A Bigot's a Bigot, no Matter how Small (That is to say, ethically small)

"While the term [ebonics] is avoided by most linguists, it has gained a certain amount of salience outside of academia (such as on Internet message boards), often as the object of ridicule, particularly when it is inaccurately parodied as more different from Standard American English than it really is. Black American linguist John McWhorter argues that the use of Ebonics as a term does more to hinder black academic achievement than to help it, in that considering an ethnic group's slightly-different speech to be a completely different language from English serves only to widen the perceived divide between whites and blacks in America." - Ebonics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep... That's for sure...

Does Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters.org speak (and presumably, understand) the same language as the rest of us?

Cokie Roberts on Downgrade: "The Problem That We Have Here Is the Constitution" - NewsBusters.org - Noel Sheppard

ABC's Cokie Roberts said something on national television Sunday that made her colleague George Will shake his head on camera.

During a "This Week" discussion about the recent credit rating downgrade by Standard and Poor's Roberts said, 'The problem that we have here is the Constitution of the United States of America which actually does require people to come together from different perspectives" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

Am I the only one left wondering whether some of these wing nut types speak the same language as the rest of it... When you watch that video, isn't it obvious to you that when she says --

"This group of people in New York [Standard and Poor’s] is actually talking about more government rather than less government, Congressman. In fact, the reason they like France and Great Britain is because they’re parliamentary systems where the majority gets what it wants no matter what.

And the problem that we have here is the Constitution of the United States of America which actually does require people to come together from different perspectives whether it's divided government or not. We have divided branches of government under any circumstance."

--she's saying the Constitution of the United States of America is a problem for those who prefer the parliamentary systems of France and Great Britain, where majority rules, no matter what [that group of people in NY - Standard and Poor's], and NOT that the Constitution of the United States of America is a problem for America itself, which seems to be the meme this Sheppard wingnut is trying to sell??

What the fuck is WRONG with these people?

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/08/07/cokie-roberts-problem-we-have-here-constitution-united-states-america#ixzz1UOdy5Rzt

ADDED: As I was following the other links attached to this nonsense via Memeorandum, I came across this wingnut site, which features this prescient quote: "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SPEAK IN SUCH A WAY THAT YOU CANNOT BE MISUNDERSTOOD." -- KARL POPPER (I might add the word "willingly" in there between "be" and "misunderstood" for circumstances like this one (because yeah, I believe this is just another manufactured rightwing nontroversy ginned up to attack "the lib'rul lame stream media"), but it's a good quote nevertheless, with or without my added word...

How Clinton Handled His Debt Ceiling Crisis Better Than Obama: A few choice lines...

A few choice lines for the Obama White House and elected Democrats in general to remember, going forward:

Clinton would have none of it. “If they send me a budget that says simply, ‘You take our cuts or we’ll let the country go into default,’ I will veto it,” Clinton said at the time, calling Republican tactics “economic blackmail.”

Instead of attempting to negotiate over the cuts, Clinton simply vetoed both bills. “America has never liked pressure tactics, and I would be wrong to permit these kind of pressure tactics to dramatically change the course of American life,” Clinton said. “I cannot do it, and I will not do it.” The government shut down.

Still, even though Clinton enjoyed political and economic advantages that Obama does not, his no-compromises strategy had some clear advantages. Unlike Obama, he refused to let the threat of default set the national agenda. Because he would not enter into negotiations over the debt ceiling, the issue barely roused the public consciousness. On November 9, 1995, a senior administration official told the Washington Post, “Our position is it does not matter what they put on this legislation, we are not going to accept anything but clean bills because we will not be blackmailed over default. Get it? No extortion. No blackmail. What you hear are their screams of complaint as they realize we are not, not, not budging on this.”

Quotes from How Clinton Handled His Debt Ceiling Crisis Better Than Obama | The New Republic

"Never negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them."

The Tea Party’s War on America - NYTimes.com

Recommended on the first paragraph alone... Call these folks whatever "civilized" names you (or they) want, but the next time a bunch of elected officials say "give us what we want, or the whole country gets it," (default, ruined lives, economic meltdown, or whatever it is they'll hold to everyone's head the next time), perhaps it'd be worth remembering that to negotiate with people who are threatening folks only encourages them to do it again, with more dire threats, and for even higher stakes.

