My Photo

« Tested? | Main | Lie Down With Dogs, Get Up With Fleas »

March 01, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515c2369e200e5508d949c8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Denouncing And Rejecting:

Comments

Neither Obama nor Clinton personally favor same-sex marriage (so far), but at least Obama, in favoring total repeal of DOMA, is willing to let states have it if they want it, and refrain from telling states that they need not recognize the validity of same-sex marriages performed in other states. Clinton, by contrast, explicitly supports the federal law declaring that states need not recognize the validity of same-sex marriages performed in another state -- a law that singles out gay and lesbian people and specifically diminishes their rights under the law.

People speaking in tongues are luciferians. Giving up your own body to lucifer to worship Jesus is bad.

The Exclusionary African Church of the Obamasiah wants gays and lesbians? Why?

David: but at least Obama, in favoring total repeal of DOMA, is willing to let states have it if they want it, and refrain from telling states that they need not recognize the validity of same-sex marriages performed in other states.

I wasn't aware of that, and it's the most positive thing I've heard about Obama on LGBT issues.

"...some sort of obligation to denounce (and refuse!)"

Um, denounce and "reject." "Refuse" not only isn't the quote, it doesn't even make any grammatical sense.

Greenwald did a more recent Friday afternoon post on Hagee/McCain, incidentally.

Tangentially, I hit Glenn's link to Altercation, and since when did Alterman start sounding like a religious kook?

It's more than just race, although that plays a role.

Farakhan is, after all, not just black but a Muslim. Therefore, even more validating the FACT that Obama is a Manchurian candidate who will bring the Muslim hordes into power.

And they will all be calling at 3 AM.

"Farakhan is, after all, not just black but a Muslim."

The Nation of Islam isn't exactly synonymous with "being a Muslim." Particularly prior to 1975.

There are some similarities to the debate over how Christian Mormonism is or isn't.

But certainly most Muslims don't agree with the views of the NOI, or regard it as Muslim belief.

For instance:

[...] "The Honorable Elijah Muhammad told us of a giant Mother Plane that is made like the universe, spheres within spheres. White people call them unidentified flying objects. Ezekiel, in the Old Testament, saw a wheel that looked like a cloud by day but a pillar of fire by night. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad said that that wheel was built on the island of Nippon, which is now called Japan, by some of the Original scientists. It took $15 billion in gold at that time to build it. It is made of the toughest steel. America does not yet know the composition of the steel used to make an instrument like it. It is a circular plane, and the Bible says that it never makes turns. Because of its circular nature it can stop and travel in all directions at speeds of thousands of miles per hour. He said there are 1,500 small wheels in this Mother Wheel, which is a half mile by a half mile (800 m by 800 m). This Mother Wheel is like a small human-built planet. Each one of these small planes carry three bombs.
I'm not a Koranic scholar, but I'm reasonably sure this is mentioned neither there, nor in the Hadith. For instance.

:-)

Agreed, but he is perceived as such by the general population. Thus it is still a double scarey thing to have Obama, who just happens to have that threatening middle name, to be supported by Farrakhan.

Needless to say, Hagee comes a cross as a well meaning Christuian who just might have some mildly eccentric views. MAny of which, btw, are shared by more Americans than I would really like to see.

They used Farrakhan against Jesse Jackson too.

It IS about race. It's about associating this 'non-threatening' black man with black men that white America does find scary.

Farrakhan was scary to Americans before the word Muslim was openly associated with terrorism. He was a 'black militant.'

Even before this flap with Russert, I had to have long talks with Jewish people when I was canvassing for Obama, assuring them that I too was Jewish and proud of it and felt extremely confident that Obama was not anti-Semitic and not about to let Muslim extremists blow Israel off the map.

But I must say that they were far more willing to listen to me than Russert was to listen to Obama.

Does Hillary Clinton have to reject AND denounce Rupert Murdoch, who's made significant donations to her campaign?

I think Glenn Greenwald is right: it's about race.

Sorry but that is a little ironic coming from the left-o-spheres biggest Ron Paul supporter.

Sorry but that is a little ironic coming from the left-o-spheres biggest Ron Paul supporter.

Sorry, OCSteve, your link is broken: it doesn't go to whatever Glenn Greenwald article in support of Ron Paul that you meant to link to, but to a rather incoherent New Republic article that seems to assert only that Greenwald failed to denounce Ron Paul.

Sorry but that is a little ironic coming from the left-o-spheres biggest Ron Paul supporter.

Supporter? How so?

OCSteve,
I don't pretend to understand it, but there is something going on with Kirchik, Greenwald (got to the 3rd para), Peretz and Alterman and who knows what else. Gary's 5:46 link goes to Alterman and the thing below what Gary points out seems to suggest that this fight has got a lot axes grinding, so I'd hesitate to cite either side about the other unless I was very sure. ymmv of course.

"Sorry but that is a little ironic coming from the left-o-spheres biggest Ron Paul supporter."

Oh, good lord, Jamie Kirchick? I'm sorry, but the guy has no credibility on anything other than linking to pure fact.

Greenwald isn't a "Ron Paul supporter," as anyone who reads him knows. The claim is idiotic. It's as accurate as claiming that Obama is antisemitic.

