Month: August 2010

Commemorating Sanity

by digby

It’s great to see President Obama stand up for religious tolerance at a time like this:

According to the teachings of Islam, Ramadan commemorates the revelation of God’s word in the Holy Koran to the prophet Mohammad. The word has become the foundation for one of the world’s great religions.

During Ramadan, we are reminded of Islam’s long and distinguished history. Throughout the centuries, the Islamic world has been home to great centers of learning and culture. People of all faiths have benefited from the achievements of Muslims in fields from philosophy and poetry to mathematics and medicine.

This reminds us that one of the great strengths of our nation is its religious diversity. Americans practice many different faiths. But we all share a belief in the right to worship freely. We reject bigotry in all its forms.

And over the past eight years, my administration has been proud to work closely with Muslim Americans to promote justice and tolerance of all faiths.

Oh sorry. That was President Bush, well known left wing terrorist sympathizer.

Here’s Obama:

Let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances,” Obama said.

“This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.”

Considering that the majority of Republicans ignorantly believe he is a Muslim (and a large number of others are fine with tossing the First Amendment if it makes someone — of the right persuasion — uncomfortable) I think that’s pretty bold and I’m glad to see him unequivocally stake out the sane, rational position, regardless of the polls. But it’s a sad comment on this country that two years after Bush spoke those words and almost nine years after 9/11 that the president reaffirming religious tolerance is suddenly considered controversial.

Again, I ask, why now? I realize that there was always a fair amount of Muslim hatred going on after 9/11, but shrieking harpies like Pamela Gellar were in the margins and nobody felt comfortable saying that mainstream American Muslims should be shunned. Perhaps it’s a coincidence, but the only thing that’s happened between then and now is the election of Barack Obama, who millions of morons believe is the (secret) first Muslim president, apparently bent on turning the US into Saudi Arabia.

What the hell is happening to this place?

.

No Looter!

by digby

A Galtian fairy tale:

When little Aiden toddled up our daughter Johanna and asked to play with her Elmo ball, he was, admittedly, very sweet and polite. I think his exact words were, “Have a ball, peas [sic]?” And I’m sure you were very proud of him for using his manners.

To be sure, I was equally proud when Johanna yelled, “No! Looter!” right in his looter face, and then only marginally less proud when she sort of shoved him.

The thing is, in this family we take the philosophies of Ayn Rand seriously. We conspicuously reward ourselves for our own hard work, we never give to charity, and we only pay our taxes very, very begrudgingly.

Since the day Johanna was born, we’ve worked to indoctrinate her into the truth of Objectivism. Every night we read to her from the illustrated, unabridged edition of Atlas Shrugged—glossing over all the hardcore sex parts, mind you, but dwelling pretty thoroughly on the stuff about being proud of what you’ve earned and not letting James Taggart-types bring you down. For a long time we were convinced that our efforts to free her mind were for naught, but recently, as we’ve started socializing her a little bit, we’ve been delighted to find that she is completely antipathetic to the concept of sharing. As parents, we couldn’t have asked for a better daughter.

That’s why, when Johanna then began berating your son, accusing him of trying to coerce from her a moral sanction of his theft of the fruit of her labor, in as many words, I kind of egged her on. Even when Aiden started crying.

You see, that Elmo ball was Johanna’s reward for consistently using the potty this past week. She wasn’t given the ball simply because she’d demonstrated an exceptional need for it—she earned it. And from the way Aiden’s pants sagged as he tried in vain to run away from our daughter, it was clear that he wasn’t anywhere close to deserving that kind of remuneration. By so much as allowing Johanna to share her toy with him, we’d be undermining her appreciation of one of life’s most important lessons: You should never feel guilty about your abilities. Including your ability to repeatedly peg a fellow toddler with your Elmo ball as he sobs for mercy.

.

The Official Stance Is Reinterpret Not Repeal

by digby

FYI: just because a bunch of Republicans in the southwest are now saying that they don’t support repealing and just want to “have hearing” doesn’t mean they have abandoned the idea of denying citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.

