This, from Jeffrey Goldberg, may be the dumbest thing I’ve read about the Holocaust museum shooting:
The attacks in Arkansas and Washington are both manifestations of a radical type of intolerance, and they are linked in very deep ways. The left, generally speaking, doesn’t want to acknowledge Muslim intolerance, and the right, generally speaking, doesn’t want to acknowledge white, Christian intolerance. But they both exist, and they should both be acknowledged.
Where do we begin? Maybe with these three points:
1) Both shooters were deranged men whose actions had nothing to do with what they claimed were their religious beliefs, and I say this as someone who opposes all forms of organized religion. We may as well blame the actions of the Zodiac killer on astrological intolerance while we’re at it.
2) Teh left’s failure to acknowledge “Muslim intolerance” is so great that half the Democratic Senators in Congress voted for a shapeless war against “Islamofacism” in Iraq.
3) John McCain rightly called Jerry Falwell et al. “agents of intolerance” before he realized that he would have to kiss said agents’ asses to get the Republican nomination. Ralph Reed called Christian right voters “wackos”. They suck up to these people for professional gain, not because they refuse to acknowledge their craziness.
What Golberg writes is a perfect example of contemporary Atlantic blog idiocy. It criticizes “both sides” so it is even-handed. It is so non-specific as to be nonfasifiable. And Sully nods along with a “true dat.”
Sirkowski
Goldberg also said only Jews should guard the Holocaust museum.
DougJ
Are you kidding me?
kommrade reproductive vigor
False Equivalency Fail.
glasgowtremontaine
I assumed “true dat” was your, ironically offensive, gloss. But no. Sheesh.
iluvsummr
The left is well-known for embracing and promoting Sharia law and death to non-muslims in the US, especially within the caliphate of Connecticut, so Goldberg is right to criticize. All muslims are leftists, especially this guy.
Comrade Stuck
Muslim Intolerence? I assume he’s talking about inside the US, and as such, the comparison is absurd. I think there are around a million or so muslims in the US, and is a feather in our caps that US muslim immigrants are highly assimilated (compared to other western countries) and loyal to the US, and mostly go about their lives like ordinary Americans — which is working hard trying to feed their families.
On the Christian side of intolerance, there are around 30 to 40 million fundamentalist types, who by and large think liberals are the devils agents, and spend all day figuring out how to take away rights from other Americans, such as gay folk, and banning anything that walks for lack of their personal approval, (of they being God’s workers, they are just doing HIS bidding of course).
jl
“The left, generally speaking, doesn’t want to acknowledge Muslim intolerance”
I agree with DougJ that this is absolutely flatly untrue. Close to “1+1=5”, and “the sun is dark” untrue.
But I guess in the spirit of tolerance and nonpartisan comity, I, a liberal, must agree with a flat out obvious falsehood. Otherwise two-faced hypocritical and moronic, but very widely respected fatheads like David Broder and David Gregory and Schiefer will cry.
I saw that Scarborough dude complain that Paul Krugman was the angriest person he had ever met. Krugman would not cower in front of Scarborough’s badgering and bellowing, so Krugman is deemed ‘angry’
I will try to be nice and not offend these intellectual thugs. Maybe they will decide to go away.
Added in edit: to be clear, I interpreted ‘Muslim intolerance’ to mean that there exist groups of Muslims who are extremist and intolerant. That was the first thing that came to mind, since it was the most reasonable reading in context. Maybe he meant that we refuse to recognize that “Muslims are intolerant in general” though that doesn’t make sense in the context. But maybe he meant that. If so, probably best to just make fun of the guy and call him “DoughBob Loadpants” or whatever the nickname is.
asiangrrlMN
Wait, so Sully is being serious with his True Dat? I take away my praise of him, then. Come on, Sully! You’re better than that.
Hey, I’m watching the NBA. So sue me.
Not wanting to start a manufactured war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 is not the same as denying Muslim fanaticism. Hell, I readily admit that there are fanatics of every religious stripe.
If Goldberg truly wants only Jews to guard the Holocaust museum, then he supports affirmative action!