Never again.

The United States does not negotiate with folks threatening harm to others to get what they want.

Period.

Investigate Pamela Geller...

"We are stockpiling and cache weapons, ammunition and equipment. This is going to happen fast."- Pamela Geller's anonymous Norwegian commenter, in 2007

Who was that guy (or "those guys"--the writer did say "we," not "I") in Norway "stockpiling and cache weapons, ammunition, and equipment" back in 2007? Was it Anders Breivik, or will it be the next rightwing extremist(s) who commit(s) violence somewhere in Europe?

The Best (Not-So-New) Thing In The World (Faith)

I have little to add to this, except to say that it gives me hope, and bolsters my faith...

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

How Many Responsible Counter-Jihad Bloggers Are Out There, Anyway?

In response to this list*, (the content of which seems pretty intelligent and nuanced to me, for the most part), I offer the following (three, currently, though I'll be glad to add more if anyone can point me to any) blog posts by right wingers that--at least in these posts--seem to have a handle on the difference between being opposed to violent muslim extremism (islamism, islamofacism), and being opposed to muslims and the Muslim faith (islam, itself).

1) A Responsible Anti-Jihadism? - Josh Travino - The New Nixon (From 2009, but prescient)

2) On Islamophobia and Right Wing Extremism - Rusty Shackleford - The Jawa Report (Unfortunately, not all of the writers at The Jawa Report share his thinking'... and if you REALLY want to be depressed about the nature of folks, read the comments of the post, where Rusty is accused of all manner of rightwing / muzzie-lovin' treasons, just for writing the post.)

3) Atlas Shrugs Blogger Pamela Geller an Inspiration for Terrorists - Dean Esmay - Dean's World (This post first appeared in the list cited above. A little rooting and reading on his blog showed that this "progressive" is actually not a progressive at all... Since I included this post here, I did not repeat it below.)

4) ...
(Because I'm really hoping there are more than three, out there...) ((To be fair, I have not done much of a search, as yet... These three kinda fell into my lap, and I was impressed enough to write this post acknowledging them. If/when I have one for #4, this blurb will become #5, and so on, until I find at least as many "responsible anti-jihad bloggers" (to coin borrow a phrase) as I have hateful ones.))
-------------------

*That list, in case you'd rather not:
In response to Norway attacks, right-wing bloggers suddenly demand nuance - The Plum Line - The Washington Post

Balloon Juice - “This rhetoric,” he added, “is not cost-free.”

Booman Tribune ~ Pam Geller Compares Herself to John Lennon

Little Green Footballs - NYT: US 'Counter-Jihad' Bloggers Heavily Influenced Oslo Terrorist

Daily Kos: Norway killer found inspiration in American anti-Islamism

Rightbloggers Discover the Real Victims of Norway Mass Murderer Breivik: Themselves - Runnin' Scared

Anders Breivik's Christian Terrorism in Norway: Are Pamela Geller and other anti-Islamist bloggers responsible? - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine

UPDATE: What I said above about these bloggers saying the right thing "in these posts, at least" was dead on... Josh Trevino, from the #1 link above, was the same asshole who advocated killing everyone--including American citizens, and even including a Jewish holocaust survivor--EVERYONE, who took part in the Gaza aid flotillas, likening them to Nazi sympathizers... Yes, REALLY!: Former Bush Speechwriter: Shooting People On Gaza Flotilla "OK" Because Participants Are Like Nazis. He's still an example of better rightwing thinking on Muslims in the post above, but it only goes to show that even a fucked up broken individual like him can have moments of clarity and a soul worth saving... But what a fucktard... (Just reading that shit he spewed about people who believe Israel has no right to blockade another country, makes me want to shower. Guess all that macho talk makes him feel more like a man... Which, if you've seen him... Well, let's just leave it at that...)

The Growing Scourges - Rightwing Nationalism? Islam? How about Extremism...

