Everybody says, “Look at how bad these guys [the Bush administration] are.” Well, that’s easy, they’re beating themselves into the ground. But we can’t just be the party of “I disagree.” We have to be the party of “here’s the way out.” These Democratic senators voted for the war and say they were misled. They weren’t misled, they were afraid of being called unpatriotic. Who’s the guy or girl who’s going to step up and say, “We’re going to run out of oil sooner or later, so let’s take the bull by the horns and say ten years from now, no cars built that run on internal combustion”? It’s going to happen at some point, so why don’t we take the lead? Then we don’t have to bomb people in Middle Eastern countries — we just don’t need their product.
James Wolcott makes an observation, one near to my own heart, on the hateful words that flow like water over at Little Green Footballs:
This one sentence amid all that writhing distemper leapt out at me:
“May he [i.e., me] be kidnapped by ‘insurgents’ in Iraq then appear on an ugly net broadcast. I wonder, if in the moment before the knife started sawing into his fleashy neck if he might rethink his opinions on the GWOT.”
He later corrected the spelling to “fleshy,” lest anyone think I possess a flashy neck.
This sentence leapt out not only because it was directed at yours truly but because it fits a pattern of measel spots I’ve discerned.
More and more the rightwing militant “anti-idiotarians” (as they deludedly think of themselves)have been relishing the prospect of antiwar figures undergoing the Daniel Pearl treatment. They keep bringing it up as the retribution that’ll deliver certain choice heads on a platter. In a sick irony, Daniel Pearl’s marytrdom has provided a negative inspiration to certain super patriots professing to fight for truth, justice, and the American way.
A long time reader and a regular weekly commenter (under a nom de plume), I often find myself entirely aghast at some of the outright frightening comments offered by the little ballers. I play along like a good “soldier” when commenting. They take me so seriously. There is no discussion within those comments. No real snark or back and forth. It has been and always will be the very definition of a circle jerk.
It is also inhearantly evil, in a teenage angst, “I tried to commit suicide when I was 10 years old” kind of way. It is the epitome of real hatred and ignormance in my humble opinion.
Read all of Wolcott’s post. Then go read Tom Watson’s little essay on another right-wing hater. Such language from such a purty gal. And, the wife of a baseball player to boot. Shame that.
Granted, hatred exists on the left as well. Of that there is no doubt. But, the left does not go around stating with near daily pitched hatred that the wingnusts are traitors and should be strung up as such. There is a great difference. Further, one is hard pressed to find such rabid examples of fantastical death imagery and violent day dreaming in forums of the left.
An all important subtlety completely lost on the ilk who wander the factually and reality bereft threads at LGF.
Such dreaming of violence is a form of blood lust, of course. Something which is seen on both sides of the political spectrum, evident in games, film, television, literature and real events.
As Sideshow notes:
Everyone is linking Wolcott’s Headhunters for a reason: He makes a really good point about the lust for violence that erupts from the right-wingers when they talk about liberals.
Yup. Personally, I don’t think wingers are traitors, nor do I fantasize about their heads being lobbed off by a tree hugging terrorist. The worst I think of wingers is that they are wimps and hypocrits.
As I’ve said many times before, I”ll fight to the death to protect a wingnuts right to be wrong.
The fear machine kicks to life once again, and releasing classified information to spark that engine is just par for the course. Via Digby from Bruce Greenwald:
The Administration’s purported efforts to find radiological activity in Muslim mosques is now supposed to be thrown onto the pile along with its lawless NSA eavesdropping program, so that the whole confusing controversy is aggregated into nothing more than the same tired, irrational terrorist-defending fetish of trying to impede George Bush in his valiant crusade to protect us from The Terrorists. And sure enough, like puppets on cue, the most blindly loyal of the Bush defenders are spitting out exactly this scary tale.
And with the images now darkly dancing around in our heads of Muslims hiding in their mosques in Los Angeles and Queens and Georgia suburbs and maybe in your own backyard, standing over a toxic brew of radiology and TNT ready to zap us all with their mushroom clouds, all of this annoying chatter about FISA and the Fourth Amendment and the NSA is supposed to meekly fade away, drowned to death by nightmares of our children with their hair on fire and glowing in the dark and George Bush trying to save them.