El Cid
Are there nation-wide left wing / liberal radio hosts screaming that American Muslims should ‘somehow’ be putting a stop to the tyrannical government for continuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Is there a daily nation-wide TV show on a noted liberal network which shows, say, a host pouring water from a gasoline container onto a seated person and saying, ‘this, this is like what your government is doing to you Muslims’?
kommrade reproductive vigor
@DougJ: Here you go.
I’m not sure how a federally-run museum can be compared to a JCC or a synagogue. I’m also not sure how he makes the leap from Jewish guards, to Israeli Jewish guards but he also says:
Christ.
calipygian
Really?
jl
I think David Broder would find it rude, uncivil, and angry to object to Glenn Beck on national TV comparing the Obama adiminstration to a pyromaniac dousing a living man with gasoline and setting him on fire. You will not be taken seriously, anymore.
John Cole
Last week, Goldberg was speculating that Obama was trying to bring down the Netanyahu/Barak/Lieberman coalition and replace it with the more “moderate” Netanyahu/Barak/Livni. That is like going from the Cheney/Kristol/David Duke coalition to the Cheney/Kristol/Peretz administration.
Now, yes. Tzipi Livni is more “moderate” than Lieberman, considering Lieberman is a straight up thug and eliminationist. But I just found it disgusting that he would even use the word moderate for the woman who launched the Gaza incursion right before the elections and then denied there was a humanitarian crisis the entire time the IDF was keeping out all aid workers and journalists as hundreds were just left to die in the rubble.
Moderate.
Martin
Does failure to ‘acknowledge Muslim intolerance’ unpack to mean that we are unwilling to kill Muslims indiscriminately? Because that’s pretty much the only thing that the left isn’t cool with.
For the record, I don’t think anyone on the left has called for the invasion and overthrow of South Carolina and Alabama, so maybe we actually suck at dealing with all kinds of intolerance.
Brien Jackson
Honestly Doug, are you not aware of (what I hope to be) internet traditions or something? Any post mentioning the mighty wanker that is Jeffrey Goldberg must work in a reference to this classic take down.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/spencer-ackerman/fast-and-loose-with-the-f_b_92614.html
It really tells you everything you need to know about “Goldblog.”
gbear
I’ve been over at Sully’s blog at his post linking to Iranian twitter accounts. A lot of what’s at the site is students twittering about being attacked in their dorm rooms. It’s fucking scary. How would you or I feel if you were facing this on your drive home from work?
I go back and forth between liking and hating Sully. At least you know that even if he agrees w/ someone like Goldberg, he’s not always going to be a moron like Goldberg.
gwangung
We’re much too sensible to do that. I mean, we sure as hell wouldn’t want to KEEP ’em…
DougJ
That’s a good piece.
DougJ
He’s done a great job with the Iranian elections and many other things. Which just makes his being a fanboy for Goldblog that much more infuriating.
Elvis Elvisberg
That “wackos” quote was actually from Michael Scanlon, not Ralph Reed.
The larger point here, I think, is that the Knoxville and Pittsburgh murderers were eager consumers of GOP-machine material– Fox, Hannity, Coulter, etc. The murderer in Wichita was part of a GOP-sympathizing extremist group. And the murdered in Washington was an occasional poster on Free Republic (I think it was), and posted pro-Palin, anti-“liberal media” screeds.
Whereas the murderer in Arkansas had no connections of any sort to anyone vaguely affiliated with the Democratic Party whatsoever.
Centrism for centrism’s sake. It got us Iraq, the deficit, and, if we ignore what is happening before us by listening to Jeff Goldberg instead of common sense, it’ll get us more murdered parishioners, cops, security guards, and God alone knows who else.
asiangrrlMN
@calipygian: Well, he was better than that this morning and yesterday concerning the Iranian election.
The thing that frustrates me the most about Sully is that each realization he makes about something is only applicable in that situation. He has to re-learn the realization each fucking time. The fact that he can agree with Goldberg on this while he (Sully) has been one of the biggest turnarounds on the Iraq invasion just underscores my impatience with him. He went from calling us lefties treasonous to posting pictures of dead Iraq civilians on his blog, and yet, he just ‘True Dat’s Goldberg.
