First they came for the vegetarians…
by digby
Huckleberry Graham shows that he is the one person who can bring the nation together on This Week:
They’ve adopted a theory of religion that’s 1,000 years old that requires a worldwide caliphate that will purify the Islamic religion, kill or convert every Christian and Jew and vegetarian in their way. And they’re not going to stop unless somebody stops them.
ISIS hates vegetarians. Who knew?
.
They have a sense of his soul*
by digby
In an interesting piece drawing together two strands of contemporary debate, Elizabeth Stoker Breunig at The New Republic writes that there’s no way to tell if someone is a Christian — or a Muslim, for that matter. It concludes with this:
Back in 2008, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, then writing for The Atlantic, proposed that most presidents are probably heretics of one sort or another, and that a better question is what kind of heretics they are. Heresy and orthodoxy are certainly categories with better defined parameters than the broad label of Christian, but the development of heresy and orthodoxy as classifications have been, to some degree, matters of historical and political convenience, as Harvard Divinity professor Karen King points out in her book What is Gnosticism? Discovering whether or not a person’s professed beliefs align with particular heresies can tell us whether or not they are heretics, in other words, but it cannot answer definitively whether or not they have a relationship with God that can be described as Christian.
Given the infinite list of problems in externally proving a person’s faith, the decision to describe someone as Christian or not is usually a matter of prudence in achieving some sort of goal, religious or political. What is really at stake in the question of whether Obama is a Christian or not is what Christianity has been made to mean in this country, which is often little more than shorthand for political conservatism. The conservatives who refuse to acknowledge his Christianity seem bent on preserving this conflation of the right wing and Christianity for electoral reasons; the Obama advocates who oppose them would probably like to reveal them as judgmental hypocrites for the same purposes. But what the ongoing muddle in the debate about Obama’s Christian qualifications (along with a similar effort to establish the Islamic States’ Islamic-ness) really reveals is that trying to assign religious labels, however politically expedient, is usually a foolhardy endeavor.
She has a point, especially for conservatives: if you can’t be sure that Barack Obama is really a Christian, despite the fact that he clearly says he is one, why in the word do you feel so confident that the extremists of ISIS are truly Muslim?
*George W. Bush famously said of Vladimir Putin:
“I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul. He’s a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country and I appreciate very much the frank dialogue and that’s the beginning of a very constructive relationship.”
.
And the winner is …
by digby
Citizen Four won the Independent Spirit Award for Best Documentary yesterday. It’s odds on to win the Oscar tonight.
Here’s Greenwald speaking at the awards:
By coincidence just blocks away from the awards, throughout the entire show, there was a SWAT stand-off with police helicopters swirling above for hours and military vehicles all over the streets. (I live near there.) We could hear the police helicopters saying “come out with your hands up!” Just a weird juxtaposition. America …
.
Their American spirit is AWOL
by Tom Sullivan
Something about Sunday mornings brings out the preacher in me. I wrote about this yesterday, but this morning I’m still fuming about misguided efforts by right-wing ideologues to abandon our system of public schools for whatever crazy reasons, or because freedom. Listen:
One hundred and sixty thousand rugged individuals didn’t suddenly decide to grab a gun off the mantle, don uniforms, build landing craft, and separately invade Normandy on June 6, 1944 because if big gummint did it, it would be un-American, add to the debt, and we don’t like France anyway.
There are things we do as a people, together, that make us US.
Educating our nation’s children together is one of those things. Support for universal public education in this country predates ratification of the United States Constitution. It’s built into the state constitutions and enabling legislation that brought new states into the Union all the way up to and including Hawaii, the 50th state.
I don’t know what country chest-thumping, would-be patriots who want to abolish public education think they want to live in, but it’s not the United States of America.
My father in-law law fought on the front lines in Europe during WWII. One of the things he said distinguished the American GI from the enemy is that when their tanks and trucks and jeeps broke down, the Germans would abandon their equipment on the field of battle and walk away. But the American boys had grown up tinkering with their cars, trucks and tractors. It was a point of pride for them, he told me, that when their gear broke down, they could fix it and get it running again with whatever they had at hand. Shoelaces. Rubber bands. “Duck” tape. And get back into the fight.