Not to mention that even if Kirchick wasn't an empty vessel for Marty Peretz -- who also is a bigot and moron, but, hey, of many decades standing! -- tu quoque is hardly an argument -- setting aside that it's utter nonsense, anyway, that is.

OCSteve, that you buy into the claim the Glenn Greenwald is any kind of Ron Paul supporter at all, well, jeez, man, just because someone says it doesn't mean it's true.

Even setting aside that if Jamie Kirchick says something, it's most likely not true.

Comparing Ron Paul's record on civil liberties to Harry Reids, and criticizing Harry Reid's record by comparison, does not turn someone into a supporter of Ron Paul for President, or any kind of "supporter." Analyzing and comparing two sets of views does not make someone a "supporter" of one of the people whose views are compared.

"...but to a rather incoherent New Republic article...."

Actually, "but to a rather incoherent post on one of The New Republic's several blogs, The Plank...."

McCain and the Russerts of the media world have put Obama in his place. they've made him denounce and reject, but they will denounce and refuse that McCain do the same. it's a bitch-slap.

Greenwald has on several occasions insisted that he is not a Pauliac but that does not deter commenters on his blog (and outsiders) from taking it as a given that saying anything positive about Paul means being an ardent supporter of his.

Here is the relevant passage on gay marriage from Obama's letter to the LGBT community:

As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not
discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.

I think there is a substantial difference between opposing gay marriage and personally favoring civil unions. As this passage makes clear (and as David noted above), Obama favors civil unions but does not want to oppose states that opt for civil marriage instead. Speaking as someone who supports gay marriage, I believe that this is a fair and reasonable position.


Supporter? How so?

that you buy into the claim the Glenn Greenwald is any kind of Ron Paul supporter at all, well, jeez, man, just because someone says it doesn't mean it's true.

seems to suggest that this fight has got a lot axes grinding

Fine – so he was not a supporter. He just wrote tens of thousands of words supporting him and/or defending him. I can’t get all the links through the spam filter but they are all in that google search.


Regardless of how much attention the media pays, the explosion of support for the Paul campaign yesterday is much more than a one-time event. The Paul campaign is now a bona fide phenomenon of real significance, and it is difficult to see this as anything other than a very positive development.

While Barack Obama toys with the rhetoric of challenging conventional wisdom, Paul's campaign -- for better or worse -- actually does so, and does so in an extremely serious, thoughtful and coherent way.

Regardless of one's ideology, there is simply no denying certain attributes of Paul's campaign which are highly laudable. There have been few serious campaigns that are more substantive -- just purely focused on analyzing and solving the most vital political issues. There have been few candidates who more steadfastly avoid superficial gimmicks, cynical stunts, and manipulative tactics. There have been few candidates who espouse a more coherent, thoughtful, consistent ideology of politics, grounded in genuine convictions and crystal clear political values.

Perhaps most importantly, Paul is the only serious candidate aggressively challenging America's addiction to ruling the world through superior military force and acting as an empire -- not by contesting specific policies (such as the Iraq War) but by calling into question the unexamined root premises of these policies, the ideology that is defining our role in the world. By itself, the ability of Paul's campaign to compel a desperately needed debate over the devastation which America's imperial rule wreaks on every level -- economic, moral, security, liberty -- makes his success worth applauding.

The YouTube video which I'm posting below makes, I think, as strong and compelling a case for Paul's candidacy as anything I've seen, and goes a long way towards explaining the passion it is generating.

The most illegitimate argument against Paul is the attempt to tie him to the views of some of his extremist and hateful supporters.


On another note, I wrote in my prior post concerning Paul that I found the efforts (by Neiwert and others) to smear him by linking him to some of his extremist and hate-mongering supporters to be unfair (for reasons I explained here). Neiwert responded and compiled what he thinks is the best evidence to justify this linkage here.
For reasons I'll detail at another time, I found virtually all of that to be unpersuasive, relying almost entirely on lame guilt-by-association arguments that could sink most if not all candidates (the only arguably disturbing evidence in this regard is this 1996 Houston Chronicle article, which Neiwert didn't mention, and the pro-Paul response is here). Everyone can review the evidence -- all of which is quite old and very little of which relies on any of Paul's own statements -- and make up their own minds.


But Ron Paul's candidacy is valuable -- irreplaceably so -- because, other than Kucinich's shell of a presidential campaign, he is the only one raising critical issues that would otherwise be ignored.

Thus, those who think it's vital that those issues be addressed don't really have any viable presidential campaigns to highlight other than Ron Paul's (or, to a much more limited degree, Chris Dodd).

The fact that the mainstream Democratic candidates are unwilling (or perhaps unable) to challenge so many destructive orthodoxies is at least as much of a problem as Ron Paul's abortion views, and -- to use Klein's words -- I find it "strange" and "deeply bizarre" and "deeply misguided" and I'm "astonished" and "disappointed" that those who claim to oppose those orthodoxies are so simultaneously uninterested in, even hostile to, the only real efforts to challenge and undermine them.