Digby notes:
He asks if they will get away with it again. I dunno. At some point you have to wonder if the citizens of the US will tire of playing this little fantasy of being a nation under seige (while they shop til they drop) and want to switch the channel to little “Morning in America.”
I heard a stranger in a line at the book store say the other day that he was tired of hearing the president talk about “protecting us” like he’s some kind of super hero. It’s possible that they’ve gone to the well with this one too many times. We’ll see.
A certain amount of people will believe it no matter what. That much we already know. As always, fear is an integral component to solidfying power and controlling the message. When the message no longer has validiity, when real time events and circumstances don’t jibe with the message, then a disconnect occurs.
The problem is, we live in a world where any terror event, whether on these shores or not, big or small, is used to proffer fear, as the attack in London showed all too well. The fear machine jumped on it with relish. But, of course, a simple visit to Little Green Footballs any day of the week will prove the point as well.
Seems that the UMass Darthmouth student who claimed that DHS agents investigated him for requesting a copy of Mao’s Little Red Book via inter library loan is a fabricated lie by the student in question.
My initial reaction, as noted in the post below, was to believe it. I should have listened to my inner cynic, since it was saying “why would the DHS investigate a kid for requesting a book you can order on Amazon or Barnes and Noble or any other bookstore?”
Quite simply, the book is readily available everywhere. It was and probably still is, required reading for Classical Studies majors at New York University. I have a copy on my shelves. The whole thing was a bit odd. I should have not been so lazy in my initial post, and written of my reservations.
So, consider this an update and a correction.
Although, as Digby notes, “But lest anyone think that this means anything, check this out…”
Read Digby’s post linked directly above… some important points therein.
It’s Christmastime in Washington The Democrats rehearsed Gettin’ into gear for four more years Things not gettin’ worse The Republicans drink whiskey neat And thanked their lucky stars They said, ‘He cannot seek another term They’ll be no more FDRs’
I sat home in Tennessee Staring at the screen With an uneasy feeling in my chest And I’m wonderin’ what it means
So come back Woody Guthrie Come back to us now Tear your eyes from paradise And rise again somehow If you run into Jesus Maybe he can help you out Come back Woody Guthrie to us now
I followed in your footsteps once Back in my travelin’ days Somewhere I failed to find your trail Now I’m stumblin’ through the haze But there’s killers on the highway now And a man can’t get around So I sold my soul for wheels that roll Now I’m stuck here in this town
So come back Woody Guthrie Come back to us now Tear your eyes from paradise And rise again somehow If you run into Jesus Maybe he can help you out Come back Woody Guthrie to us now
There’s foxes in the hen house Cows out in the corn The unions have been busted Their proud red banners torn To listen to the radio You’d think that all was well But you and me and Cisco know It’s going straight to hell
So come back, Emma Goldman Rise up, old Joe Hill The barracades are goin’ up They cannot break our will Come back to us, Malcolm X And Martin Luther King We’re marching into Selma As the bells of freedom ring
So come back Woody Guthrie Come back to us now Tear your eyes from paradise And rise again somehow If you run into Jesus Maybe he can help you out Come back Woody Guthrie to us now
Peter Daou has written an interesting piece on the right-wings grab for power in the United States, how it has unfolded and what may lie ahead:
The Dynamic of a Bush Scandal: How the Spying Story Will Unfold (and Fade)- The third button on the Daou Report’s navigation bar links to the U.S. Constitution, a Constitution many Americans believe is on life support – if not already dead. The cause of its demise is the corrosive interplay between the Bush administration, a bevy of blind apologists, a politically apathetic public, a well-oiled rightwing message machine, lapdog reporters, and a disorganized opposition. The domestic spying case perfectly illuminates the workings of that system. And the unfolding of this story augurs poorly for those who expect it to yield different results from other administration scandals.
Here’s why: the dynamic of a typical Bush scandal follows familiar contours…
The incident where a Darthmouth student was investigated by the Department of Homeland Security for requesting a copy of Mao’s Little Red Book is more than a bit frightening.
It is the type of action that many on the right insist is keeping us safer and is part of the GWOT, but once again, I feel compelled to quote Edward R. Murrow: We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.
When agents of a government are visiting innocent citizens at home and questioning them regarding information, associates and associations with material or persons, we have taken a great leap forward- toweards fascism.