LD50
White, Christian intolerance IS a product of the right. Perpetrators of White, Christian violence ARE rightwingers.
Is Muslim intolerance the products of liberals? Unless you’re Jeff or Jonah Goldberg, no. There is no overlap between ‘intolerant Islam’ and liberalims. So JG is a fucking moron, and Sully is a moron for agreeing with this.
Fuck Andrew Sullivan. I’ve had enough this idiocy from him. If I want bullshit like that, I can read Andrew Breitbart.
Morbo
@Brien Jackson: Ha, that’s not the only one either. Glenn Greenwald is partial to posting this one whenever he brings up Goldberg.
As much as I enjoy Sully as a blogger, my “respect” for him as an intellectual can best be summed up in five words: Megan McArdle and Ross Douthat.
LD50
No, he’s not. That’s the point.
TenguPhule
No, he’s not.
He has always been a conservative cocksucker.
He will always be a conservative cocksucker.
TenguPhule
Every time Sullivan boots up, he has a bad RAM error.
Joshua Norton
I quite adamantly acknowledge Muslim intolerance. Especially since its a mirror image of the rightwing Christianist intolerance we see in this country on a daily basis.
Now all the pearl clutchers and wingnut apologists are going to howl that they both don’t ACT the same way. I’d like to point out that they THINK the exact same way. The fact they don’t usually act on it in this country is more of a testament to our laws than to their humanity.
demimondian
@TenguPhule: With all due respect, what’s wrong with Andrew sucking cock? He’s gay, you know…
DemonDem
Isn’t what we’re really looking at here little more than an overdone version of the “fringe groups of any affiliation are bad” argument?
From what I can see, reporters who are trying to make the Arkansas shooting a “left” issue are doing little more than grasping at straws to show they are being “fair” to both sides. This strategy is woefully inaccurate at best and dangerous at worst. While its true that extreme-left-leaning organizations have perpetrated crimes in the past (the weathermen and the environmentally-motivated arson cases in the 90s are examples,) the shooting in Arkansas is not one of those cases. The truth is, at the moment, extreme-left groups and individuals are not committing acts of terrorism on American soil, while extreme-right-wing individuals are.
What I find even more disturbing is that, by linking fundamentalist Islam with progressive thought, it makes it all the easier for the most ideologically-driven on the right to justify claims of self and other: “real Americans,” “liberals want America to fail,” “Obama is secretly bent on destroying our country,” etc., etc. that only further encourage unstable people to do unspeakable things.
In trying to seem “fair and balanced,” reporters who fall into this trap are only serving to widen the gap between decent, law-abiding people on both sides of the political spectrum while far-gone extremists are wreaking havoc in our communities.
kuvasz
hey mr cole what the fuck are you doing reading andy sullivan? the guy gives arrogant assholes a bad name. you’d be better off reading graffiti off the walls in a whore house bathroom and likely be hygenically safer.
Allan
I thought Islamic terrorists were fundamentalists. You know, the equivalent of the extreme RIGHT wing of their society?
I missed the part where executing homosexuals and throwing acid in schoolgirls’ faces became leftist values.
The Other Steve
I’m sorry. I’m denying the Holocaust Museum.
Not the Holocaust, mind you. I have no interest in being thought of or accused as anti-semitic.
I am however denying the Museum.
I just really don’t like museums.
That is all.
Yutsano
Yup, the trollery be strong this eve.
Zed
We may as well blame the actions of the Zodiac killer on astrological intolerance while we’re at it.
Can I actually start doing this?
anonevent
Allan:
If a person is not Christian, he or she must be liberal. Their world consists of two groups of people: Them, and everyone else, and everyone else is liberal. The fact that Muslim fundamentalists are just as conservative as they are has no effect on the beliefs of these right wingers. You should see how bent out of shape they get over the concept of a liberal Christian.
eemom
Before the Tiller murder, I never had much of an opinion about Andrew Sullivan or his writing ability or his opinions about anything.
