“Go home rag heads! Nuke Iran! Kill ‘em all!”
I remember the words, written in chalk on the blackboard in Spanish class my sophomore year in high school, like it was yesterday. That was in 1980, but it could have been today. They were written by a classmate, his reaction to the Iranian hostage crisis which was unfolding. It was not a fringe sentiment at that time. And, it immediately struck me, even then at the age of 16, as entirely not conducive to solving the problem. It was an emotional, ignorant statement based in arrogance, racism and fear.
Not much has changed in almost 30 years. Fear, arrogance, anger and racism have all come together, simmering for decades into a pathetically repetitious scenario that threatens to erode our civil liberties and undermine what little debate on these important issues already exists. The current form of those blackboard words is the wanton casualness and comfort level that so many feel with expressing fear and racism, albeit with a more subtle and covert rhetorical bent. While words as forward and obvious as the ones above can get one into hot water, the arrogance, fear and racism still exists. It’s simply expressed differently.
Still, it’s hard not to notice the racism and fear towards Muslims that the recent Pew Poll brought out in a good number of right wing pundits. It’s subtle, but palpable. Unfortunately, those who proffer this subtle racism and fear mongering are entirely clueless that they are doing it.
Allahpundit over at Hot Air thinks that his fear and racism is a “nuance” (a point he repeats several times) and that those who aren’t scared shitless like he is, deeply suspicious of the Muslim population and willing to engage in gross generalities are missing that “nuance”. He attempts to shade this overt belief with a bit of fear mongering. He quotes from Michelle Malkin:
“A few fringe jihadists here, a few fringe jihadists there, and soon you’re talking about bloody real numbers.”
New Yorkers like myself who deal with the threat of terror every time we walk down the street, walk into or near a landmark location, step onto a bus, or down into the subway, and who lived through the worst terror attack on US soil in its short history are not very inclined to raise the draw bridge and yell “the sky is falling” and start looking cross eyed at Muslim men because of a poll. (After all, in 2002 a poll showed that 7% of Americans believed that Elvis was still alive, and another 11% weren’t sure.)
Glenn Greenwald gets to the meat of the polling matter:
The hysteria over the Pew poll about American Muslims continues unabated, with the focus now on the finding that while 80% of American Muslims oppose attacks on civilians in all cases, 13% said they could be justified in some circumstances. The “discussion” illustrates some standard failings of our political discourse.
Michelle Malkin went to National Review to proclaim that the poll “should be a wake-up call, not another excuse for the mainstream media to downplay the threat of homegrown jihad.” Mark Steyn said it demonstrates the existence in America of “a huge comfort zone for the jihad to operate in,” and Jonah Goldberg warned how “significant” this is. On CNN last night, Anderson Cooper was horrified — just horrified — that “so many” American Muslims would support such violence.
The reality, though, is that it is almost impossible to conduct a poll and not have a sizable portion of the respondents agree to almost everything. And in particular, with regard to the specific question of whether it is justifiable to launch violent attacks aimed deliberately at civilians, the percentage of American Muslims who believe in such attacks pales in comparison to the percentage of Americans generally who believe that such attacks are justifiable.
It’s a reality and a given that there are people out there, including Muslims, who want to kill us. Hell, there are American’s sitting next to us on the train who probably want to kill us. America is a violent place. And, that violence is practiced all of the time, every single day, in our cities, in our towns, in our suburbs, on our streets, on our roads, in our homes, in our places of worship, at work and in our schools.
We enact violence upon each other all of the time. Every second of the day. Terrorism is simply an extension of that violence. 9/11 was hyper violence, but at its core no different than sitting in your college cafeteria and having some whacked out loser blow you away cause he decided to play Doom in real life.
Large scale terrorism is an experience we’ve been through, something we can still taste, something we can still remember with clarity and insight. And, while polls are nice if you want to prove a point, they don’t mean shit in the real world.
