Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 1907)
Mitchell Finds It Relevant to Highlight on NBC How MSNBC.com Users Reject Palin’s Retort

Sarah Palin’s use in a video commentary of the “blood libel” phrase, against those exploiting the Tucson shooting in order to discredit her, inflamed television journalists with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell ridiculously highlighting on Wednesday’s Nightly News how “more than 375,000 people have expressed their views in an online poll on MSNBC.com” and “nearly 59 percent do not agree with Palin.” As if MSNBC.com attracts any kind of representative audience. On the CBS Evening News , Chip Reid maintained: “She ignited a new controversy by using the term ‘blood libel,’ which refers to false allegations from the Middle Ages that Jews murdered Christian children to use their blood in religious ceremonies.” Claire Shipman, on ABC’s World News , relayed how “she uses a phrase many view as particularly incendiary, ‘blood libel.’” Mitchell asserted “Palin’s response is now setting off more controversy” as evidenced by how “the Internet was immediately on fire over two words in her speech, ‘blood libel,’ a central myth of anti-Semitism” which “is offensive say critics.” read more

Continue reading …

JOIN THE LIVE CHAT VISIT WHITEHOUSE.GOV Watch it live here. We’ll have excerpt and posts later.

Continue reading …

Last night The Daily Show weighed in on a plan to sanitize Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn . NewSouth Books recently announced that it would release a version of Twain’s classic novel that replaces 219 instances of the n-word with the word “slave.” “Well, congratulations on the promotion, Jim,” Comedy Central’s “Senior Black Correspondent” Larry Wilmore said of Twain’s fictional slave “Jim” character. “Wow, this is a huge upgrade, from n****r to slave. Yeah, that’s like a show going from WB to UPN.” After Wilmore tried to entice Jon Stewart into saying the word, The Daily Show host finally admitted, “It’s uncomfortable.” “It should be,” Wilmore replied. “Mark Twain put that word in for a reason. The n-word speaks to a society that casually dehumanized black people. Slave was just a job description.” “Jim is no longer a slave. He ran away. Twain’s saying he can’t run away from being a n****r,” he added. “Look, using that word doesn’t make the book offensive to today’s kids. They are accustomed to it,” Wilmore continued. “If you want kids to pick up a book, emphasize that word!” “Say it’s written by Lil’ Twain,” he joked. “It will be a young adult best seller. Leave Jim alone.” The decision to sanitize the book has been met with outrage from students and scholars alike. “[I]s it really that adolescents can’t comprehend the layers inherent in the word and its usage?” John McWhorter, contributor to The Root, asked readers . “[I]t’s hard not to notice that the typical black view regarding NewSouth’s action is that it would be a whitewashing of history. Black people want their kids to see the real Huckleberry Finn.” “We’ve come a long way indeed when there are cases in which white people are more offended by the n-word than the people it refers to,” he added. “‘Slave’ may suit the whims of today’s public, but it compromises the story’s tone and historical context,” 12th-grade student Sarah Gittens opined . “After all, if we republish Huck Finn , we will have to republish every single classic for one reason or another,” she wrote. “Once censorship begins, it will see no end.”

Continue reading …

By Ruth Marcus Blood libel is a term with a specific and terrible history. It refers to the scurrilous accusation that Jews kidnapped and murdered Christian children to use their blood to prepare Passover matzo. Related Entries January 12, 2011 What Is the Meaning of This ‘Blood Libel’? January 11, 2011 Right Pushes Back About Rhetoric’s Role in Arizona Shooting