After the Tiller murder, and for reasons which have already been discussed here ad multi nauseum, I found his continued insistence on pronoucing late term abortions to be “wrong” — in his own virginal, clueless, utterly-removed-from-reality judgment — to be so completely offensive that I personally refuse to accord any respect to any thing he has to say about anything, ever again. For that I was branded an “asshole,” among other things. And ok, maybe I was overreacting.
I do, however, have this one lingering question: why is there always so much importance afforded to this man’s opinion’s on this blog, no matter WHAT the topic?
Sheeyit, and I thought Greenwald was overrated….
Betsy
Only moderately OT:
The son of the museum shooter offered a statement that I found quite moving in its sincerity and thoroughness. It was the total opposite of the halfhearted or self-centered “apologies” that politicians so often proffer when caught with their pants down. There’s something comforting to me about the fact that people can still, occasionally, behave with grace in even the most difficult times, and further, that even the children of the most despicable people can sometimes turn out pretty damn good, or at least OK.
Yutsano
The sins of the father should never fall on the sons, nor should the sins of the sons fall on the father. We’re humans after all, not Klingons.
tc125231
anonevent
@eemom: How do you handle interacting with the 1 in 4 people around you who have a similar position on abortion? Do you screen your doctor, the mailman, and your auto mechanic?
Tim posted earlier that some people thrive on having someone to always oppose. Cole – Sullivan, maybe?
Jon H
Um, one difference between the Arkansas thing and the museum shooting is that, nutty as the Arkansas Muslim shooter might be, at least he targeted people in a non-civilian organization actively and genuinely doing things related to his grievance, ie, killing his fellow Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Which is not to say that I approve of the shooting.
But the connection between Arkansas military recruiters and the deaths of Muslims is infinitely stronger than the connection between people at the Holocaust Museum and secret global Jewish illuminati who don’t actually exist.
Basically, the Arkansas guy is a better match with the guy who killed Tiller.
The Other Steve
I’ve never really much liked Sullivan, but let me tell you why he is so important. It’s really quite simple.
Andrew Sullivan knows what is best for you!
asiangrrlMN
@Betsy: Thank you for posting that, Betsy. It was heartening to read.
@DemonDem: Hey, glad to see you continuing to de-lurk. Right on.
@TenguPhule:
Heh. Funny, but true. However, his reporting on the Iran election is why I hold out hope for him. Mind you, I don’t read him on a daily basis, but it’s frustrating that he comes thisclose to grasping the bigger picture.
@eemom: Well, you have to consider that he is something of a novelty–a die-hard conservative who went way left (by their standards). I agree, though, that sometimes concerning Sully, it’s just better to walk on by.
gbear
@anonevent:
That may be the most oblivious question ever asked on this site.
tc125231
asiangrrlMN
@gbear: Thanks, gbear, for saying that. I thought I was the only one who was thinking, “Huh?”
@tc125231: Oh, you are so right. Still, I guess there is a little optimist in me who just can’t help but hope that one day, people like Sully will make the great leap.
jnfr
I think Sully’s Iran blogging has brought the Atlantic site to its knees. Everything there takes ten minutes to load.
Mrs. Peel
I have to admit that the obligatory daily linking to 2 or 3 of Sullivan’s blog entries is getting a little old. How much thought does it take to cut and paste a few column inches and then type “Me too”? If I was that interested in what he had to say, I’d read it at the source.
burnspbesq
@eemom:
He is. So is Andrew. But at least they are trying. Unlike some other high-visibility bloggers we could both name.
Bootlegger
I personally love the rhetorical game where they define conservatism as small-government individualists, and abortion murderers and white supremacists as big-government collectivists; thus, liberals.
I’ve heard the argument a half dozen times, by a half-dozen wingnuts from Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Levin, Douhat and Malkin (yes, it was painful), and I have no doubt there are dozens of others.
I’ve long said the modern conservative movement has three arguments:
1) Tautology
2) Straw Man
3) Ad Hominen
They start with the first, as above, where their argument (racists aren’t conservative) is true by definition. They then move to the straw man (what about ELF!) and we’ve already seen a preview of the third (Haters! Racists!).