That’s the spirit that won the war. You don’t hear that spirit from public school abolitionists. Freedom, my ass.
From the common sense files: why a leader might use different language
by digby
With all the caterwauling over the president refusing to use the words “Islamic extremism”,I thought this common sense comment on CNN by terrorism scholar Bill Braniff at the University of Maryland might be of use to those of us who are trying to explain why this caterwauling is stupid.
Fredricka Whitfield: ISIS … seems to be the primary target right now but the president omitted the word Islam in terms of references to terror groups. He talked about extremist groups and even though ISIS has the name Islamic in it. How was that received among those who were invited to this [White House extremism] forum, the omission of the word Islam and instead a reference to a more generic term. How was that interpreted?
Bill Braniff: You have to understand that terrorism is a political form of violence. Right it’s politics by other means. And therefore, counter-terrorism is inherently political behavior. And I don’t mean Democrat Republican politics. It’s about legitimacy. And it’s about trying to, in this case, get governments to work together to marginalize a non-state actor. If you use the term Islamic extremism, and it’s taken out of context, or you’re not given the opportunity to explain specifically what you mean, you’re referring to Al Queda or ISIL, you may alienate the very nation or communities you want working with you to marginalize these extremist groups , so the administration uses more abstract terms in order not to alienate the allies that it needs for this particular fight. It’s a problem, vocabulary and language is a problem whenever you’re dealing with highly politicized issues and the administration is trying to use expedient language.
Whitfield: And do you agree with that approach? Is it well received particularly among Arab nations?
Braniff: There’s certainly a push-back particularly when American political leaders talk about Muslim extremism and islamic extremism and the concern is that we are using too broad of a brush when we use those terms. There is push-back when we use those terms. So for political purposes I think it’s ok to use vocabulary that’s going to get you the most effective political outcome. Analysts, strategists those who are in the weeds on these issues need to be more specific and use more specific terms so that we know what we’re talking about when we talk about them.
This strikes me as so obvious that nobody should have to say it out loud. The US needs allies in the middle east if ISIS is going to be stopped. Insulting those allies — even if it isn’t meant as an insult toward them — is counter-productive. Free speech doesn’t mean everyone has to say everything.
You and I can use those terms. I have always used Islamic extremism/terrorism as a specific descriptor. The government must speak in ways that advance our interests and sometimes that requires speaking in diplomatic language.
I realize that we swashbuckling Americans believe we don’t need no stinkin’ diplomacy but that’s nonsense. Even the mighty, mighty US cannot solve this problem alone.
Duh.
Rooting for the whistleblower
by digby
Just a shout-out to Laura Poitras, Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden hoping the film Citizen-Four wins the IFC and the Oscar this week-end. If Hollywood doesn’t realize the stakes in standing up for civil liberties they are truly missing the point.
Oh snap! (White house edition)
by digby
I don’t know how you can reasonably respond to accusations that President Obama doesn’t love America from some washed up egomaniac. But this strikes me as about the best you can do:
“I can tell you that it’s sad to see when somebody who has attained a certain stature and even admiration tarnishes that legacy so thoroughl. There’s no element of schadenfreude that people are feeling around here. What people are feeling is sorry for Rudy Giuliani.I think, really, the only thing that I feel is to feel sorry for Rudy Giuliani today.”
It is kind of pathetic. On the other hand he accurately reflected the misbegotten beliefs of millions of Americans. Which isn’t pathetic, but ownright creepy.
Giuliani, by the way, doubled down on his comments saying that Obama is heavily influenced by communists:
“He doesn’t talk about America the way John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan did, about America’s greatness and exceptionalism,” said Giuliani.
“He was educated by people who were critics of the US. And he has not been able to overcome those influences.”
Giuliani also implied he was the only one with the chutzpah to call out Obama, saying: “Somebody has to raise these issues with the president. Somebody has to have the courage to stand up.”