The media has a long track record of acting like Dems should be held accountable for things like endorsements, while Repubs get a pass. Thisis just more of the same. I expect that Farrakan will come up once a week throughout the campaign, but the legions of loons in the R party won't get mentioned in the MSM. Unless, as is the case herre, it's Republican politicians who raise the issue.

The moment that struck home with me on the issue of Farrakhan was a black commentator on CNN who said (and I paraphrase) that any black public figure has to denounce Farrakhan repeatedly. It's as though just because they're black they must be in league with each other.

Do all white politicians have to denounce David Duke or white supremacist groups? What do they think of George Wallace? Or, for that matter, Bill O'Reilly? Or all of those white students shooting up their own schools. How about all the excesses of white collar crime? Do they approve?

There are lots of disgusting white people in this country, and the press (mostly white) doesn't assume white public figures are in league with them.

Jeeze, even after I took out all but one link it got caught in the spam-o-nater. Anyway I did respond if someone gets around to freeing my comment.

(And it took me a few tries to get this through so you don’t have to free the duplicates.)

I think that the mistake here is the notion that a candidate has an obligation to evaluate the moral worthiness of every supporter and reject those who do not pass the test. This is an impossible task because there are infinite gradations of moral worthiness. A candidate who accepts the support of a mildly racist person but rejects the support of a blatantly racist person is rightly vulnerable to accusations of insincerity. It's a hopeless situation for which there is no solution.

The better approach, I think, is for candidates to simply ignore whomever supports them and concentrate on the ideas of their candidacy. Were I a candidate who was endorsed by a racist figure, I would answer questions about that support with a shrug of the shoulders and the reply, "It's a free country." Pressed to reject that support, I would add "My candidacy is not about individuals, it's about ideas. I denounce racism in all its forms. Leave the gossip journalism to Rhoda Barrett. Let's talk about what this country needs."

Sorry, hilzoy: but any expectation that "The Media" is going to give a black Presidential candidate - even as capable and "non-threatening" a one as Barack Obama - the same narrative framework in their coverage as a white one is, (sadly) I think, a vain hope. And "Race" (and "Religion" and "Culture") does, unfortunately, lie at the bottom of it. The politically active Religious Right in this country has spent decades constructing a nationwide electoral machine founded on the twin pillars of righteousness and victimology. And the foundation of the latter is an unshakeable and pervasive "Us Vs. Them" mentality. Like it or not, notwithstanding whatever you, or I , or the ObWings commentariat think about Mike Hagee's extremist views: he and his organization are part of the "Us": part of a part of mainstream culture (even if on a fringe). And Louis Farrakhan and the NOI are most definitely the "Them". And even the densest of MSM talking heads will eventually realize that there is more to be gained by criticism of "Their" fringe extremists than "Ours". Especially in a election year with lots and lots of advertising dollars at stake.

"Rhoda Barrett"?

I'm guessing you mean Rona Barrett, but since she's been retired for over twenty years (her last regular tv gig was 1981, actually), and no one under thirty-five is apt to have ever heard of her, it still seems a perhaps suboptimal choice for anyone campaigning this century.

Ooops, John Hagee, obviously....

About Jamie Kirchik: After this fight, I was left with approximately no respect for his intellectual integrity. The only reason I believed what he wrote about Ron Paul was that he posted pdfs of what he found.

I thought Glenn should have said more in response to that. I don't think he's under some sort of obligation to, or anything, but I would have been happier had he done so. That said, the reason I think there was any reason for him to do that was because he had said good things about Paul. Had Paul just said good things about Glenn, I don't think he would have had to bother.

Sorry about the mistaken reference to Rona Barrett; that just goes to show how much attention I've paid to Hollywood gossip. Have Sonny and Cher broken up yet?

cyn2:

I think the phenomemon you refer to is related to the following: more times than I care to think, if a white person is relating a conversation to me that he/she has had with an individual, say, on an elevator, it goes something like this if the individual happens to be black ------

"I was talking to this guy on the elevator the other day about available 401K choices --- he was a black guy -- and he said Vanguard was the low-cost provider.... etc"

The parenthetical "he was a black guy" seems to signify something, probably a generality of some kind, although I will admit some folks maybe want you to know that they have actually talked to a black person. I want to ask, which black guy does the general category you've mentioned refer to, Thomas Sowell or Willie Horton?

Less frequently, the parenthetical "he was a Jewish guy", is inserted, in which case I try to picture which Jewish stereotype the person might be referring to --- Maimonidies or Al Goldstein. As a trick question, I want to suggest Jack Benny, but I'm afraid my friend might say, "No, no, I said Jewish, Benny was a white guy."

Now, if the individual in our little set-up here had been conversing with a white guy on the elevator, no parenthetical referring to a general image is inserted. I am to assume the other person was white and, oddly enough, I think I'm supposed to assume the other person might be Thomas Jefferson, or Mickey Mantle, or Mother Theresa, because somehow I don't think Lester Maddox or Charles Manson is supposed to pop into my head as a possibility.

By the way, Bill O'Reilly's not white, he's Irish. Two can play this game.

Thanks hilzoy!

Obama should just renounce the support of all blacks. Problem solved.

Sorry but that is a little ironic coming from the left-o-spheres biggest Ron Paul supporter.