Continue reading …

The debate rages on, and thanks to media spin and constant false equivalencies, at least one poll has 57% of its respondents rejecting any possibility of inflammatory speech having any influence over Jared Lee Loughner’s actions on Saturday morning. Welcome to the confluence of media echoes and denial. It was predictable, this la-la-la response. Kneejerk, even. No one wants to believe that words can influence, because that would require individuals to own their own words. God forbid. This is true in every context but politics, it seems. I believe there are some things one doesn’t say to their spouse unless they really mean it. Words like “I want a divorce”, “I hate you”, “I want to be with someone else” are not things one says unless they’re prepared to follow through with the appropriate actions. This is because once that barrier is broken, it cannot be rebuilt. The foundations of that marriage are forever weakened and possibly broken. Matt Taibbi takes that one step further . Which makes sense. If we’re being honest with ourselves, we in the media understand that our job descriptions do not entirely overlap with the requirements of good citizenship. If you’re in a marriage, or are a parent or living with parents, or have brothers or sisters or close friends, when you argue over a difficult issue, you don’t just take out all the weaponry in your arsenal and blast away. In the interests of preserving the relationship, and because you respect and love the other person as a human being, you argue as politely and respectfully as possible. And your goal in arguing is always to fix the actual problem — there’s no other, ulterior motive. That’s just not the case in either journalism (and I should know– more on that momentarily) or politics. In politics, you don’t need to treat everyone with decency and humanity, just 51% of the crowd. Actually, given that half or less than half of all people don’t vote, the percentage of people who require basic decency and indulgence is probably even lower than that, maybe 20-25% of the population. There’s plenty of power and money to be won by skillfully stimulating public anger against some or all of the rest, and there are few rewards for restraint. This idea of “skillfully stimulating public anger” has been a long-held prong of the right-wing strategy. Call it ” stochastic terrorism ” or media manipulation. Whatever it is, Eric Heubeck spelled it out in a Free Congress Foundation essay in 2001. ” We will maintain a constant barrage of criticism against the Left. We will attack the very legitimacy of the Left. We will not give them a moment’s rest. We will endeavor to prove that the Left does not deserve to hold sway over the heart and mind of a single American. We will offer constant reminders that there is an alternative, there is a better way. When people have had enough of the sickness and decay of today’s American culture, they will be embraced by and welcomed into the New Traditionalist movement. The rejection of the existing society by the people will thus be accomplished by pushing them and pulling them simultaneously. ” The principles in this essay are foundational to the teachings of Morton Blackwell’s Leadership Institute which churns out young conservative soldiers at an alarming rate, and it is clearly framed in violent, warlike terms, even summarizing their “movement” as one which “serve[s] as a force of social intimidation in its intermediate stage.. We will use guerrilla tactics to undermine the legitimacy of the dominant regime. We will take advantage of every available opportunity to spread the idea that there is something fundamentally wrong with the existing state of affairs. For example, we could have every member of the movement put a bumper sticker on his car that says something to the effect of “Public Education is Rotten; Homeschool Your Kids.” This will change nobody’s mind immediately; no one will choose to stop sending his children to public schools immediately after seeing such a bumper sticker; but it will raise awareness and consciousness that there is a problem. Most of all, it will contribute to a vague sense of uneasiness and dissatisfaction with existing society. We need this if we hope to start picking people off and bringing them over to our side. We need to break down before we can build up. We must first clear away the flotsam of a decayed culture. This is a structure carefully built on the shoulders of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. It is intended to create a culture of distrust and instability — a culture which can and does contribute to the views of people like Jared Lee Loughner. This is why they seize on issues like illegal immigration, allow birthers to continue with their ridiculous nonsense, and view the success of the health care bill as the rise of the antiChrist. Especially the health care bill, because in their eyes, it represents victory of a “leftist” view over the traditional right-wing view; that is, the idea that people have a right to access health care. This is why it’s so important to them that a repeal/de-funding effort be undertaken right away, and it’s why they continue to be so vile in their attacks on it. It’s not about health care. It’s about the victory of a perceived left-wing idea over right-wing philosophies. Erick Erickson at RedState says he’s “tired of talking about Arizona”, because it isn’t about left or right wing politics. It’s only about the fact that Loughner was delusional to him. He goes on to evangelize for the cause of Christ (this, from a guy who had no compunction or remorse about calling a sitting Supreme Court justice a “goat-f*cker), claiming there’s a “great chasm in this world between the saved and the damned.” Erickson is spouting the language of the Palin/Bachmann/O’Donnell Dominionists who believe beyond all else that they are entitled to inhabit the halls of government because they were chosen. It is a dangerous kind of cult-religion, the C Street kind of religion that harbors a true belief in their entitlement, and anger that it has been wrenched away from them from a mixed-race guy who might not even be a Christian . His goal is to pivot the discussion away from facts and toward some ephemeral faith-based acceptance of the mayhem wrought by the right-wing chaos tactics and one young man’s disturbed thought life. Just another diversion to pivot attention away from the truth, which is this: Inflammatory, eliminationist rhetoric surely carries an impact. A mental health professional speaking to Greg Sargent had this opinion: “We know the manifestation of mental illness is affected by cultural factors,” Dr. Swartz said. ” One’s cultural context does effect people’s thinking and particularly their delusions. It gives some content and shape to their delusions. While we don know whether there was a specific relationship between the political climate that he was exposed to and his thinking, it’s a reasonable line of inquiry to explore.” Asked whether Loughner’s mental illness invalidated questions as to whether his behavior might have been partly caused by the political climate or by violent rhetoric and imagery, Dr. Swartz said it shouldn’t. ” Studying the cultural influences on people’s delusions or persecutory thinking, and looking at different aspects of culture and how they effect people’s behavior, is a legitmate area of inquiry ,” Dr. Swartz said. The crux, lost in the national din. It’s not a direct cause-effect, despite the best efforts of many to say so. Palin’s graphic probably didn’t trigger Loughner’s outrage, but she and her advisors understood its intent, which is why they were so quick to scrub it. The daily “barrage of criticism” does pack a punch, as does intentionally creating a culture of “news-speak” where people are led on a daily basis to believe “something is wrong.” Our corporate media is a handmaiden of the right’s strategy, and it’s not just Fox News. It runs the gamut, from the Sunday talk shows to Chuck Todd’s idiotic commentary on MSNBC. They begin with a presumption of truth from conservatives, and work from there to deflect or just outright lie about liberals’ claims. It enables chaos and hate on a daily basis, whether for power or for money, or for both. But most importantly, it’s part of a larger and more destructive strategy to destroy liberals. Bonus: Media Matters’ David Brock on the coming storm . Bottom line: We ain’t seen nothing yet. Bonus #2: Today a man named Charles Turner Habermann was arrested for making threats against California WA Rep. Jim McDermott. Habermann is a constituent of Mary Bono Mack (R-CA). The FBI affidavit is here (PDF) . Read the affidavit for a flavor of how ingrained these right-wing talking points are.