Harry Shearer via C and L… Ann Coulter talks (Quictime) like a junkie… very conservative of her… It’s silly really. She’s a nicotine addict, which is something I relate to. The joke she makes though, is so… 80’s. Very out of date. And, seems a bit hypocritical coming out of the mouth of a voice of the right. Hearing anyone make an allusion to chopping up and snorting a stimulant is sort of weird I guess. It’s bad humor at best. The sort of thing you’d hear teens say about 20 years ago. Oh well.
This is what we have become… witess the pathological dehumanizing of another human being…
When “agitated passenger” Rigoberto Alpizar was shot for wearing a backpack and attempting to disembark a plane, while also reportedly saying “I have a bomb!” with his wife trailing behind him yelling “he’s not well, he’s got a disorder!” a good number of blogsphere pundits from the right side of the aisle immediately thought it was proper for the Air Marshall’s to shoot the man. Dead.
For what it’s worth, jihadists seldom announce their intentions to detonate an explosive, so let’s not jump to conclusions.
Common sense actually. And, truth be told, Jeff’s statement is at the crux of this tragedy.
But, the right just loves their terror, even if it’s NOT REALLY terror, it just looks like terror, or at least, the kind of terror they lust for: We are safer when we kill anybody who COULD have been a terrorist. I feel safe when they kill people.
This is how they think. Fear in play.
The fraidy cat over at Stop the ACLU is honest about his fraidy catness:
Another mistake, but who can blame the Marshall for his response? I think he did exactly the right thing, and it makes me feel safer that we have such rapid responders. (emphasis added) I wonder if the lefties will try to make a bad guy out of this man?
To the latter: No. But, if it turns out that the man, who had a name, Rigoberto Alpizar, didn’t say “I have a bomb.” someone has some explain’ to do. To the former: Think about this for a minute. This peanut brain admits the killing is a mistake, yet says he feels safer. They are killing innocent people, but I feel safer because, well, they do it so well! And so fast! Thank you rapid responders! Have a cookie!
The meat mass with eyes over at Sister Toldjah cuts right to the point:
The person claiming to have had the bomb is indeed dead. The air marshal in this instance did the right thing. Let’s hope we don’t start seeing the usual suspects call for an ‘investigation’ into this to find out whether or not the air marshal erred when all the man was doing was his job.
Don’t wants no pesky facts gettin’ in my war on terror soup! Kill them bastids. Even the innocent crazy bastids who we thought were terrorists but are just crazy bastids! Them ‘usual suspects better not put no information in my soup.
John Hawkins of Right Wing News was particularly cold and predictably boneheaded:
Assuming everything in this initial report is accurate, it sounds like a tragic, but righteous shooting by the air marshal.
Ah yes, a morally improper use of the word “righteious“, followed by the all important “caveat” soon followed by dipshit analysis:
In fact, since we’re talking about a man with a backpack, claiming to have a bomb, on a plane full of passengers, the Air Marshals would have been completely justified in killing him before he even had time to get off the plane. But, perhaps they figured he was moving away from the plane and it was better to get him away from the passengers, rather than risk an accidental detonation near those civilians.
No, it doesn’t work that way. As it went down, “figuring” it is better to let a bomb toting terrorist move away from a plane doesn’t even enter the equation.
Rigoberto Alpizar was running down the aisle and running out of the plane. The Marshall’s were pretty much thinking “Holy shit!” and everything after that is a fog with a loaded gun pointing the way. But, John’s 20/20 hindsight analysis is fun to poke a stick at anyway. Let’s continue with the carnival of the dipshit:
As far as his wife saying he was bipolar goes, you simply can’t take her word for it. For all the air marshals knew, she could be Chechen Black Widow trying to trick the marshals into getting closer to him or trying to distract them while he got the bomb ready.
Well, you know, some of us of a more cynical bent would like to think that this is true, but alas, a man is dead, and what do you know! NO BOMB. So, theory number 2 is just a pile of lint in the corner. But, again, it’s fun to watch such bad ideas grow whiskers.
It’s a terrible thing for an innocent man to be gunned down like that in front of his wife, but unfortunately, mentally ill or not, he brought it on himself. You run around an airplane claiming to have a bomb in front of armed air marshals, you’re just asking to get killed as surely as if you jumped in front of an oncoming train.
The possible mentally ill guy brought it on himself? Hmmm. Interesting. So, if it turns out that the guy was bipolar and his meds were a bit outdated or he just didn’t digest it well that day that he brought it on himself.