Classic.
someguy
I’m not sure the Arkansas shooter was so deranged. Muslims have every reason in the world to hate us and attack our troops wherever they find them, or attack the rest of us for that matter. That most of them don’t testifies to the fact that they are basically decent and forgiving people as a group.
The other guy who walked into the Holocaust Museum, on the other hand, was a just your typical conservative bigot with a gun. No, he isn’t a nutcase. He believes the same racist anti-semitic bullshit that most conservatives believe and as Niewart points out he was tied to mainstream conservatives in a lot of ways starting with Willis Carto and his pals. Totally different situation.
HY
Andrew just plain doesn’t like Muslims, so of course he’s glad to “true dat” anything that appears to expose the “real problem” with us and our leftist lackeys. I’m Muslim and leftist and I fully acknowledge the intolerance of some Muslims. The truth is that bigots of all creeds have a lot more in common with each other than they do with those of their faith who practice truth and humility. And people who practice humbly have a lot more in common with each other than they have differences, which is really a lovely thing.
flounder
Uhmm, I will let you read this review of ‘The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and its Responsibility for 9/11’ by National Review contributor Dinesh D’Souza and let you decide if the right wingers not only “acknowledge” Muslim Intolerance, but strive to mirror it.
An excerpt:
demimondian
@anonevent: Um…I may be a fool, but I would hope that ANY woman of childbearing age would screen her doctor for his or her opinions concerning abortion, contraception, and any other issues which might suggest that the physician wasn’t capable of providing competent medical care.
flounder
Very, very ,very true. I am already lamenting the next time some issue about late-term abortion comes up and he relearns all the stuff he’s learned in the last month; and I have to see his pompous mug (along with all the other trolls like Saletan) on TV telling us how smart he is for figuring it all out before the rest of us.
Yutsano
Fixed.
Betsy
@demimondian:
For serious.
Phoebe
Oe Noe!
Sullivan is wrong! Like that time he was earlier this month!
If all my imaginary friends had to be right every single time, I wouldn’t have any imaginary friends at all.
Phoebe
But Goldblog is a jackass, yes, because unlike Sullivan, he hides his previous wrongness and is annoyed by any reference to it. Sullivan, like John Cole, brings out the cat-o-nine-tails and flogs himself publicly every so often, which is nice. Me likey.
Anoniminous
Bootlegger hath writ:
You forgot ad baculum
iluvsummr
@Phoebe:
Come for the cat/dog pictures. Stay for the self-flagellation.
Jon H
@jnfr: “I think Sully’s Iran blogging has brought the Atlantic site to its knees. Everything there takes ten minutes to load”
It’s probably the google statistics.
demimondian
@Anoniminous: Not to mention argumentum ad simulatio somniculousem, which has been a real fave recently.
Paul
I like Andrew Sullivan. He’s honest and in the moment. One of the reasons I keep coming back here.
Mouse Tolliver
@TenguPhule:
“No, he’s not.
He has always been a conservative
cocksuckerbarebacker.He will always be a conservative
cocksuckerbarebacker.”Fixed.
Bootlegger
@Anoniminous: I did, didn’t I. But they’re getting to that next.
patrick
@eemom:
Yes.
Also: Dooshbag.
Brendan Keefe
Elvis Elvisberg beat me to it, but yes, I came over here to correct the record, too. Much as we would like to believe it, the “wackos” line is generally attributed to Michael Scanlon.
Brendan Keefe
I should add that I agree with the overall thrust of your post, Doug. Just trying to help with the details.
Mean Dean
In a realistic world, how much can “well-trained” be expected to help when someone starts shooting literally the moment he walks in the door? Forget well-trained, you’d have to have Spidey Sense.
As for “armed”, well, I’m no military expert, but they did shoot the guy… with a gun… didn’t they?
gnomedad
@flounder:
Shorter D’Souza: the left caused 9/11 by opposing Sharia law.