Continue reading …
David Frum Blames AZ Shooting on Reefer Madness

The former Bush speechwriter who coined the term “Axis of Evil” claims a link between Jared Loughner, schizophrenia and pot smoking. Forget guns, “The Tucson shooting should remind us why we regulate marijuana.” Much of our culture’s historic intolerance of marijuana grew out of racism and the quack science used to justify it. Frum acknowledges in his blog post that “The connection between marijuana and schizophrenia is both controversial and complicated.” But, he writes, “The raw association is strong.” That’s like saying “I can’t prove anything conclusively, but I’ve got a gut feeling.” According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 42.6 percent of Americans have consumed marijuana by the time they graduate high school. If Frum is correct, we’re going to have a lot more dangerous schizophrenics to deal with. Perhaps we should get on top of the situation by drastically increasing funding for mental health services and amending the Constitution to ban guns. Whether pot makes you crazy, lazy or fat, you can’t shoot someone without a gun.

Continue reading …
More Details Crop Up About Giffords, Loughner

The Associated Press rounded up the latest reports as of Tuesday afternoon about Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ condition, including one doctor’s promising prognosis, as well as about alleged gunman Jared Loughner’s activities leading up to Saturday’s shooting. Related Entries January 12, 2011 What Is the Meaning of This ‘Blood Libel’? January 11, 2011 Right Pushes Back About Rhetoric’s Role in Arizona Shooting

Continue reading …
Fox talkers demand Sheriff Dupnik produce evidence. Since when has evidence ever mattered to Fox talkers?

