How to sound bigoted without really trying
September 11, 2009 11:19 am ET by Simon Maloy
NewsBuster Rusty Weiss is very upset with the Associated Press. I'll let him explain why:
With the eight year anniversary of 9/11 mere hours away, the Associated Press has written a very moving, very emotional piece, focusing on victims who fear leaving the house on that day, victims who will never view that day as routine, victims who get a sick feeling in their stomach when the anniversary arrives each year - Muslims.
OK, so the AP shouldn't be reporting on the feelings of Muslims on 9-11. I'm not sure why they shouldn't be doing this, but Rusty offers an explanation:
While nobody is promoting discrimination against any group of people based on the actions of a maniacal few, one has to question if the alleged terror experienced by Muslims on this anniversary warrants a focal point? On a day in which Americans take time to remember the devastation and the loss of life on 9/11, we are encouraged by the AP to feel sorry for those who might receive strange stares, or may 'feel' less safe on this day because they are Muslim.
See if you can follow this -- Weiss isn't saying that the AP should discriminate against Muslims, he's just saying that the AP shouldn't report on Muslims on 9-11 because they are Muslim. That's pretty much the definition of "discrimination." Also notice how Weiss questions whether American Muslims really do experience their "alleged terror."
But it gets even better:
A quote from Sarah Sayeed attempts to capture the anxiety of the day as she wonders, 'should I go anywhere?' An appropriate question, but perhaps more so for Americans who asked themselves the same question weeks, months, and even years after the tragedy. There is no attempt to capture the anxiety of those who still give a quick glance up to the sky each time the sound of an airplane fills their ears.
The AP article notes that Sayeed was born in India but emigrated to the U.S. when she was 8 years old. There's an excellent chance that she is, in fact, an American citizen. And yet, Weiss casually segregates her from "Americans" -- presumably non-Muslim Americans whose thoughts and feelings he gives more weight to based solely on the fact that they aren't Muslim.
He caps everything off with this observation:
It seems that on a significant date in American history, the AP would rather focus on manufacturing sympathy for Muslims, than reporting on an actual tragedy for Americans.
This is just stupid. First off, notice once again the segregation of "Muslims" from "Americans." Secondly, the Associated Press runs dozens of articles each day, often on the same subject. Even if Weiss had a legitimate beef about the tone of this AP article, his suggestion that they have ignored all other aspects of September 11 is absurdly wrong.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
As a liberal Christian, while I disagree with the Muslim faith, I know just what it's like to have your beliefs trampled under the ideology of fanatics with power. And while I disagree with their faith, there are many other areas where I am sure we are in strong agreement, including horror at the losses of 9-11, not just in terms of human lives, but in the perceived humanity of our fellow citizens. That the AP is attempting to restore some of this humanity is laudable, especially on this of all days. That Rusty Weiss takes issue with it says much more about him than he realizes.
This is no time for thinking! We've just experienced an enormous tragedy born of hatred, bigotry and propaganda! Let's crank up the hate, and remember who's "us" and who's "them".
I wish there had been more pieces like this, not just now, but immediately after the attacks in 2001. I remember a lot more aimed at those simple-minded enough to be satisfied with "They hate us for our freedom" and "Islam declares war!".
Thousands of innocent Americans (of many different races and religions) were murdered on that day. The men flying the planes into buildings are solely responsible for that, but to pretend that American military and commercial interests didn't make it easier to brainwash fanatics into doing that is stunning willful ignorance.
Just as innocent Muslims were attacked here following the terrorist attacks, the Real Americans who assaulted them were responsible, but it was spurred by the actions of the Muslim terrorists.
It's the most horrible vicious cycle imaginable, and a certain element of the right wing seems to want to do everything possible to prevent efforts to put an end to that cycle.
I mean, they aren't "Real Americans", right?
Of course, that puts most of us out since "Real Americans" seem to be defined as white, catholic/christian, right wing individuals.
Eventually a majority of us will let this wound heal. It will take longer for a small subset of Americans who were directly impacted by the events of 9/11, but we will all continue to live life, observe the anniversary, and recover. What will make it take longer than it should is the pablum of people like Weiss, and Fox & Friends, who this morning were in sheer bliss at the coverage of the memorials. And they do it for their own selfish gain. They are not memorializing, they are capitalizing. How very Christian of them.
Give me a freakin' break! If your that [stupid?] PARANOID, they have medication you can take for it and you should.
What idiocy.
Number of air plane hijackings, bombings or crashes due to terrorism in this country since 9/11/01? Z-E-R-O
Number of law-abiding Muslim assaulted, attacked, threatened, vandalzed and murdered by Right-Wing, "Patriotic" Red-Necks since 9/11/01? I don't know, but it's a hellova lot more than ZERO!
Now look at this from Red State, who have dug up a something written by Obama after the 9/11 attacks (Under the title "Obama and the 9/11 Murderers", conveniently linking them).
On September 19, 2001, a story ran in the Hyde Park Herald containing then-State-Senator Barack Obama’s response to the 9/11 tragedy. In this piece (quoted in this article from the New Yorker, under the heading “The Speech”), Obama expresses empathy for the murderers! Not anger, not disdain, not a word of sympathy for the victims. His concern was for the murderers.
What did Obama actually write?
We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others.
These piles of white trash are letting abortion and gay marriage allow billionaires to screw them out of income, health care, jobs and finiancial security. But it don't matter, as long as we 'WIN!'
Is it going to happen? Not that I can see.