If that's a clever, ironic take on "guilt by failing to denounce with sufficient vigor" it's very nicely done.

Otherwise, it makes no sense at all.

Kirchick. Not "Kirchik."

(Think "baby chicken," and you'll get it right.)

what's the problem with Greenwald supporting (or at last being encouraged by) Paul ?

the quotes OCS brought us clearly show that he was excited to see that the libertarian spirit was alive and kicking. and that's no surprise, as Greenwald has always been a bit of a libertarian. he's called a lefty primarily because that's the default bucket for anyone who refuses to worship Bush.

what's the big deal?

re Hagee:

see HTTP://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/3/5/105015/2167/

This Christian eschatology which tries to enable the End Days by encouraging and funding the return of all Jews to Israel so that they can be butchered, and the proximity to mostly (me, the open-minded one)Republican politicians ought to tickle my funny bone -- I imagine a gathering of politicians, including now McCain, receiving the endorsement of Monty Python, while behind them John Cleese is doing his funny walk and yelling "Heraus, heraus!" as he herds Jews out a door marked "Passage To The Homeland" to a railway siding where Hagee and company are gently relieving them of their baggage, and whispering "Yes, yes, little mother, voting for Republicans will bring you tax cuts soon, very soon."

... but it doesn't. Because it is monstrous. And I must say that Israeli leaders who join with filth like Hagee are nothing better than kapos.

The Republicans, and some Democrats, and for that matter, black Baptist churches, who believe in this stuff are sick and dangerous.

It always comes down to killing the Jews with these people and they deserve no place in public life, and certainly not tax exemptions.

It is hate speech and since we're violating the Constitution if we censor it, then I guess it might be time for other tactics, guerrilla in nature.

what's the big deal?

Well, Ron Paul's a misogynist git who thinks women are incubators and legislators are more competent than doctors to make medical decisions, but apparently OCSteve is more affronted by the possibility that Ron Paul is racist and Glenn Greenwald hasn't denounced him. OCSteve seems to define "not denouncing" as "being a big supporter", so I'm wondering now whether I need to publish a list of people I officially denounce in order to avoid OCSteve claiming I must be a big supporter of them.

what's the big deal?

The big deal was that Greenwald dug in to defend Paul - to the point of blasting Dave Neiwert - when it was becoming more obvious that there was more to Saint Ron than just some constitution-loving patriot. That Glenn bought into "dredging up the Survival Reports is an evil smear" was enough for me, I've rarely read his blog since then.

but apparently OCSteve is more affronted by the possibility that Ron Paul is racist and Glenn Greenwald hasn't denounced him

i think it's possible to point out irony without being affronted.

it is also possible to witness someone pointing out irony without being affronted.

Jes: OCSteve seems to define "not denouncing" as "being a big supporter"

Biggest supporter on the left that I’m aware of. But OK he was not a supporter – he wrote a lot of words indicating general approval and defending him from charges that he was in bed with racists. Except as it turns out, he was in bed with racists. I don’t believe he has any special responsibility to denounce him now. I just find it ironic that he then turns around and blasts someone else for having questionable supporters, when he repeatedly defended Paul from those very charges.

Yay! Typepad appears to have forgiven me.

cleek: it is also possible to witness someone pointing out irony without being affronted.

Affronted is a good word, though. *tongue in cheek*

OCSteve: But OK he was not a supporter – he wrote a lot of words indicating general approval and defending him from charges that he was in bed with racists.

Your irony would have been a lot clearer had you actually linked to those posts. As it was, I'm afraid I can only call it coppery. ;-)

Yay! Typepad appears to have forgiven me.

Good.

"That Glenn bought into 'dredging up the Survival Reports is an evil smear' was enough for me, I've rarely read his blog since then."

I don't read him religiously, and certainly haven't read every post he's made that's mentioned Paul. I just googled on his posts that mention Paul, though. If you mean this post, I don't see anything either disrespectful of Dave Neiwert, or that seem to be unreasonable claims. Did you have another post in mind?

This post also has a number of positive characterizations of Paul, but nothing that would lead me to see it as supporting a claim that Greenwald is "supporting" Paul, as in "I am for him for president."

Probably there are other Glenn Greenwald posts that might be pointed to "indicating general approval and defending [Ron Paul] from charges that he was in bed with racists." I have no problem believing I've missed them, really. Could we have some pointers, though, please?

Thanks.

"Except as it turns out, he was in bed with racists. I don’t believe he has any special responsibility to denounce him now. I just find it ironic that he then turns around and blasts someone else for having questionable supporters, when he repeatedly defended Paul from those very charges."

Let's stipulate that you're correct that Glenn at some point "defend[ed] [Ron Paul] from [specific] charges that he was in bed with racists" -- I'm not exactly following how that would lead to it being "ironic" if/when Glenn "turns around and blasts someone else for having questionable supporters."

But setting that, too, aside, if we assume that you're correct in the first case, how would that lead to Greenwald being wrong in the second case? And if he's not wrong, wouldn't the fact that he's, um, right about Hagee, be more important than any attached "irony"?

Isn't this just another variant of tu quoque?