Click here to view this media Bill O’Reilly stepped up last night to make his contribution to the Right’s jihad against Clarence Dupnik for speaking the truth about the environment in Arizona in which Jared Loughner’s shooting rampage occurred, devoting three whole segments to running down Dupnik, including his opening “Talking Points Memo” segment in which he attacked Dupnik for mixing politics and law enforcement. This, from the guy who has a man-crush on Sheriff Joe Arpaio. At least the first featured a defense of Dupnik from Alicia Menendez, the first yet allowed on Fox — though it was, unsurprisingly, an incredibly weak-kneed one. This exchange was pretty revealing, though: MENENDEZ: So you think that that rhetoric has nothing to do with this? Nothing at all? No connection? O’REILLY: There’s no connection at all. No I think that the man, — and here’s what I think, the man is a zealot. He’s a zealot. He is using and abusing his position as a Sheriff, all right? To spout the political point of view. All right? And two downsides. Number one, he ignites this whole thing because he did. And number two, he obscures the investigation. He obscures it. And I think it’s wrong on both counts. MENENDEZ: So why — here — so then, Bill, why are we sitting here talking about him instead of talking about what we do — O’REILLY: Because we want to — we want to neutralize people like him. That’s why! MENENDEZ: So he makes you nervous? O’REILLY: He doesn’t make me nervous. He makes me angry. MENENDEZ: If — if — there’s nothing legit about what he’s saying, then why is he making you nervous? O’REILLY: No, no, our — our job here at the Factor, Alicia, as you know is to spotlight people who are harming the country and I think Dupnik is harming the country. Then he brought on Elisabeth Hasselbeck and somehow managed to not ask her to clarify her previous thoughts on Sarah Palin’s “crosshairs” in relation to this story . Instead, they bashed Dupnik some more: HASSELBECK: The irony, Bill, is that we’re looking at a law enforcement individual in a position of power, and in a profession where evidence is near-mandatory, right? To prosecute anybody. And yet there’s no evidence to back up anything he’s saying. O’REILLY: Nothing. This is what Fox talkers were saying all day long (Laura Ingraham made the same charge that morning on Fox & Friends, claiming that Dupnik had “no evidence.” First, let’s stipulate: Dupnik had all the evidence he needed to make the kinds of remarks he made about the political and social environment in Arizona — one that has gotten so virulently ugly that Democrats and liberals in Arizona increasingly are fearful for their physical well-being and are reluctant to self-identify as liberals. ( Will Bunch had a terrific piece at Media Matters recently on this very subject; as someone with family and friends in Arizona, I can personally attest to this reality.) Unlike Bill O’Reilly or Megyn Kelly or Monica Crowley, Dupnik actually lives in Arizona, and does know whereof he speaks. Moreover, there is abundant evidence about the vicious eliminationist hatred, some of it officially sanctioned by the GOP and Tea Parties, that was directed at Giffords personally. But let’s get serious: When has evidence ever mattered to the talkers at Fox News — Bill O’Reilly especially? When there have been ugly incidents of right-wing extremist violence directed at “liberal” or government targets in the past, everyone at Fox — O’Reilly and his pal Glenn Beck in particular — have just as adamantly denied that the kind of ugly right-wing rhetoric regularly broadcast on their programs had anything to do with it … even when the evidence has been overwhelming that, in fact, it did. For instance, when right-wing extremist — and enthusiastic Fox News consumer — Jim David Adkisson walked into a Knoxville church in 2008 and gunned down two people, he was explicit in his manifesto about his sources of inspiration: “This was a symbolic killing. Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg’s book. I’d like to kill everyone in the mainstream media. But I know those people were inaccessible to me. I couldn’t get to the generals & high ranking officers of the Marxist movement so I went after the foot soldiers, the chickenshit liberals that vote in these traitorous people. Someone had to get the ball rolling. I volunteered. I hope others do the same. It’s the only way we can rid America of this cancerous pestilence.” Not only did much of the manifesto read like a juiced-up version of a typical O’Reilly “Talking Points Memo,” but O’Reilly’s books held a prominent spot on Adkisson’s bookshelves. This is what you would call pretty substantial evidence of a connection. So when a Newsday op-ed writer had the audacity to point out the obvious ties between O’Reilly’s (and the rest of the Right’s) overheated rhetoric and this monstrous act, how did O’Reilly respond? Why, he was outraged, outraged we tell you — and sent his Flying Monkey Ambush Squad, led by Jesse Watters, to attack the woman with cameras outside her home as she was unloading groceries: Click here to view this media That was just the first time. Then, when a right-wing extremist named Scott Roeder — a regular reader of O’Reilly’s columns in the “Operation Rescue” newsletter, a number of which targeted Dr. George Tiller for attack — walked into a Wichita church and shot Tiller in the head, O’Reilly was just as adamant denying that his vicious rhetoric could have played any role whatsoever in the shooting. Our favorite instance was when he brought on his ever-reliable shill, Juan Williams, to stick up for his pal O’Reilly : Similarly, when a young Pittsburgh white supremacist named Richard Poplawski — heeding Glenn Beck’s warnings that Obama was planning to take his guns away and might be planning to incarcerate people in concentration camps — gunned down three police officers who came to his door, Beck was adamant in denouncing bloggers like us for pointing out that there was a pretty obvious connection here: Click here to view this media And when a longtime far-right fringe actor named James Von Brunn walked into the Holocaust Memorial Museum and gunned down a security guard, Beck scrambled to portray him as left-wing nutcase — but hey, we shouldn’t be blaming anyone but the killer himself for this blah blah blah … Click here to view this media Later, O’Reilly and Beck got together to commiserate on just how nasty and awful those liberals were for daring to point to the, you know, actual evidence that the rhetoric they used may have helped fuel these acts of violence: Click here to view this media And then, when the evidence of a powerful connection between Glenn Beck’s rhetoric and a planned act of extreme violence is demonstrated to be incontrovertible, as it was in the case of would-be tides Foundation terrorist Byron Williams , what do they do at Fox? Nothing. They simply do not report on it. They pretend it simply didn’t happen. And their cohorts in the rest of the mainstream media largely do the same — which is how they’re able to get away with it. Evidence, schmevidence. Here’s a fact: Jared Loughner could have the collected works of Glenn Beck by his bedside, and a poster-size reproduction of Sarah Palin’s gunsight poster hanging over his desk, and these guys would insist they had nothing, NOTHING to do with this or any other act of violence. After all, their continued livelihood depends on it. Too bad American TV news consumers can’t figure that out, and respond accordingly.

Continue reading …

Today's Washington Post all but painted Tea Party conservatives in the Tar Heel State as racists opposed to racial integration and diversity in Raleigh-area schools. In truth the Wake County, North Carolina, school board is simply moving to reverse decades of busing that shuttled some students to schools farther away from their homes in an effort to artificially engineer the socioeconomic and racial diversity of the county's individual schools. “In N.C., a new battle on school integration,” the Post headlined staffer Stephanie McCrummen's story on today's A-section front page. “With tea party's backing, GOP school board moves to dismantle widely praised diversity policy,” added the subheader. read more

Continue reading …
Loughner Friend: ‘He Did Not Watch TV’ or ‘Listen to Political Radio’

It's become clear since Saturday that some in the media are determined to blame outspoken conservatives for the Tucson massacre. So there's really no reason to believe that yet another fact contradicting that attack will put it to rest. But in the spirit of journalism – that thing the left's media attack dogs profess their reverence for – it should be noted: a friend of the killer, Jared Lee Loughner, told “Good Morning America” that Loughner “did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right .” In other words, if this friend is to be believed, no cable news or talk radio personality drove Loughner to commit this heinous act. read more

Continue reading …