[…]
In a previous interview with The New York Times, Giuliani said his recent comments aren’t racist, because Obama was brought up by a “white mother” and went to “white schools.”
Looney tunes all the way around.
.
Huckleberry tests the market for hysteria
by digby
A leading foreign policy hawk, Mr. [Lindsey] Graham did not mince words. The violent extremists of the Islamic State hold territory “the size of Indiana,” he said, and they “can penetrate our allies and our homeland.’’ The group, also known as ISIL or ISIS, wants to “create hell on earth for anyone who disagrees with them,’’ he added.
In a soft and easy drawl that belied his criticism, Mr. Graham blamed President Obama for creating conditions for the group’s rise and seizure of territory in Iraq and Syria.
So far, Mr. Graham has made little impact on the field of potential Republican candidates since declaring his interest last month. He said he would make a decision based on “whether or not there is a market” for his views.
“I have put on the table to defeat and destroy ISIL, to degrade and destroy ISIL, will require an American ground component,’’ he told reporters on Friday.
“To those who say I’m trying to fight other peoples’ wars, you don’t understand what ISIL has in store for you and our nation,’’ he said, adding, “The sooner we get on with it, the better.’’
I guess he has a copy of the invasion plans.
There’s a big market for his views. But the best he can hope for is that whoever wins uses his marketing because he’s not going to win the nomination. I think he could be influential on that front. Far too many people, including far too many in the media, are stimulated and titilated by ISIS propaganda. It won’t end well.
.
A hero in his own mind
by digby
Gee, I wonder why people thought Bill O’Reilly said he was in combat in the Falklands war?
KEVIN (CALLER): Hey, yeah, I have to say real quick, I’ve been — I’ve listened to interviews from the guy that was saved and from some of the other Swift Boat, the guys in these new groups that have come on talking about it.
And if you listen to interviews with the guy, he’s not smearing the guy who got the, you know, who fell in the water, but he gave a rational, cognizant explanation what happened that day, and these boats are always in pairs and packs —
O’REILLY: Right.
KEVIN: — so they’re always trying to say well, no — well, you weren’t on Kerry’s you — you — his Swift boat. You didn’t have to be. You were 20 feet away on another one.
O’REILLY: All right, let me challenge that, Kevin, from —
KEVIN: Uh-huh.
O’REILLY: — from personal experience.
KEVIN: Sure.
O’REILLY: I — I was in a combat situation in Argentina during the Falklands War, OK?
KEVIN: Mm-hmm.
O’REILLY: And I can tell you when the Kool-Aid hits the fan, OK, nobody is locking in on anybody else. Nobody.
KEVIN: And you’re right.
O’REILLY: OK, ad —
KEVIN: I know (inaudible; overlapping dialogue)
O’REILLY: — adrenaline — adrenaline surges and you veterans out there listening right now, you know exactly what I’m talking about here. Adrenaline surges, your senses become very attune, much sharper than they are ordinarily, and you are locked in, focused in, on your survival and achieving the means of staying alive.
You’re not watching what happens in the boat next to year. You’re not watching any of that. OK? You are — you are zeroed in on your situation.
And that’s why I am believing the guys that are sitting next to this Kerry, because the guys away from him, yeah, maybe somebody looked over, and yeah, but what probably happened was after the fact people talked. And that’s what always happens. And then perceptions are shaped. But they’re always ab — they’re never primary source perceptions.
Now, again, I don’t have anything against these Swift Boats guys. They — I’m sure they believe what they’re saying. But I’m going to go with the guy in the water. I got to go with him. [Westwood One, The Radio Factor, 8/9/04, transcript via Escriptionist.com/Media Matters internal archives]
There’s more where that came from. Here’s another one:
O’REILLY: But again, look, I mean all of us who are reporters — and I was a reporter for 24 years, even, you know — and I was in El Salvador, and in the Falkland War in Argentina, and in Northern Ireland, and in the Middle East. And I did some pretty risky things. I was single and nobody cared, but you know — a couple of girlfriends would have been – ‘oh, no more free dinners from Bill.’