“Repeal” is a red herring. Despite the fact that the plain language has always had the logical interpretation that anyone born in the US gets citizenship, they’re going to have the radical Roberts court “interpret” the amendment for the first time, (much as they finally got their preferred interpretation of the second.) Here’s the official argument:

The current and quite-valid debate is limited to whether the amendment should be interpreted to guarantee birthright U.S. citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. That’s it – and it’s a proper question, because the language explicitly limits birthright citizenship, in a clause often glossed over or omitted. The provision reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The limitation “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has never been decreed by the Supreme Court to confer automatic citizenship on the children of illegal immigrants. The term excludes the children born to foreign diplomats in America, for example, since they obviously maintain allegiance to their home nation, not the United States. The same question arises regarding the allegiance of those who arrive illegally and retain their foreign citizenship.

In the 1898 case of U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court decided that when non-diplomatic foreign nationals are here legally, their children become citizens. But it has not decided the issue regarding illegal aliens. This may well give Congress room to determine the issue and to legislate by statute, rather than waiting on some future court decision.

With the major problems and expenses we experience due to illegal immigration, it’s a legitimate and necessary debate.

See they aren’t being unreasonable and seeking repeal of the 14th Amendment at all. They just think it’s been wrongly interpreted all these years and a teensy little correction needs to be made. That way it won’t be so unpleasant (for us) to send American kids who have spent their entire lives here back to a poor country they’ve never even visited. They’ll just be going “home.” Everybody likes home. That makes us good guys.

.

Taking It To Mr Club For Growth

by digby

This is how you do it:

This is a good ad, going right for the jugular. It leaves Toomey having to sputter to explain that he’s not really a Wall Street whore at all.

Update: They just won’t let this go. There’s something about this story that has all these guys excited. Maybe it’s just the mere presence of the Clenis and happy memories of reading the Starr Report, but it is bordering on obsession.

.

Dynamic Workforce

by digby

Do you get the feeling that when the ruling elites talk about unemployment that they’ve never been unemployed? This illustrates it perfectly. Newt Gingrich says that anyone turning down any kind of work, regardless of the pay is being lazy and staying on “welfare” (otherwise known as unemployment insurance.)This man explains why he did that:

HATCHELL: Keith, it’s really hard for someone like Mr. Gingrich to understand the fact that when you have a mortgage, you have a family to support, car payments, insurance everything else […] if you’re going out to look for a job, jobs that were going to pay half of what I was making, when they were offering me these jobs and […] this is going to be a situation where we’re going to start you out at the entry level wage, I’ve got 32 years of experience, in the automotive business, it’s kinda hard for me to do that. Even at 40 hours at 7.75 an hour […] With a mortgage and everything else, yes I was drawing unemployment 475 dollars a week, I paid into since I was a young man, 35 years I actually paid into it. It’s unemployment insurance, not welfare that Mr. Gingrich has spoken about. Until such time I can get a gainful job that will let me keep my house, keep my family fed, not necessarily anything expensive, I wasn’t going to take any other job.

What Gingrich was telling him to do was take a full time job that would result in his losing his house and everything he’s worked for all his life. And that’s because when you take a full time job — it’s really hard to look for another one. Your new employer tends to resent it if you take time off for interviews when you are still in your probation period.

Most of the time our unemployment system system works out fairly well. The insurance allows people some time to find a new job that will let them to keep what they have instead of having to start over again. It’s one of the things that our society came up with to make it possible for employers to have a “dynamic workforce” (also known as the ability to lay off workers at a moments notice.) The problem this time is that a whole bunch of people were laid off at once and the jobs have not come back, so these folks are taking longer to find work. And the whole thing is bound to put a squeeze on wages regardless. Seller’s market and all that.

Moreover, these workers can’t move, one of the hallmarks of the “dynamic workforce.” Our “ownership society” mainly consists of home ownership and people have been unable to easily sell their homes now for two years. Some of them might have been willing to move to another state or town to find work but they’d have to lose their biggest investment to do it. You would think that such a scenario playing out all over the country would concern great conservative intellectuals such as Newtie.

But I suspect they actually think that it’s good idea if skilled workers are forced to throw in their keys and/or take minimum wage jobs. That’s the kind of “dynamic workforce” that leads to big savings in labor costs for the true producers in our economy — CEOs, traders, investors, celebrities and politicans.(Fuggedbout the middle class investor in this scenario, btw. This squeeze on wages will make it impossible for them to put money into 401ks and still be able to live.) That kind of downward pressure makes for happy aristocrats and desperate serfs. Win, win for Prince of Galt and the lovely Duchess of Dagny.