Regardless of whether or not Glenn ever made any errors, whether of fact or judgment, in defending Ron Paul -- and we've yet to see actual evidence submitted here on that -- how would that make him wrong on Hagee, and why should that be the first thing to point out, given that leading with tu quoque doesn't actually tend to be useful move for gaining credibility for one's argument?

Your irony would have been a lot clearer had you actually linked to those posts.

Sorry. I did try but Typepad was having none of it. It got all upset over a single link…

Now, if the individual in our little set-up here had been conversing with a white guy on the elevator, no parenthetical referring to a general image is inserted.

JT,

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you.

Actually, my parents do this all the time. Often about people that they genuinely admire or respect. Typically they'll be telling a story about work like "so we have this FOO-BAR specialist at the office that I'm working with on the FRITZ project, and -- this guy, he's a funny white protestant guy -- he says..."; replace "white protestant" with "Jewish" or "black" or "Mennonite" or "crazy evangelical" or "Russian" or "Ukrainian" or "Lebanese" or "Indian".

Maybe they do this because they're immigrants. Or maybe they think ethnicity is interesting or that it livens up the story. Certainly, knowing that some dude is a crazy evangelical who home schools his 8 kids and has lectured my father about how the earth is 4000 years old does tend to make their behavior in the story more comprehensible.

"People who enjoy sausages and respect the law should never watch either being made."

New Orleans was lucfier's judgement on his worshippers. Every year they worship raising the dead like Jesus. The graves there are above ground because of the flooding and there was allof of disease because of the flooding, so it's really okay they worship the dead every year like Jesus' raising by lucifer.

I think the weather used to be God, but he left and that's how luciferians trade. So, when your God judges you, you shouldn't be upset. Yes, Global warming is a trade.

Respect is not the same thing as liking something. I have deep respect for fundamentalist Christians and their Islamic counterparts. Farrakhan is not one of them. Farrakhan is nursing his ethnocentric insecurity. Jeremiah Wright is not one of them either. Neither the Bible nor the Qur’an make a big deal out of race. Obama’s association with Wright speaks poorly of his character.

I respect the guys who understand the ideologies that have been passed down through the ages. They say that technical people are the easiest to ‘radicalize’ because they read books and apply techniques. I believe that to be true. Hagee's teachings are right out of the Old Testament; I’ve heard him speak and he brilliantly applies scripture to our modern world. He makes a good case. Hagee excelled at school.

Ahmedinejad (civil engineer) knows his faith too. He applies the teachings of Mohammed to our modern world. He makes a good case, just like Hagee. See also al-Zawahiri (surgeon), Atta (civil engineer), the flaming airport twins (doctors), and Bin Laden (infrastructure contractor).

But Hagee makes the best case. I don’t know if the Bible is divinely inspired or simply a collection of writings used by men through time to shape our world. But men turn to religion when they are tried. That has been proven time and again. And that makes Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah self-fulfilling prophecies, at a minimum.

Apologizing for Hagee is the same thing as apologizing for the Bible. If McCain did that, it would surprise me too.

Turbulence:

"I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you."

What's to be afraid about? ;)

An old college buddy, who grew up in Hoboken, New Jersey (if you get my parenthetical drift) referred to everyone, including me the uptight suburban WASP, by whatever bad news name he could think of for their ethnicity, nationality, race, religion, or sexual orientation ..... to their faces.

He was an equal opportunity sort of guy and could get away with it because somehow, it was so over the top but not in any way mean, like maybe Eddie Murphy, that everyone thought it was hilarious.

It wasn't Archie Bunkerish, but it was that New York City street palaver that only certain folks can get away with.

Still, I think words signify much of the time and their absence in similar contexts, outside of the humorous, signifies too.

Bill, if you really believe that all that End Times crapola, much of which wasn't developed until the 1800s, is in the Bible (and not only that, but apparently the only legitimate reading of the Bible) then you might benefit from some reading of the ongoing Left Behind commentary at Slacktivist (though admittedly most of it is about the horribleness of the writing).

I just find it ironic that he then turns around and blasts someone else for having questionable supporters, when he repeatedly defended Paul from those very charges.

I thought Greenwald was blasting the media double standard whereby John McCain can go down on an obvious bigot like Hagee and then appear on television with no one noticing the obvious dribble on his chin whereas Obama must abjectly apologize, denounce (and reject!) someone who might like him just because Obama shares a certain skin tone with said, uh, shady person, or be nailed to a cross by Tim Russert (himself appearing with a bit of straight-talk dribble).

I don't think Bill should be banned because I somehow enjoy the brain cramps he gives me.

"Apologizing for Hagee is the same thing as apologizing for the Bible."

The "cool" thing about the word of God is that "sorry" is never the word. You don't even get a "Whoops!" out of it.

Yes, Hagee is Mohammad Atta and Admedinejad and Bin Laden, to my mind, in that God is their Hitman. Except that Hagee is like those Mafia dons who live in 1200 square foot homes in nondescript neighborhoods. Hey, they are legitimate businessmen and they've met this fellow God in the course of business, but I don't know how the bodies ended up in my company's garbage trucks.

It's plausible deniability.