See, what John is saying here is: This is the best we can do. Too bad. He wasn’t a terrorist, but he COULD have been a terrorist, so it was better to kill the innocent to protect the innocent. Just in case. You never know. And, to top it off, he’s blaming the victim!
What a crock. But, wait, it gets better!
My sincere condolences go out to the Alpizar family, but it sounds like the air marshal who killed him did the right thing.
Great. I’m really sorry they killed your husband/brother, but you just can’t be crazy like that an not expect to get shot fives times.
What a nice guy!
The sheer lack of respect for a once living person, Rigoberto Alpizar, the lack of waiting to comment on the story until more information was available, is just so fucking typical.
What a pasty assed coward. Hawkins is essentially condoning the killing of possibly innocent people in the pursuit of phantom security. It’s all part of their nonsense: “If we shoot people who MIGHT be terrorists, we are safer.”
And, of course, those of us who actually wait for such stories to unfold because we know that media manipulation always works from the front back… Knew that there was definitely more to this story. And, of course, there comes this today:
At least one passenger aboard American Airlines Flight 924 maintains the federal air marshals were a little too quick on the draw when they shot and killed Rigoberto Alpizar as he frantically attempted to run off the airplane shortly before take-off.
“I don’t think they needed to use deadly force with the guy,” says John McAlhany, a 44-year-old construction worker from Sebastian, Fla. “He was getting off the plane.” McAlhany also maintains that Alpizar never mentioned having a bomb.
“I never heard the word ‘bomb’ on the plane,” McAlhany told TIME in a telephone interview. “I never heard the word bomb until the FBI asked me did you hear the word bomb. That is ridiculous.” Even the authorities didn’t come out and say bomb, McAlhany says. “They asked, ‘Did you hear anything about the b-word?’” he says. “That’s what they called it.”
When the incident began McAlhany was in seat 24C, in the middle of the plane. “[Alpizar] was in the back,” McAlhany says, “a few seats from the back bathroom. He sat down.” Then, McAlhany says, “I heard an argument with his wife. He was saying ‘I have to get off the plane.’ She said, ‘Calm down.’”
Alpizar took off running down the aisle, with his wife close behind him. “She was running behind him saying, ‘He’s sick. He’s sick. He’s ill. He’s got a disorder,” McAlhany recalls. “I don’t know if she said bipolar disorder [as one witness has alleged]. She was trying to explain to the marshals that he was ill. He just wanted to get off the plane.”
So, there is a first hand account that Rigoberto Alpizar did not say he had a bomb. I expect there will be many more. And, the FBI questioning thing is a red flag. Call me crazy, but if Rigoberto Alpizar was yelling “I’ve got a bomb!”, and it’s understood, and the Feds all agree, the Feds don’t go around asking the witnesses “Did the guy say the ‘b-word’?” They say “tell me what he said.” or something like that. Obviously, there was some doubt as to whether the “b-word” was used at all.
Who knows. In that quck of an instant, backpack = bomb. Crazy man carrying backpack = bomb + terrorist. At least on a very primal level. But, we all deserve better.
Obviously, training is not sufficient, for the reaction was over the top for the situaion. And, um, I hate to point this out, but something went wrong, an innocent man is dead.
If gets even better:
McAlhany says he tried to see what was happening just in case he needed to take evasive action. “I wanted to make sure if anything was coming toward me and they were killing passengers I would have a chance to break somebody’s neck,” he says. “I was looking through the seats because I wanted to see what was coming.
“I was on the phone with my brother. Somebody came down the aisle and put a shotgun to the back of my head and said put your hands on the seat in front of you. I got my cell phone karate chopped out of my hand. Then I realized it was an official.”
These Air Marshall’s are working on Autopilot. No real analystical thinking is going on at all. It’s an obvious fuck up and an indictment of the security measures implimented by DHS, a point almost magically proven by the following PR style spin statement by DHS which left me speechless:
“This incident demonstrates the critical role that air marshals play in aviation security today,” said Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke.
If killing an innocent man is an example of the “critical role” of air marshall’s, we’re all doomed.
Opression of teachers is a problem both here in the United States and in less democratic nations, such as Saudi Arabia. The impetus behind the oppression of teachers and what they can and can not say to a classroom of students is identical in many ways. (Although the choice of punishment is different.)