.

Passive Aggressive Racism

by digby

It’s always interesting when white celebrities lecture black people about being “hypersensitive” to racism by making a whole bunch of racist assumptions and defensively referencing the use of the word ni**er. It’s quite clarifying:

SCHLESSINGER: Jade, welcome to the program.

CALLER: Hi, Dr. Laura.

SCHLESSINGER: Hi.

CALLER: I’m having an issue with my husband where I’m starting to grow very resentful of him. I’m black, and he’s white. We’ve been around some of his friends and family members who start making racist comments as if I’m not there or if I’m not black. And my husband ignores those comments, and it hurts my feelings. And he acts like —

SCHLESSINGER: Well, can you give me an example of a racist comment? ‘Cause sometimes people are hypersensitive. So tell me what’s — give me two good examples of racist comments.

CALLER: OK. Last night — good example — we had a neighbor come over, and this neighbor — when every time he comes over, it’s always a black comment. It’s, “Oh, well, how do you black people like doing this?” And, “Do black people really like doing that?” And for a long time, I would ignore it. But last night, I got to the point where it —

SCHLESSINGER: I don’t think that’s racist.

CALLER: Well, the stereotype —

SCHLESSINGER: I don’t think that’s racist. No, I think that —

CALLER: [unintelligible]

SCHLESSINGER: No, no, no. I think that’s — well, listen, without giving much thought, a lot of blacks voted for Obama simply ’cause he was half-black. Didn’t matter what he was gonna do in office, it was a black thing. You gotta know that. That’s not a surprise. Not everything that somebody says — we had friends over the other day; we got about 35 people here — the guys who were gonna start playing basketball. I was going to go out and play basketball. My bodyguard and my dear friend is a black man. And I said, “White men can’t jump; I want you on my team.” That was racist? That was funny.

CALLER: How about the N-word? So, the N-word’s been thrown around —

SCHLESSINGER: Black guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO, listen to a black comic, and all you hear is ni**er, ni**er, ni**er.

CALLER: That isn’t —

SCHLESSINGER: I don’t get it. If anybody without enough melanin says it, it’s a horrible thing; but when black people say it, it’s affectionate. It’s very confusing. Don’t hang up, I want to talk to you some more. Don’t go away.

I’m Dr. Laura Schlessinger. I’ll be right back.

There’s more and it’s much worse worse, if you can believe that.

I think this is a perfect illustration of the current cultural roiling over race. The original assumption, which Schlesinger goes back to in the second part, is that this woman is wrong for being resentful at having to constantly answer questions from someone who asks her what “black people” think about things. To Schlessinger, this is perfectly normal. After all black people are very exotic, unknowable creatures, and so it’s completely understandable that people might turn every conversation into a discussion of how these strange others look at the world. The caller finds that uncomfortable and annoying,which makes Dr laura very angry at her. The question is, why?

Now it’s possible that every conversation this woman has with the man has an appropriate racial context, but I doubt it. Most likely, and I expect that this woman feels, that her race is brought into it to draw attention to her race, to single her out, to make her feel her otherness in a white group, as the wife of a white man. After all, this kind of questioning isn’t normal. Unless the subject at hand is explicitly racial, I don’t think most of us bring it up in everyday conversation. I certainly don’t ask my African American friends whether black people like grilled eggplant or what black people think about “True Blood.” In fact, it’s a subject that rarely comes up at all unless we are talking politics and specifically race and politics.

As the conversation continues, it’s clear that Schlessinger is carrying quite a bit of anger about how “the blacks” continue to believe racism exists even though we have a black president. Evidently, that was supposed to have been the end of all that unpleasantness, particularly since blacks allegedly voted for him simply because of his race, thus proving their own racism. (The fact that they voted nearly unanimously for John Kerry, Al Gore and Bill Clinton as well would seem to indicate an ideological rather than a racial bias, but I’ve heard so many white people point this out that it’s clear that quite a few see African American support for Obama as proof of black racism.)Dr Laura finds their lack of gratitude for being allowed to exercise their racism this way deeply offensive and is appalled that she is still having to answer for white prejudice — even though nobody asked her to.