Bill, I doubt that if the Koran or the Bible or the Mahabharata had two or three passages which read "Go forth and smite all Bills and bring a palsy and a plague and an allergy to chocolate unto his children" that you would argue that the United Church of the anti-Bills was applying those texts correctly to the modern world.

Surely, you would point out that the rest of those texts contradict the smiting Bill bit or you would at least argue that somewhere in between the the Greek and Hebrew translations, something got lost.

Or maybe the secretary of the Council of Tonys miswrote Bill for Bob and it's all just a big mistake. Kind of like God stagecoughed "lamb kabobs, you idiot" to Abraham when he saw that the latter actually thought he, God, was serious about sacrificing Isaac.

Your point about well-educated technical expertise being somehow open to radicalization is interesting in a brain crampy sort of way, but I have another theory:

Stupid people can be well-educated. Charles Manson, stupid guy, can interpret "Helter Skelter" any way he likes but that doesn't mean Paul is dead.

Paul is walking around. True, he wishes he were dead, what with his recent troubles, but I wouldn't take that last as Scripture.

I see your larger point though that religious texts have caused plenty of problems when stupid people with high I.Q.s, not to mention stupid people with low I.Qs, read them.

The same stupid person with technical expertise would never* come across this passage in a medical technical manual on the human body and think it was literal:

"Grimacing too often will make your face stay like that and cause your liver to explode."

They would think it a mistake, or maybe a metaphor, or maybe a misunderstanding, grimacing at the thought of it. Maybe they would think, whatever technical writer wrote this was either an idiot or had a sense of humor.

Because they really aren't that stupid. But they might have an agenda about grimacing, and find justification for the agenda everywhere.

*exceptions to all rules: my mother** is smart, but not technical, and yet she believes the literal truth about "grimacing too often".

** Just kidding, Mom. Hey, since when did you start using the Internet?


Ugh: (and Gary and others) Point taken. I admit to being reflexively anti-GG. I’ll admit that my first tendency is to go looking for something to discredit him. It’s a character flaw on my part (seriously). I’ll withdraw my comment. I need to just ignore anything that mentions him.

I don't think Bill should be banned because I somehow enjoy the brain cramps he gives me.

Me, too. It's like a sequel to The Horla.

I would and do deeply regret anything that discourages or prevents Bruce Baugh from reading or posting here.

However, I don't support the principle of banning anyone just because their opinions, no matter how vile, offend someone or someones, if said commenter hasn't been violating the posting rules.

At the least, if there's to be a new rule banning, say, explictly or strongly and clearly implicitly bigoted (racist, sexist, Muslimophobic, antisemitic, homophobic, etc., etc.,) statements, which is certainly the right of the management, and which there's certainly a case to be argued for, said rule should be clearly added to the posting rules, I'd strongly suggest, before such a rule were retroactively or otherwise enforced.

But while I probably wouldn't argue strongly against such a rule, I'd tend to be skeptical that it would cure more problems than it would create, and I wouldn't, under present circumstances, argue for such a rule, myself.

I'm sorry that Bruce finds Bill so upsetting, and I find Bill to be, bluntly, prone to generalize from ignorance, and full of bigoted and indefensible opinions about The Muslim Threat, as well as just dopey old tropes on The Coming Collapse Of Civilization, which are pretty much unchanged from all the variants popular throughout the 20th century.

But I also observe that nobody here's opinion on such matters matter very much; it's not as if Bill is Secretary of Defense, or a federal judge, or in any position of authority, so far as we know. Mouthing off with vile and idiotic opinions is still essentially harmless, so long as that's all it is.

And people are free to jump over and past the comments of anyone they don't want to read. I hate to see Bruce discouraged from reading or commenting, but if everyone starts getting a veto on people whose opinion they find outrageous and offensive, there would be quite a few people gone in very short order.

I admit to being reflexively anti-GG. I’ll admit that my first tendency is to go looking for something to discredit him.

Well, Glenn Greenwald has been Swiftboated a lot, and, well, you have demonstrated a tendency to swallow Swiftboats in the past...

Bruce just needs Cleek's pie-ifying plugin.

"Apologizing for Hagee is the same thing as apologizing for the Bible."

Keep racking 'em up, Bill.

The list of your areas of expertise continues to grow and impress me. As an expert on Christian theology, then, is it your contention that there are no other viable approaches to biblical scholarship, biblical hermeneutics, and analyses other than that of Hagee and his fellow evangelical fundamentalists? Is it just that they're all wrong, and Hagee is most correct? Or what?

[...] An old college buddy, who grew up in Hoboken, New Jersey (if you get my parenthetical drift) referred to everyone, including me the uptight suburban WASP, by whatever bad news name he could think of for their ethnicity, nationality, race, religion, or sexual orientation ..... to their faces.

He was an equal opportunity sort of guy and could get away with it because somehow, it was so over the top but not in any way mean, like maybe Eddie Murphy, that everyone thought it was hilarious.

I also used to have a friend like that (he died young of a brain tumor a eleven years ago; Lou was also mildly well-known as an editor at Vertigo/DC comics, a former editor of Heavy Metal, a former writer of everything from colloborations with Howie Chaykin, to Tom Swift, Jr. novels, to Executioner novels, and so on and so forth) who was like that. It's a style not many people can pull off, and that not everyone will like, anyway. You have to be totally full-time and sincere about it to not wind up tripping often.