Found at the small dead animals post, Oslo: The Christian Response, (but also quoted approvingly here, too):

From today's Toronto "Red" Star editorial:

'The best catharsis Norway can have is to expose a mass murderer for what he is, to publicly refute his twisted ideology and to bring him to justice. The light and air of a public courtroom are the best disinfectants. This case matters to other European countries as well. Rightwing nationalism is a growing scourge that can inspire a lunatic fringe.'

Can you imagine them writing the following?

'The best catharsis America can have is to expose mass murderer Nidal Hasan for what he is, to publicly refute his twisted ideology and to bring him to justice. The light and air of a public courtroom are the best disinfectants. This case matters to European countries as well. Islam is a growing scourge that can inspire a lunatic fringe.'

Nope. Me neither."

In both cases, the ideology of the killers needs to be examined and discussed. But Breivik's murderous acts were not the product of nationalism (or even "rightwing nationalism") any more than Hasan's murderous acts were the result of Islam.

Both were the result of extremism, each of their own variety. Yes, rightwing nationalism / Islam were factors in the stories, but only in the sense that Anders Breivik and Nadal Hasan claimed to be acting in furtherance of those ideologies, but in both cases they had created &/or were influenced by others who had bastardized what these ideologies are actually about and how they are put into practice by their more mainstream adherents.

Now obviously, I'm not all that familiar with Islam, but I do know that the Muslim faith is one of the great religions throughout the world, practiced by millions of people, and that it is a fraction of Muslims who are extremists in word or deed.

I know even less about rightwing nationalism, but I can imagine and empathize with those who see their country and it's traditional identity slipping away. (I find it far easier to imagine and empathize where "old Europe" (or old anywhere) is concerned; the USA started out a nation of immigrants, and still is.) While I'm staunchly opposed to bigotry--also a function of being an American and of our being a nation of immigrants, I think--I don't have much of an issue with countries maintaining their heritage by limiting immigration and demanding a degree of adherence to the customs and laws of the land. The key is, the laws must apply to all fairly. If a country chooses to limit immigration, they should limit immigration from all countries, not just certain ones. If a country chooses to limit (or allow) religious expression or adornments in schools, the laws governing such things should apply whether one is a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, or any other religion.

Obviously, it's far easier to say than to do, and I'm sure accommodating the needs of one faith will sometimes require more than accommodating the needs of another. I can only say that there is value in living and letting live, sometimes. You're not losing anything if another faith gets an accommodation you do not need or want, and in my opinion it's a little petty to bitch, if that is the case. While the analogy is by no means perfect, there is some value in treating religious accommodation the same way many schools, etc treat accommodations for disabilities. The child with dyslexia isn't getting something extra that your non-learning disabled child isn't getting; both children are getting the same instruction, based on their needs. By the same token, some children have needs that cannot be met in a normal school setting, and it is neither discriminatory or a privilege to have them attend elsewhere, whether that need is specialized instruction due to a physical or mental deficit, or the ability to worship several times during a school day, as required by one's faith.

Bigotry is a problem (and yes, I think that some of the folks being criticized a a result of the Norwegian killer quoted them have said and done bigoted things. That doesn't make them responsible for what the guy did, but it isn't out of the question to talk about what they're saying or to criticize it, either. The fact is, Breivik's quotes and claims shined a light on these anti-muslim/counter-jihadist writers, and there is nothing wrong with talking about their words and ideas.)

The real problem though, is extremism, whether one is an islamist terrorist, a leftwing ecoterrorist, or a rightwing nationalist terrorist. People who commit acts of violence or large-scale vandalism in furtherance of a political outcome are dangerous, and need to be opposed and stopped. (Small-scale vandalism ain't so hot either, but there's a vast difference between spray painting a sign or breaking a window, and blowing up a building or a bulldozer.) There will always be bigots and separatists and people who want to force you to think, act, and believe as they do. Ugly words and ideas can inspire ugly acts, but they are not the cause of those ugly acts. That doesn't mean one cannot criticize the ugly words and ideas--indeed, I believe one has an obligation to do so--but it's foolish to attribute one person's ugly thinking for another's ugly deeds.