But I did. I put myself, you know, in positions that perhaps I should not have, but I got good stories. And that’s what people do. That’s what journalists do. But I volunteered. Nobody sent me. Nobody forced me. I went it. And that’s what these guys did. And these guys were in much more danger than I was ever in, although it got a little hairy in the Falklands, that’s for sure. [Westwood One, The Radio Factor, 1/30/06]
He pretty clearly wants people to believe that he’s been in combat even going so far as to compare himself as superior to actual combat veterans, something Brian Williams never did. He’s a liar.
But the biggest lie is that he continually portrays Buenos Aires as a war zone during the Falklands war. It was not. He covered some street demonstrations after the war was over. If that is the definition of being in ths shit, then anyone who was on the streets in Ferguson, Missouri last summer is a combat veteran.
I can’t believe he’s going to get away with this in the wake of Brian Williams being vilified for much less. O’Reilly has continuously portrayed himself as a fucking hero, someone who stared down the barrel of a gun and saved his cameraman from the the enemy. And he was in a street protest. This is a much more egregious lie than Williams’. But get away with it he will.
.
.
The new abolitionists
by Tom Sullivan
Jefferson may never have said an educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people, but the idea strikes a chord. The urban legend lives on because the idea speaks to American aspirations that predate the signing of the Constitution. Among some of our American cohort, especially among our right-wing, would-be keepers of the flame, that aspiration is dying.
The movement on the right to abolish public education – that all-American institution – has been growing for some time. Ron Paul wants public schools abolished. So does Rick Santorum. So do T-party types from coast to coast. And, of course, Texas.
Now that fringe, fundamentally un-American idea is being mainlined into public via Fox News.
“There really shouldn’t be public schools, should there?” said “Outnumbered” host Lisa “Kennedy” Montgomery during a discussion of the Oklahoma state legislature’s proposal to ban Advanced Placement U.S. History in high schoo for not promoting American exceptionalism. Talking Points Memo notes that this movement is spreading:
Efforts by conservative school board members in Colorado to make the Advanced Placement U.S. History course “more patriotic,” prompted a walk-out by students. Under the changes proposed in Colorado “students would only be taught lessons depicting American heritage in a positive light, and effectively ban any material that could lead to dissent.” In South Carolina conservatives asked the College Board to exclude any material with an “ideological bias,” including evolution. Similar efforts are underway in Georgia and North Carolina.
Amanda Marcotte looked at this and other ways “Republicans are purposefully trying to make Americans more ignorant.” I’ve looked at the ideological basis for eliminating from the university classroom any ideas that cut across the conservative grain.
What the new abolitionists want, it seems, is either a Disneyfied version of America (without “Small World,” of course); a pre-American one before universal, public education was a hallmark of the American experiment; or one that serves narrow interests of business interests in producing serviceable workers who will do but not think. Any of those options presents a pretty bleak vision of America’s future.
Last fall U.S. News examined the tension between broad learning and and education focused on technical skills:
The prevailing wisdom and research indicate a growing emphasis on and necessity for career-ready degrees such as computer science, engineering and finance – often included as part of STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering and mathematics).
At the same time, employers readily identify the creative, communicative and problem-solving acumen traditionally associated with liberal arts majors as the most valuable attributes of new hires.
With a sluggish job market and companies still reluctant to reinvest in their workforces, the job prospects for all college grads have actually never been clearer: College graduates with career-ready degrees are best positioned to get hired and earn the quickest return on their educational investment.
But that’s a pretty threadbare method for evaluating an education’s worth, and one the Founders would not have recognized. While studying advanced dynamics, I received a flyer from my old college announcing its 150th anniversary celebration with lectures on medieval arts and sciences interspersed with recorder quartets. Where I was working on my engineering degree, I saw little love of learning for its own sake. Students raised their hands and asked, “Do we need to know this for the test?” The contrast was laughable.