Lou was from Queens, and I'm from Brooklyn, if that's relevant.

It's a style not many people can pull off

How come when Chris Rock tells jokes he gets an HBO special, but when I tell the same jokes I get a call from Human Resources?

"How come when Chris Rock tells jokes he gets an HBO special, but when I tell the same jokes I get a call from Human Resources?"

He tells them better.

Also, he's in an environment where people pay money to come and hear someone known to use Bad Words and Talk About Ethnicity. I don't know what your job description is, but I'm going to guess that this probably isn't in it.

OCSteve: Ugh: (and Gary and others) Point taken. I admit to being reflexively anti-GG. I’ll admit that my first tendency is to go looking for something to discredit him. It’s a character flaw on my part (seriously). I’ll withdraw my comment. I need to just ignore anything that mentions him.

Well, there's nothing wrong with being reflexively anti-X, for certain definitions of X; and there's certainly nothing wrong with criticizing Greenwald. I find him to be absolutely spot-on when discussing the law and correct to be outraged about the Bush administration's "law, what's that?" attitude, but with respect to politics and other matters he gets a little over-the-top (or even alot), and could use an adjustment to his outrage meter (or a new meter that doesn't range from "outrage" to "outrage this goes to 11").

John Hagee, who has said that "I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans"

I always get a kick out of guys like Hagee, who think they can spout whatever hateful garbage they happen to pull out of their butt on any given day and, by prefacing it with "I believe", somehow be immune from being called on it.

I believe the man should STFU. Can I get an "amen"?

And, yeah, Farrakhan too.

We need to inculcate a climate of zero tolerance for this kind of ignorance and hate. The way you do it in the public sphere is the same way you it in the private sphere. You call it out. When bullshit pops up, you call it by it's name.

On that topic....

But Hagee makes the best case.

Bullshit.

New Orleans was lucfier's judgement on his worshippers.... I think the weather used to be God, but he left and that's how luciferians trade.

No more mushrooms for you. You've had enough.

Thanks -

I don't know what your job description is

Then you don't watch enough TV.

The mushrooms came in a beer from a *** and it wasn't his fault.

They also 'make' the space shuttle 'tank' explode 'there.'

Damn (in the good sense), Hilzoy. you have a fine place here. Good use of natural light, gracefully proportioned, and a variety of distant vistas. Admittedly there’s some awesome (in the pop sense) dancing too; all that said, for me the John&Gary’s is the gourmet ice cream on the cake.

Whatever it ends up doing for McCain, the media events will only be a boost for Haggee.

Admiring John’s response, I was kind of with, intrigued by Bill’s offering; having my early awarenesses formed and corralled within fundamentalism (of the reserved, devotedly middle-class sort, inflected by Calvinism), and having resolved that as a soft spot rather than a knot of resentment, I’m pleased when I encounter evidence of a kindred oddball soul,
So, kinda enjoyed Bill’s take, indulged it perhaps (any judgment implied is directed at myself rather than Bill); until he brought Isaiah into it.
I defy anyone who sees that book as a one-dimensional text preoccupied with a single syllogism of apocalypse. It soars and dives vertiginously, and it’s evocation of redemption bringing peace and justice and commonplace gentleness to a healed long-and-painfully suffering world—well, my blood pressure rose a bit, clinically speaking.
It might be instructive and useful to explore speculatively why the metonymical Haggee is drawn to conflate redemption with apocalpyse and how he picks its winnners and losers. In having the Bible as his defining text, he has a feast for his bile. C. S. Lewis once remarked that the Bible is like the Universe in that a person can look at it and see whatever he or she wants to see.

That implies an opening for selective perception. One of my favored cases in point to which I often have reference ties in nicely with the mention of tu quoque and the LGBT community (of which I am a member as the token straight).
In the first verse of the second chapter of Romans, in the KJ version, “Therefore, o man, whosoever thou art that judgest, when thou judgest another thou condemnest thyself, for thou that judgest doest the same things.” (From perhaps imperfect memory.)
The big ol’ kicker here is that the ‘therefore’ follows directly upon the key passage that is the central pillar of the fundamentalist attack on homosexuality, that talks about humanity turning from the God-given moral order to its perversion. The actual message here is, throwing stones under any pretext is a sign of corruption.
Extreme tunnel vision in dreadful action.

I have deep respect for fundamentalist Christians and their Islamic counterparts.

Why?

Jes: Well, Glenn Greenwald has been Swiftboated a lot, and, well, you have demonstrated a tendency to swallow Swiftboats in the past...

You seem to have a real problem with me lately. I’m not sure why. It doesn’t matter where I comment or what I say you have a problem with it. Fair enough. Let’s take it outside though…

"It doesn’t matter where I comment or what I say you have a problem with it."

Well, you have to keep in mind, OCSteve, that you're wrong on the internet.

Neither the Bible nor the Qur’an make a big deal out of race.

The Bible (I haven't read Qur'an) makes an extremely big deal out of tribe. Race is the nearest equivalent in our society to tribal affiliation in the ancient Middle East.