Anne Laurie
It is important to Serious Media persons that strong opinions never lead to strong emotions, therefore the insistence upon “even-handed” non-specificity. Of course Serious Media persons remain proudly trapped within the limitations of their social class, so although any evidence of strong emotion alarms them, their reaction to such emotion depends upon the social status of the actor. A white / male / straight / prosperous / high-status individual expressing anger, grief, or rage indicates that the subject of his anger must be *very* serious. A non-white / female / gay / poor / low-status individual expressing exactly the same amount of anger, grief or rage indicates that… they are non-serious, possibly dangerous, probably ridiculous actors whose concerns can therefore be dismissed.
Much of the “important commentary” by Serious Media players is essentially a competitive ranking of other peoples’ emotional claims.
Bill E Pilgrim
@Anne Laurie:
Oh, I think Serious journalists and pundits get quite exercised as long as the subject is the right being treated unfairly.
I’ve seen David Broder get positively immoderate when provoked by the Democrats’ stubborn refusal to do whatever the Republicans wanted, AKA “centrism”. He could work himself up into a real lather about that.
Blue Raven
@Mouse Tolliver:
Well-played, posting name included.
ppcli
And we can’t forget argumentatum non sequitor.
moe99
Sigh. Westboro Church is in Seattle. They will be protesting Monday at Garfield High school, where two of my kids attended. Guess they have problems with an inner city magnet school that works.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/407211_hate0614.html
Brachiator
@Sirkowski:
Well, everything else he wrote was stoopid. He might as well throw something like this in as well.
Are there any rational pundits anymore?
eemom
I understand that abortion does not happen to be a subject that certain important blog authors here feel very strongly about one way or the other. If you’re against abortions, don’t have one, ‘kay? That’s The Official Position of This Blog. Nuff said.
Therefore — the argument seems to proceed — if you happen to be someone who gets — oh, let’s say, all EMOTIONAL about that particular subject, for whatever reason (and never mind for the moment what such reasons might consist of) –that really is NO excuse to let loose on a fine well-meaning chap who passes judgment on the gut-wrenching choices that have been forced upon people who he never has and never will know.
Because, see…..he really IS a fine well-meaning chap! And he really does THINK about these things!
At least, when they don’t concern him personally…….in which, case, you know, he might do something more than just think about them.
So by all means, let us return to the topic at hand, which I believe is hate crimes. Please, what is Sir Andrew’s enlightened view on that subject? Because God knows, murdering people because of who they are is certainly a subject on which we could use the nuances of his intellect.
jl
@ppcli: You forgot intimidating and lying
jl
I almost suggested adding, “when all else fails, open a can of woop-ass” to the list of movement conservative arguments, but that “ad baculum” seemed familiar, so I looked it up.
Yeah, that ad baculum belongs there.
I don’t think it is the same as intimidation, though. Is there a Latin term for “argument by shouting”? Not quite the same as force. It is just being loud, interrupting and talking over people.
Bill E Pilgrim
@jl:
Argumentum ad McGlaughlinum.
More recently known as Argumentum Cuttus Mikus, as practiced by Emperor Will Doit Liveus.
Xenos
What do Democratic Senators have to do the “The Left”?
I guess Bernie Sanders could be considered a leftist, and we all know about how he runs around throwing bombs and encouraging violent extremism, so you can see how Goldberg came to his conclusion.
patrick
While we are on the subject of insufferable dooshbags, Sully really is the King of insufferable dooshbagnosticism.
His newly revised Very Serious Person’s Opinion On The Abortion He Will Never Have aside, his prissy pissiness at Identity Politics does not mask the fact that he is one of it’s most passionate practitioners.
To wit: Some days, upwards of 85% of his updates will be about gay. It is the first word in his identity and he is unable to have a perspective on it apart from that. Which is perfectly fine.
But you shouldn’t be bagging anyone else for their Politics of Identity. Anyone with any self-awareness and intellectual honesty can only admit that we all have a starting place in this deal, that is informed by who we are and where we came from.
If you can bear it, go look at his page right now. In solidarity with Mousavi supporters, he has taken to blogging in Green.
I breathlessly await his announcement that today, he too, is wearing green because, you know, he is a Very Serious Supporter Of People Wearing (and blogging in) Green today.