The immediate defensiveness, before the women even got out her complaint, is the main hallmark of this attitude. I saw Andrew Breitbart in person explode into an angry, spittle flecked tirade at the mild suggestion that racism is playing a part in current discourse. (He really went crazy, interrupting and screaming “racist, racist, racist” at the top of his lungs over and over again.) This obviously hits a very raw nerve with some people and they get extremely upset at the person who brings it up. I’m no psychologist like Dr Laura, but I would guess that zero to 60 reaction doesn’t come out of nowhere.

After all, this woman wasn’t calling Dr Laura a racist. Indeed, she was asking for her advice, thinking she would be sympathetic. But Dr Laura immediately gets agitated and brings herself into it, relating that she has a close black associate who doesn’t mind when she makes jokes about white people not being athletic.(???) She clearly related to this caller’s unnamed neighbor and chose to state her solidarity with him.

The rest of the conversation just got worse, as I noted, with both sides getting angry and Dr Laura ending up saying that the woman shouldn’t have married outside her race. (Evidently one should expect to be treated as a visitor from a foreign planet if they do.)

This is a perfect example of modern racism of the “what do you have to do, kill Medgar Evers?” variety. No, this neighbor isn’t being overtly racist, he’s being passive aggressively racist, which is all the more annoying since it’s impossible to confront, like all passive aggression. Indeed, it’s laid on to the receiver — “you’re being hypersensitive.” And it’s clear that the perpetrator knows exactly what he or she is doing since when confronted they always behave with furious defensiveness. When it escalates, the real hostility comes right to the surface as it did with Schlessinger yesterday.

Humans are sophisticated creatures when it comes to sniffing out aggression. And while I’m sure that there are African Americans who are “hypersensitive” I would guess that most are simply tuned into this kind of passive aggressive hostility as most of us are when it’s aimed our way. It’s a finely honed survival instinct. (I certainly felt this kind of passive aggressive hostility in the workplace for years, as most women my age did.) It’s particularly pernicious because those who don’t see it (or don’t want to see it) are often far too willing to lay the blame on the receiver and basically tell them they are either liars or they are crazy, rather than dig more deeply into what’s been said and why. It’s very easy to sweep this kind of hostility under the rug.

But anyone who’s been on the receiving end of it knows very well that they aren’t crazy. Millions of years of evolution have taught humans how to spot someone who doesn’t like them. When a black American says she can feel racism, I believe her. I suspect if I were in that room with her I could feel it too.

I guess a lot of us didn’t realize just how thoroughly overt bigotry had morphed into this passive aggressive style until we saw a bunch of Americans behaving this way and then were told we were crazy for noticing. We’re not crazy. It turns out that 200 years of racism in this country didn’t just disappear in one generation after all — it adapted. Who ever could have predicted that?

.

Nuttier Than Fruitcakes

by digby

The martians have landed! Run for your lives!

.

Serious Wanker

by digby

Man, the political establishment really is desperate for a Republican they can respect. First they try to pass off the winsome Paul Ryan as a deep thinker. Now it appears they are selling the youthful Eric Cantor as a “serious wonk.”

Steve Benen noted the oddity of that designation considering his sophisticated constitutional argument against the Cordoba House. (“Come on!”) But I’d like to take a trip back in time to Eric Cantor’s finest hour. You all remember the ill-fated first TARP vote, right? Well then you also remember the Democrats and Republicans had made a deal to pass the thing on a bipartisan basis but at the end of the day, many of the Republicans balked and the vote failed. (Our “principled” heroes voted for it, of course, because Jonah Goldberg told them to.)

The GOP leadership, led by a sniveling Eric Cantor, came to the microphones to explain why the Republican leadership didn’t deliver the votes they promised:

Deputy Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) held up a copy of Pelosi’s speech, saying, “Right here is the reason, I believe, why this vote failed, and this is Speaker Pelosi’s speech that, frankly, struck the tone of partisanship that, frankly, was inappropriate in this discussion.”

Seriously, that’s what he said. They voted down the bailout because Nancy Pelosi said mean things in her floor speech. (“Democrats believe in a free market. But in this unbridled form, encouraged by the Republicans, it has created not jobs, not capital, it has created chaos.”) Of course, a few days later Boehner, Blunt, Cantor and Ryan came up with some sweeteners to soothe their boys’ very, very hurt feelings and they got the thing through.