Not that I think racism or tribalism is a great idea, and I prefer to read the Tanakh's Israelo-supremacy as a metaphor for moral hierarchy, but just to set the record straight.

Anyway, does Wright preach that the Bible favors his race? That's news to me.

For myswlf, re Phil vs Bill, I respect them as human beings with whom I differ and with whom I hope to differ gracefully, and thoughtfully, given the chance. Denied the chance to dispute thoughtfully (or gracefully), I prefer courtesy, even whem it’s difficult.

Re tribalism; I might properly be confined to one Bible quote per thread. Having not yet tested and been informed of that restriction, here’s another, likewise from the NT: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one...”.

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one...”

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Oops, sorry; wrong script.

Oh God, Ann Althouse linked to Kevin Drum, where the commenters are giving her a going-over for her subliminal nig post. That is the funny !

If you look real close her head lice are shaped like 666.

I wish liberals would quit being so easy on the REAL enemies like Althaus. Time for the gloves to finally come off!

"Teh," DaveC, it's spelled "teh."

Or so the internets tell me.

DaveC: I considered writing a spoof Althouse post, but I didn't have the heart.

She really has to knock off the Thunderbird, though...

Yeah, Gary, I know, I know.

But there’s an element there cognate with Lennon’s “Imagine”.

FWIW.

I hope as always to rest confident in your judgment.

Cheers.

Is the Althouse post part of some plot to launch the stupidest possible attack on Clinton in order to whip up sympathy for her?

This is either a revolting outrage or shocking incompetence.

From Althouse's post, alleging that the letters "NIG" which sort of almost appear on the child's pajamas (if you squint) are a subliminial dig at Obama.

Of course, none of this addresses the real scandal here. If you look closely enough, you will realize that just beneath the pajamas lie Jessica Valenti's breasts.

Forewarned is forearmed.

Thanks -

Then I speak (ideally w/out typing errors) as one twice forewarned.

Hey, thanks yerself.

Let's repeat a few of Saint Greenwald's comments on Ron Paul for added effect:

a bona fide phenomenon of real significance (...) a very positive development (...) extremely serious, thoughtful and coherent (...) highly laudable (...) few serious campaigns that are more substantive (...) purely focused on analyzing and solving the most vital political issues (...) coherent, thoughtful, consistent ideology of politics, grounded in genuine convictions and crystal clear political values (...) makes his success worth applauding (...) strong and compelling a case for Paul's candidacy (...) Ron Paul's candidacy is valuable -- irreplaceably so

So Gary and Jes, I think it's safe to say that Greenwald does support Ron Paul, no?

And OCSteve, being reflexively annoyed by Greenwald's excitable self-righteousness is not a character fault but perfectly normal reaction. And I say that as someone who can be considered as being largely in the same camp as Greenwald - expect for his undeniable support for Ron Paul.

Novakant: Oh good lord, are we playing the selective quoting and ellipses game?

Because, for the love of god, at least try not to make it so blatant. I glanced at your statement and see no complete sentences whatsoever. Which is the number one sign of a BS artist when it comes to quotes.

You might not be aware of it, but the whole quote was cited at the beginning of this thread and condensing comments to drive a point home is a legitimate rhetorical tool.

If you still want to argue that GG has been taken out of context and doesn't really lend support to Ron Paul - be my guest, I'm looking forward to it.

If hurling around slurs like BS artist is all you have, why don't you just forget about.

"So Gary and Jes, I think it's safe to say that Greenwald does support Ron Paul, no?"

No.

To be clearer: saying something positive about Person A doesn't, in fact, mean "I support Person A for office X."

Since you asked.

"I think it's safe to say that Greenwald does support Ron Paul, no?"

No. There's even an update explicitly stating this.

Greenwald's discussion of Ron Paul is not supporting that candidate's policies, but an anlysis of why the level of support (at that time) for Ron Paul exists and why it does not fit into the traditional narrative of establishment political reporting. And why this is a good thing (regardless of the policy positions) for the body politic.

So Greenwald is using the grass-roots support for Ron Paul for two of his favourite themes: how badly establishment media handles political discourse; and the disconnect between elite opinion and reporting on one hand and grass-roots opinion on the other hand regarding the Iraq war.

The key graf IMHO is this:

So there is at least something in Paul's worldview for most people to strongly dislike, even hate, if they are so inclined. Yet that apparent political liability is really what accounts for the passion his campaign is generating: it is a campaign that defies and despises conventional and deeply entrenched Beltway assumptions about our political discourse and about what kind of country this is supposed to be.

I think one can admire a candidate's philosophical framework and policy rigor, even if one disagrees with that candidate's policies. And one can also discuss how this is treated by the media without supporting that candidate. This is the case here, IMHO.

saying something positive

Give me a break, grudgingly conceding that your political opponent might have a point or is gifted at what he does is different from using language designed to portray him as the second coming of Christ. If somebody used such language on this blog to describe Reagan or Bush he'd be torn to bits instantly. Seems you're applying the principle of charity rather generously in this case and selectively in general, and for obvious reasons since cognitive dissonance is hard to endure for the best of us.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

October 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast