is exactly what I expect, though, given our shared progressive state educations. Racism: evil! Anyone who talks about blacks as a group: evil! (Surely the FBI knows that; I am afraid you'll have to work to discover their racial breakdowns of criminals in the CIUS data.) Well, I had a progressive education too, never fear. The difference between you and I is not our formal education.
"she says libertarians are immoral because they put people ahead of institutions"
She actually says the exact opposite, which is appropriate in the context of the Koch brothers. Other than getting her basic point entirely wrong, though, your criticism is spot on. Well, except for implying that Jefferson's view that governments are a necessary tool for securing our rights isn't contrary to (non-minarchist) libertarianism. However, you did use a colon correctly.
"To be fair, the American state doesn't actually hate Muslims. It just finds it necessary to kill a whole lot of them."
We kill because we love. Remember, this is hurting me almost as much as it hurts you.
zencomix, you have to remember how dangerous Tibetans are. Just ask the Chinese!
Anonymous at 10:18 AM:
There are no Randians at Reason so you can't scratch any to find a Rove.
If you want real Randians and not the Peikoff and Geller perversions of same, go to ARIWATCH.COM (Ayn Rand Institute Under Review).
She's got to feed the monkey, man!
Inner-city crime is on the radar. The crimes that lead to it are not (in the cases in which they are even deemed as such).
And that's cool . . . that's cool.
Davidly, you mean like poor Omar Thornton, right?
"She actually says the exact opposite, which is appropriate in the context of the Koch brothers. Other than getting her basic point entirely wrong, though, your criticism is spot on."
hmm... seems that i transposed the words people and institutions. it probably has something to do with the fact that her argument is one of the dubmest fucking things i've ever read.
Leonard---
Don't get me wrong, I'm not presuming any more than to play Joseph to your Jesus. Jesus was born into flesh, and yet was present at the very Creation at YHWH's right hand, if they had hands.
Your remarks about the pretextual nature of race dialogue in America are spot-on. Simply naming and describing race and race-related culture constitutes "racism" if the usage is disapproved by the mandarins of sensitivity. Meanwhile, NOT naming, describing, and honoring race and race-culture is racist, if the usage is sponsored by the mandarins of sensitivity.
As Attorney General Holder so powerfully asserted, America lacks the courage to engage in a true monologue about race.
"hmm... seems that i transposed the words people and institutions. it probably has something to do with the fact that her argument is one of the dubmest fucking things i've ever read."
Hmm, you do make a compelling counterargument.
DR JOHNSON: I refute it thus.
[SWINGS FOOT AT ROCK, MISSES, TUMBLES OVER BACKWARD]
DR JOHNSON [SUPINE]: Stupid rock.
mds,
come on, dude. you can't possibly be as stupid as you are pretending to be.
are you really going to claim that marcotte is making some kind of coherent logical argument against libertarianism as opposed to a digby-style "they're on the other team so they must be mean and evil" rant?
That had not occurred to us, Dude.
oh right, the Randians at Reason aint pure enough.
"Brandt can't watch or he has to pay a hundred"
Post a Comment