So even when he is doing something laudable, like being a pretty decent source for what is going on in Iraq, he can’t quite keep himself from cresting the hill of dooshbaggery.
kommrade reproductive vigor
@moe99: Looks like the Westburrow Boobtists got frightened off by the biker groups that show up at soldiers’ funerals.
But protesting churches because they teach teach God is Love suggests a certain desperation for TV time.
I do hope they show up waving signs that read “Frown, Jesus Hates You!”
aimai
I said this elsewhere but it bears repeating: the key issue is projection, projection, projection.
The basic right wing belief is that everyone hates everyone outside their little group. When liberals say they don’t hate muslims they are assumed to be lying, or delusional. When right wingers say they hate muslims, or blacks, or jews, they are just being honest. This is why the argument that racism is really a form of multiculturalism makes sense to these guys. Because under that reading of human nature the assumption is that when black people, lesbians, jews, gay men, etc… say they *don’t hate* straight white people *they* are lying. They really mean they do hate white guys and would kill them if they could. So multiculturalism is just a blind, a cover for the real, true, homicidal intentions of liberals towards conservatives. That makes it equivalent to the homicidal actions of conservatives towards liberals. QED.
aimai
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
How can “Muslim intolerance” be assigned to the left? How can liberals/Democrats be “godless” and in league with religious fundamentalists? I have no tolerance for Christian fundamentalists…how on earth am I going to co-exist with Muslim fundamentalists? If ‘teh gay’ is part and parcel to the left, how do they co-exist with Muslim fundamentalists?
Religious fundamentalism is inherently conservative, whether it be Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism or Islamic fundamentalism.
This is just another instance of the right holding two opposing viewpoints simultaneously. ‘Teh left’ has a gay agenda AND they’re sympathetic to ‘teh Muslim extremists’. It’s all just so obvious.
dslak
@patrick: Actually, Sullivan admitted that he was wrong on his comments about Sotomayor and identity politics. He even has a link to it on his sidebar under “Sully’s Recent Keepers.” As for him using green when he puts up Twitter posts from Iran, in solidarity with the protestors, I’m not quite clear on how that makes him a douchebag.
dslak
@J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford: This is quite easy, and I’ve seen it done in Europe. First, decry the lack of moderate Muslim leaders. When a moderate Muslim figure emerges (e.g., Tariq Ramadan), condemn them as being, in fact, stealth fundamentalists. Since some secular liberals make common cause with these so-called moderate Muslims, it is clear that the left is deeply linked with Muslim intolerance. QED.
bob h
The climate of hatred and menace is a conscious element of out-of-power Republican strategy. Since your ideas have no purchase anymore, you need to intimidate and instill fear in your opponents to get some sort of traction. The paranoid lone wolf wackos are Republican allies; they are consciously encouraged.
Svensker
@patrick:
Yes.
anonevent
@gbear:
@demimondian:
Yeah, maybe the doctor one was a bit weak since we were talking about abortion, but I was thinking of doctors in general: pediatricians, general practice, heart surgeons. We were talking about Sullivan. The point of my list, though, was supposed to be about disregarding one persons advice on other subjects just because you – even correctly – disagree with their opinion on one subject. Having to work with so called conservatives here in Texas all the time, blowing their opinions off because of their politics would get me fired, not change their ways.
Prospero
Well the right is a coalition of fundies AND randroids, so.. umm… we could get some tips from them?
burnspbesq
In the credit-where-credit-is-due department, a very smart insight, arising from the traditional media’s being mostly out to lunch on events in Iran, from the otherwise more-that-occasionally-annoying dday: Money quote:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/we-had-to-kill-media-in-order-to-save.html
burnspbesq
If we convince all our friends and neighbors to boycott Kaplan, whose profits cross-subsidize the WaPo, maybe we won’t have to read drivel like this any more.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
dslak
@burnspbesq: While you might not like their conclusion, that article in the Washington Post presents a cogent case for Ahmadinejad’s re-election being legitimate. It’s not the last word by any means, but one should not simply dismiss opposing viewpoints expressed in good faith and with solid facts behind them.
R.Mutt
Personally I think the Holocaust museum should be protected by Jews, queers, gypsies and communists.
schrodinger's cat
Pardon my ignorance, but who is this Jeffrey Goldberg and why is he important. I do know that he blogs at the Atlantic website but other than that I know nothing about him.