Saudi high-school chemistry teacher accused of discussing religion with his students has been sentenced to 750 lashes and 40 months in prison for blasphemy, officials said Thursday.
The court ruling was condemned by human rights activists, who said Mohammed Salamah al-Harbi was being imprisoned for having an “open discussion” with students.
Al-Harbi was convicted of questioning and ridiculing Islam, discussing the Bible and defending Jews, judicial officials said Thursday on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.
While here in the United States, a similar mindset, from both sides of the political spectrum, seems to be rather prevailant:
A Papillion-La Vista High School math teacher was fired Tuesday night for comments he made in class about religion. Robert Ziegler is a second-year math teacher at Papillion-La Vista High School. Administrators said he discussed Christianity while teaching his math class several times, and parents and students had complained. Administrators suspended Ziegler last month for violating school policy: He deviated from the system’s math curriculum. [...] Administrators testified that Ziegler was an excellent teacher. They said they had asked him several times to teach math, not Christianity, and that his lectures on God violated the Constitution and state law. Ziegler said he had chosen to follow God’s law instead of man-made laws.
And, this one, while not a free speech issue specifically, is rather interesting:
The New York Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal discrimination complaint against a Catholic school, charging that it unjustly fired an unmarried teacher for being pregnant.
“I don’t understand how a religion that prides itself on forgiving and on valuing life could terminate me because I’m pregnant and choosing to have this baby,” Michelle McCusker said Monday at a news conference to announce the suit.
The 26-year-old preschool teacher was fired last month from St. Rose of Lima in Queens, according to published reports. [...] “This is a difficult situation for every person involved, but the school had no choice but to follow the principles contained in the teachers’ personnel handbook,” diocese spokesman Frank DeRosa said in a news release.
The handbook says that each teacher must “convey the teachings of the Catholic faith by his or her words and actions.”
Lawyers at the NYCLU, which filed the suit on McCusker’s behalf, argued that administrators enforced the policy in a way that disproportionately affects women.
“The school used her pregnancy as a marker,” attorney Cassandra Stubbs said. “How do they determine if male employees engage in premarital sex?”
Good question.
It is all very interesting because, as said, the mechanism for oppression knows not from left or right. The level of tolerance though, is something different.
Ultimately, it is important to remember that students are smart, for the most part. We have to assume that people are individuals, and that they are going to make mistakes and assume perspectives, political positions based upon much more than simply what they are told in a classroom. Such things occur over an entire life.
Certain things have been established as being separate for a reason: teaching religion in public schools for example. Not something the government nor the states should be involved in. If you want to learn about religion, go to a religious school.
Also, at a certain level, high school for example, it becomes necessary to respect a teachers person perspective and political orientation. That said, there is a place for teaching religion, and the math class is not the place.
When I was at prep school and when I was in college, I had teachers who were Liberal, I had teachers who were Conservative. And, to be entirely honest, the two teachers I cherish the most in my education experience, one was a Liberal, the other was a Conservative. They were both excellent teachers. Sure, they let us know how they felt on a given issue. But, they also taught us how to think and to discuss and argue our point and to seek to understand all points of view. I didn’t always agree with either of them, but I learned from them.
That is because I was taught at an early age to think on my own. So, when a Liberal or a Conservative teacher was a bit overboard, I understood that and worked accordingly. I had a very pro-Communist Liberal teacher at NYU my sophmore year. And, we bumped heads. And you know what? He failed me. He hated my work. I wouldn’t bow to his views. And, I learned from that. Others were smarter and played his game and passed. By the same token, the next year I had a Conservative teacher who was equally as rigid in his views who I totally did not get along with at all and we bumped heads every class. But, I was wise by then, and I wrote all my papers and did my work to his liking. And, I got a B. (It would have been an A if I had been smart enough to not speak up in class and just parroted what he wanted to hear, but we learn some things the painful way.)
My point is, we have to give students a bit more credit, and ensure that they are learning the real skills they need to be productive members of whatever society they choose to be a part.
And, that means critical thinking.
But, as long as there are those who want everyone to think alike, teachers will be given the proverbial and symbolic 750 lashes for their sins, committed in the fight to explore the boundaries of education and free speech.
Where am I?
You are currently viewing the archives for December, 2005 at buzz twang.