If there are any truly intelligent, or even passibly intelligent conservatives out there, I offer this: To be described thus, they have to realize that their media spokespeople are lying and misinforming people and there basic position on most issues these days is misguided at best and starkly hypocritical at worst. And if they have any DECENCY they should be REFUTING the LIES, MILITANTLY. And if these conditions are true, the bulk of the conservtaive movement, the people I am refering to, rather than accepting the realization that they've been lied to, would brand even the conservative truth-teller a liar and a traitor - IOW, a liberal (in their eyes.)
I say that they're all either liars or idiots because if they are niether, then these days they're not really considered conservatives anymore!
And the movement did this to itself. It's not my fault. Moderate, common sense conservatives have lost their voice because they've allowed the Limbaughs of the world to speak for them for the past 15 years or so. Now, anyone with any common sense or decency is no longer part of the movement. They're called RINO's, and considered traitors by it.
So I'll stand by my assessment.
And it my be percieved as a vice, fair enough, but I don't play nice. Liberals played nice for years, still do in fact, and they've been utterly trampled by the Right Wing. Some Conservatives played nice and even THEY'VE been trampled by the Right Wing. A punch to the face and a kick to the groin is the best that is deserved by all those who still support the many-headed beast that the conservative movement has become.
Well, I certainly understand where you are coming from but; (you were expecting the "but" right) that is where I disagree. I believe that, unless we keep the discourse civil and intelligent, we become the enemy and are not any different than them.
What everyone needs to do (conservative, liberal, etc) is ignore the screamers. (I know, how do you do that?) Yes, they will scream louder and louder and say even more outrageous things (as if that were possible) but; eventually they will go away. Well, OK, they will never go away but; if we treat them as fringe lunatics they will not have an effect on the general discourse.
Consider, there are still "Flat Earthers" out there. You don't hear about them but; they are still there. This is what we have to do with the fringe lunatics on the right.
Your principles here are similar to mine with regards to torture and the war on terror: That we MUST maintain the moral high ground, or we are no better than our enemies.
Thing is... no one is being killed by my rhetoric. (Tortured maybe, but only those who think torture is all-American and A-OK!) ;)
The thing is that, IMHO, for better or for worse, the screamers have entirely taken over the debate. Ignoring them, while an admirable sentiment, only allows them, to dominate the discussion more easily. And the pragmatist in me just can't abide letting that happen.
Also - whle I refer to a debate, the Right no longer want a debate, and really haven't since about 1993. They want to MOCK. The want to POKE FUN. They want to HUMILIATE PEOPLE. They want a FIGHT. Basically they are the rhetorical equivalent of schoolyard bullies. So the even HAVE a "debate," FIRST you have to (rhetoriocally) punch them in the throat and kick them in the groin as they fall to the ground, gasping for air. NOW that, having been given a dose of their own medicine, and maybe aren't so keen on haveing a FIGHT any more, they might be more positively inclined to a DEBATE. But you just can't DEBATE with someone who wants to FIGHT. And right now that's almost everone that's still left on the Right.
So if someone wants to roll around in the mud and slime, kicking the crap out of each other... I'll gladly role up my sleeves and roll with the best (worst) of them. When we're DONE, and someone wants to DEBATE? I'll gladly clean my self off and accomodate that as well. Hopefully, in either case, I'm found to be a worthy opponent.
But you are correct... And a better man than I am.
Nope, but; I do try. I only wished everyone else, libs, neo-cons, etc would do the same but; I don't expect much.
The thing is that, IMHO, for better or for worse, the screamers have entirely taken over the debate. Ignoring them, while an admirable sentiment, only allows them, to dominate the discussion more easily. And the pragmatist in me just can't abide letting that happen.
I certainly agree with you there and, to be truthful, there I times that I want to slap people upside the head. Problem is, it just doesn't work.
Case in point. Guy I work with, doesn't like the health care debate, doesn't think reform is needed. His answer for people who don't have health care insurance. "Get a job." No mention that a lot of jobs don't provide health insurance, or there may not be any available, isn't an issue for him. Of course, he has insurance, for now, and never had to suffer from anything while not having insurance.
While that may or may not be true, it is a fact that at least 50% of the people in Kentucky are idiots. That's the percentage who don't believe that Obama is a US citizen.
http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~leeey/stupidity/basic.htm
Note the third law: A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
Now consider someone who is a blue-collar laborer. But votes republican and fight unions becasue they want to outlaw abortion or prevent gay amrriage. They harm others, and derrive NO GAIN themselves.
TEXTBOOK stupidity. And it describes every Republican that's not filthy rich.
The Rich Republicans (the non-STUPID ones) are therefore BANDITS (according to the article.) They act to their own benefit and to the detriment of others.
The Liberal, one who wants to maximize the benefit of ALL, and realizes that when the country prospers, so will he, acts INTELLIGENTLY (again, according to the article.)
At worst, Liberals may fall into the HELPESS category. Their actions benefit others while causing a loss to themselves. No the best of categories to be in, but I can live with that.
Even as I hope for some measure of peace and comfort to the bereaved families, I must also hope that we as a nation draw some measure of wisdom from this tragedy. Certain immediate lessons are clear, and we must act upon those lessons decisively. We need to step up security at our airports. We must reexamine the effectiveness of our intelligence networks. And we must be resolute in identifying the perpetrators of these heinous acts and dismantling their organizations of destruction.
Hmmm...Looks like disdain for the terrorists and sympathy for the victims. The wingnuts just don't care about being serious anymore.
I'm insulted when I don't get any thumbs downs.
WTF is with these 'thumbs down trolls'?!
XD
--------------------------------------------------------------
My Blog