Religious fundamentalists of all stripes seem to have more in common with each other, than they do with anyone else. For example they all seem to want to place onerous restrictions on women. Also, since when did being observant Christian (which even Obama says he is) become a necessity for becoming the President.
burnspbesq
@dslak:
I’ll allow for good faith, but solid facts? Not seeing it. Cogent? No, this only gets as far as “superficially plausible.” And it only just barely gets that far.
I am intensely skeptical about polling data of all shapes and sizes; it is, I think, clearly understood that pollsters can predetermine the results of any poll based on what questions are asked and how they are asked. Layer on top of that the fact that this polling was done in a country where the ordinary citizen has every good reason to suspect that there is a big downside to answering truthfully, and, well … you see my point?
Whether I like the conclusion is beside the point. Some of us around here are capable of intellectual consistency.
And since when is good faith a defense to shilling for evil?
dslak
@burnspbesq: Without a methodological critique, how can you say that the poll cited in the WaPo was inaccurate? As for the claim that people were lying in the poll, Ballen and Doherty point out that people gave a number of politically incorrect answers to other questions they asked.
Rather than simply decrying them as being intellectually dishonest because you don’t like their conclusion, it would be better to challenge their assertions with contrary polling data such as that found here. Of course, if you’re just going to deny that there’s any such thing as reliable polling data, pointing out that there is polling which conflicts with the claims made by Ballen and Doherty isn’t an avenue which is available to you.
Dan
The murder of the recruiter in Arkansas was an unpredictable act of an individual, whereas Tiller’s murder was a predictable outcome of the passions churned up and cheered on by an unfortunately large faction of the Right wing.
And you would be very hard-pressed to find anyone in the United States of America happy about what Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad did. But it doesn’t take a lot of work to find Americans, “Christians”, in the United States of America, that not only applaud Scott Roeder, but look forward to the next Scott Roeder.
And if you think that James W. Von Brunn was a one-off, go to a gun show.
YellowJournalism
Or maybe gypsies, tramps, and theives. Cher could interview them!
patrick
@dslak:
Sully’s “admission that he was wrong” contained this little gem.
Which I take to mean something like “Hey, I might have missed in this case, but I’m still right.
And this disclaimer.
He’s not trying hard enough.
He can’t see his obvious hypocrisy of decrying Identity Politics in others while being a passionate practitioner hisownself.
And his green text is one of those utterly empty and totally useless gestures that only serve to make himself feel “part of” that Conservatives love so much – like wearing a flag pin somehow makes one genuinely patriotic.
He is, in fact, a dooshbag.
IndieTarheel
@ppcli:
Or argumentatum projectionus.
Brian J
Maybe it’s because, all things considered, I’m not that liberal, or maybe it’s because I’ve got a lot of friends and family that are conservatives, but I can’t remember hearing anything like what Goldberg is saying. It’s almost as if he has the story exactly backwards: it seems like a large number of people on the right refuse to make a distinction between any sort of “Muslim intolerance,” while attacking the those on the left who do draw a distinction between the small number of nutcases on the right who shoot people and the majority who may have similar beliefs but don’t act out in violent ways. Maybe it’s because the nutcases represent their side, but whatever the case, Goldberg seems to be fighting against a position that nobody holds.
Redshirt
All you Sully fans better hold on — I predict the drama to increase. He’s saying the recent slowness of the site is caused by a deliberate attack on his blog. I wouldn’t be surprised if this were true, but it’s gonna send Sully to the Heroic Blogger Sphere of Valhalla.
Also, Sully’s gay? Never knew that, even though I read his blog all the time. It’s not like he ever mentions it, or engages in identity politics or anything.
DeadlyShoe
Sully is in fact a douchebag, but he’s not a bad one, and he’s smart. I don’t read his blog though. There’s better uses of time.
burnspbesq
@dslak:
Apparently I was not wrong to be skeptical about that poll.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/about-that-poll-ctd.html
mo
Are you spelling things wrong and putting your sentences together like that purpose?