The real issue here though isn’t the veracity of polling, it’s the reasons behind terror attacks, and if the poll is taken at face value, why a percentage of American Muslim’s would consider a suicide attack valid under certain circumstances is an important question to ask. Not an implausible proposition in my opinion. The question is “why”? It’s the only way to find a solution.
There’s real people and real issues and real danger out there, from psychos with an axe to grind for reasons that run the gamut. In the final equation, since they all threaten our lives, it matters not if their agenda is to kill women who look like the one who spurned him, to kill people of a particular race, or to kill the Infidels. It’s a reality. They are all out there. Get used to it. And, consider, what the hell is going on? What can we do to stop it? Nothing? All questions worth discussing.
Yet, reacting with fear and racism to this fact only heightens the perception and gives credence to the idea that anyone should actually be surprised that there are people all around the world, and within the US, who are angry and want to express that anger with violence, believe that violence will serve to shine a light on their cause or that violence will actually bring about some type of change. It’s the same old equation that has knee capped civilization for as long as there have been haves and have-nots, for as long as there have been the powerful and the dispossessed, all battling for preeminence and for a piece of the pie. And, they kill people to get what they want, or simply to make a point. Or both.
Suicide attacks are the tool of extremists who want their piece of the pie. The thought process from the right though, is simply a modern version of writing a racist and ignorant statement on a blackboard, because even if you wanted to, you couldn’t kill every single person who would do harm to the US and its citizens. You simply cannot. Impossible. But, you can get rid of the reasons they want to kill you. The peace process in Northern Ireland is proof of how a cultural and religious war works. And, how it is resolved. Was it resolved by killing off all of the Protestants, or killing all the Catholics?
It is interesting to note though how each time something like this comes out, the usual right wing suspects run to the ramparts and scream “the Jihadists are coming!” from their nicely appointed home offices. And, I really have no patience for it any longer. Because they offer no solutions to the real problems that allow violence to prosper. The complete lack of real discussion on this matter was evident in the reaction to the Virginia Tech campus murders. The question asked over and over was “how could this happen?” And, ultimately, it’s not how. It happens because we allow it to happen. We accept it. The real question is what causes it? And, how can we stop it?
Terrorism is a reality we will live with for a very long time. Domestic terror, international terror, you name it. It’s part of the world we live in. Personally, I have no misconceptions that there are people out there who want to kill me and those around me. There are Jihadists who would kill me because I’m an American, and right wing militants and left wing militants who would kill me just because I’m fodder for their expression of violence. There are those who would kill me for the money in my pocket or just to say they did it.
The truth is: I’m certainly not going to adapt a chicken little approach, nor am I going to compromise my liberties and beliefs, out of fear and racist attitudes towards those who practice a specific religion or want to do me harm. And, that is what alarmists such as Malkin and her ilk advocate. They want us to capitulate to racism, to a totalitarian policy of generalization, in order to control and eliminate what they see as a threat. Of course, the reality is: they can’t eliminate the threat. Like Stalin, they soon find out that the more people you eliminate as an enemy, two more pop up to replace the one you eliminated.
It’s impossible to eliminate everyone who will do us harm. But, it is entirely possible to eliminate the reasons they want to do us harm. Starting with the way the US does business – both economic and political- around the world. The problem is, for the average wingnut, even considering this is blasphemy. They’d much rather advocate locking people up and carpet bombing people and comprising our moral position and compromising our liberties than admit a mistake.
Over at Ace of Spades, the equally scared shitless Ace has issues with the way the media doesn’t focus on the fear and racism like he does:
Personally, I’m a little bit more worried about the 26% of young Muslim males who want to kill me, but it’s good to know that “most Muslims” seek to adopt the “American lifestyle.” (Which may or may not involve killing Americans.)
I’ve no doubt that Ace is worried about a percentage that may or may not be true, and truly believes his chances of getting whacked by a Jihadi are greater than his getting killed in a car crash on his way home from work, or shot in a robbery at the Wal Mart, or by a random car jacking, or one of many many other violent deaths exacted upon him by his fellow American’s, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or what have you. And, he completely under values the importance of anti-Muslim rhetoric, movements and activities in the US:
Get that? US Muslims are doing everything they can to assimilate with bigoted Americans, and yet we deface their buildings.