Cantor is not a wonk. He’s a wanker. In fact, here’s a good rule of thumb: anyone who is in the GOP leadership is, by definition, a corporate owned wanker, sometimes pretending to be either a revolutionary firebrand or a deep thinker, but a wanker nonetheless. It’s not impossible that one could also be a “serious wonk” and a wanker (the Democrats have quite a few) but the it’s highly unlikely considering the amount of whoring and wanking that’s required for the job in the GOP.

The Republicans have an intellectual arm but it’s not in the congress. It’s in the myriad corporate sponsored think tanks that have been set up over the years to advance the interests of the wealthy and keep the rubes entertained with culture wars and real wars. If you’re looking for conservative wonkery, there’s where you find it.

.

What Glenn Said

by tristero

In a sane world, Jeffrey Goldberg would have retired from journalism a looooooooong time ago. And in a sane world, this brilliant post by Glenn Greenwald would lead to Goldberg’s resignation, effective immediately.

Fat chance. Real men want to go to Tehran.

Overt Muslim bashing eight years late

by digby

In case anyone’s wondering, the neocon and theocon nutballs aren’t the only one’s speaking out on the matter of the Cordoba House:

More than 40 prominent Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders and religion scholars issued a statement today condemning the “xenophobia and religious bigotry” fueling the increasingly strident opposition to a proposed Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero. These leaders from New York City and across the country are specifically challenging the divisive rhetoric of Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, who have strongly opposed a center that will promote interfaith relations, combat extremism, and offer community programs for Americans of all religious backgrounds.

“It’s simply wrong for Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, public figures who frequently reference their Christian values, to malign all Muslims by comparing this cultural center and mosque with a radical ideology that led to the horrific attacks of 9-11,” said Sister Simone Campbell, Executive Director of NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby. “We fail to honor those killed by terrorists when we betray the bedrock principle of religious freedom that has guided our democracy for centuries.”

Newt Gingrich recently claimed that the Cordoba House “… is a sign of their contempt for Americans and their confidence in our historic ignorance that they would deliberately insult us this way.” Palin called plans for the center a “provocation” that “stabs at the heart.”

Faithful America – an online community of more than 100,000 people of faith – is also standing up for the American Muslim community and interfaith cooperation today in response to anti-Muslim sentiment and fierce opposition to proposed mosques in communities across the country. Faithful America members are signing a petition to honor the “many contributions of American Muslims toward global peace” and denounce bigotry and limits on religious freedom as a betrayal of American values.

“Christians who believe in the values of religious freedom and interfaith cooperation welcome plans for Cordoba House, a center of culture and dialogue that will honor our nation’s highest ideals,” said the Rev. Peg Chemberlin, President of the National Council of Churches. “We are deeply saddened by those who denigrate a religion which in so many ways is a religion of compassion and peace by associating all Muslims with violent extremism. That’s like equating all Christians to Timothy McVeigh’s actions. This center will reflect not only the best of Islam, but the enduring hope that Christians, Jews and Muslims can together find common ground in addressing the most urgent challenges of our time.”

“Back in the fall of 2001, when President George W. Bush assured the American people that the War on Terror was not a war against Islam, it would have been hard to imagine a more picture perfect example of Muslim Americans exercising their civic responsibilities than by building a thirteen-story YMCA-style community center,” said Rev. Chloe Breyer, Executive Director of the Interfaith Center of New York. “Cordoba House is exactly the kind of initiative that we need here in New York – it will serve people of all faith traditions and enrich the city, cultivating a society that lives up to our highest ideals, not our worse fears.”

There’s more at the link.

I think the thing that’s most jarring about this controversy — and the similar protests around the country — is that it’s happening eight years after the fact. It would have made far more sense in the immediate aftermath, but the nation managed to resist this by and large (with some very notable exceptions.) My assumption is that this was because the president and the Republicans kept a leash on their neanderthals, which they are clearly failing to do now. Indeed, they have joined them.

And obviously, this has something to do with it. (Whether they are projecting their bigotry against African Americans on to Muslims or their bigotry against Muslims onto African Americans remains an open question. Not that it really matters.)

But a large majority of the country don’t think this cultural center project should happen, and people all over the country are protesting the building of mosques in their neighborhoods suddenly, so it isn’t just wingnuts letting their most outlandish freaks’ flags fly in NYC. Has this know-nothing hostility been out there all along and was just held back by the GOP establishment or is it just plain old racism and xenophobia come to the surface in an environment which welcomes it?

.