Can you spot the logical fallacy? It’s not hard to spot the fear based audacity and racist perspective. Muslims are condemned no matter what they do. If they complain about racist and hate crimes, they’re ungrateful and whining.
It’s essential eliminationist rhetoric. And, it has no place in the discussion. Such as it is…
Greenwald concludes:
The reality of that Pew poll is that, generally and comparatively speaking, it demonstrates just how unremarkable, assimilated, peaceful and consummately American is the American Muslim population. If anything, support for violence — including against civilians — is notably less than it is among Americans generally. Again, those are just facts. Yet by manipulating the polling data and failing to discuss it comparatively, an impression is quickly solidifying, as intended, that there are throngs of scary and threatening jihadist Muslims — both in our midst and around the world — waiting to launch suicide attacks on us, and that necessitates the euphemistic Malkian “wake-up call.”
In the end, it’s all they have, IMHO.
“I stand by Al Gonzales, and I would hope that people would be more sober in how they address these important issues,” Bush said. “And they ought to get the job done of passing legislation, as opposed to figuring out how to be actors on the political theater stage.” – George Bush – May 21, 2007
Overture: Deer in Headlights
Act One: Savior
Act Two: Warrior
Act Three: False Prophet
Act Four: Braggadocio
“There are some that feel like if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don’t understand what they are talking about if that is the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring ‘em on.” (Source)
Act Five: Fool
“Sometimes, words have consequences you don’t intend them to mean. ‘Bring ‘em on’ is the classic example, when I was really trying to rally the troops and make it clear to them that I fully understood, you know, what a great job they were doing.
“And those words had an unintended consequence,” Bush continued. “It kind of, some interpreted it to be defiance in the face of danger. That certainly wasn’t the case. Or, you know, ‘dead or alive’ in referring to Osama bin Laden at the Pentagon. I can remember getting back to the White House, and Laura said, ‘What did you do that for?’
“I said, ‘Well, it was just an expression that came out. I didn’t rehearse it.’ . . . I don’t know if you’d call it a regret, but it certainly is a lesson that a president must be mindful of, that the words that you sometimes say — I speak plainly sometimes, but you’ve got to be mindful of the consequences of the words. So put that down. I don’t know if you’d call that a confession, a regret, something.” (Source) (Video)
It’s said that the test of a true leader is their ability to navigate past the rocky places with an eye on keeping the ship on coarse and the crew safe. By that measure, Fearless George is the proverbial dunsel.
I sorta feel bad for the poor dumb slob. He’s in shark infested waters with nothing but a bloody hunk of prime rib eye keeping him afloat…
What George Bush said about Paul Wolfowitz’ resignation over the heated reaction to Wolfowitz trying to give his girlfriend a pay raise:
“I believe all parties in this matter have acted in good faith,” Bush said in a markedly somber tone. “I regret that it has come to this. I admire Paul Wolfowitz. I admire his heart, and I particularly admire his focus in helping the poor. There is a board meeting going on as we speak. All I can tell you is that Paul Wolfowitz has an interest in what’s best for the bank, just like he’s had an interest in what’s best in making sure the bank focuses on things that matter — human suffering, the human condition. So I applaud his vision, I respect him a lot, and as I said, I regret that it has come to this.”
What George Bush said about giving US soldiers serving their country, risking their lives in Iraq a pay raise:
[...]
The official word from the White House, according to the Army Times:
Bush budget officials said the administration “strongly opposes” both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases “unnecessary.”
“When combined with the overall military benefit package, the president’s proposal provides a good quality of life for service members and their families,” the policy statement says. “While we agree military pay must be kept competitive, the 3 percent raise, equal to the increase in the Employment Cost Index, will do that.”
The Carpetbagger has more info and asks:
Show of hands: who thinks the president would veto the 2008 defense authorization bill because it was too generous to troops and their families in a time of war?
