Interviews from the folks that showed up at Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally this past Saturday in DC.
This really makes for some interesting reading:
In a rather curious and confused way, some white people are starting almost to think like a minority, even like a persecuted one. What does it take to believe that Christianity is an endangered religion in America or that the name of Jesus is insufficiently spoken or appreciated? Who wakes up believing that there is no appreciation for our veterans and our armed forces and that without a noisy speech from Sarah Palin, their sacrifice would be scorned? It’s not unfair to say that such grievances are purely and simply imaginary, which in turn leads one to ask what the real ones can be. The clue, surely, is furnished by the remainder of the speeches, which deny racial feeling so monotonously and vehemently as to draw attention.
Just one more reason I enjoy libraries and real books.
Google Books currently tracks: a reader’s initial search, a specific book browsed, a specific book’s pages viewed, the date and time of a search or page view, and the reader’s IP address/browser/and computer operating system. Note, one or more cookies can uniquely identify the reader’s browser.
Amazon currently tracks: the time that each Kindle is logged onto Amazon’s network, specific books/magazine subscriptions/newspapers/or digital content saved onto the device, each reader’s interaction with content (e.g., the last page read, any annotations/notes/or highlights the reader made to the content), and a record of any content deleted from the device.
So much money in politics, so little accountability.
The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation. These views dovetail with the brothers’ corporate interests. In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States. And Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as a “kingpin of climate science denial.” The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus.
This is an interesting commentary. The author is a Fox News/NY Daily Post reporter:
Welcome to the summer of hate.
These dog days have brought a veritable festival of racial demagoguery, from a phony “New Black Panther” controversy to Arizona’s draconian illegal-immigrant crackdown to the most recent “ground zero mosque” hysteria.
From Frank Rich in the NYT:
Poor General Petraeus. Over the last week he has been ubiquitous in the major newspapers and on television as he pursues a publicity tour to pitch the war he’s inherited. But have you heard any buzz about what he had to say? Any debate? Any anything? No one was listening and no one cared. Everyone was too busy yelling about the mosque.
As I was driving up here today, I saw that bumper sticker that absolutely incenses me. It’s not the Obama bumper sticker. But it’s the bumper sticker that says, ‘Co-exist.’ And it has all the little religious symbols on it. And the reason why I get upset, and every time I see one of those bumper stickers, I look at the person inside that is driving. Because that person represents something that would give away our country. Would give away who we are, our rights and freedoms and liberties because they are afraid to stand up and confront that which is the antithesis, anathema of who we are. The liberties that we want to enjoy. - GOP Candidate Allen West (22nd District of Florida)
Have you heard about the WTC mosque?!? Oh the horror...wait. Nevermind. Another manufactured controversy. Shocking right? Salon.com has an interesting stary/timeline of how the whole thing came together:
A group of progressive Muslim-Americans plans to build an Islamic community center two and a half blocks from ground zero in lower Manhattan. They have had a mosque in the same neighborhood for many years. There’s another mosque two blocks away from the site. City officials support the project. Muslims have been praying at the Pentagon, the other building hit on Sept. 11, for many years.
In short, there is no good reason that the Cordoba House project should have been a major national news story, let alone controversy. And yet it has become just that, dominating the political conversation for weeks and prompting such a backlash that, according to a new poll, nearly 7 in 10 Americans now say they oppose the project. How did the Cordoba House become so toxic, so fast?
In a story last week, the New York Times, which framed the project in a largely positive, noncontroversial light last December, argued that it was cursed from the start by “public relations missteps.” But this isn’t accurate. To a remarkable extent, a Salon review of the origins of the story found, the controversy was kicked up and driven by Pamela Geller, a right-wing, viciously anti-Muslim, conspiracy-mongering blogger, whose sinister portrayal of the project was embraced by Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post.
From today’s NYT:
The first America, not surprisingly, views the project as the consummate expression of our nation’s high ideals. “This is America,” President Obama intoned last week, “and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.” The construction of the mosque, Mayor Michael Bloomberg told New Yorkers, is as important a test of the principle of religious freedom “as we may see in our lifetimes.”
The second America begs to differ. It sees the project as an affront to the memory of 9/11, and a sign of disrespect for the values of a country where Islam has only recently become part of the public consciousness. And beneath these concerns lurks the darker suspicion that Islam in any form may be incompatible with the American way of life.
This is typical of how these debates usually play out. The first America tends to make the finer-sounding speeches, and the second America often strikes cruder, more xenophobic notes. The first America welcomed the poor, the tired, the huddled masses; the second America demanded that they change their names and drop their native languages, and often threw up hurdles to stop them coming altogether. The first America celebrated religious liberty; the second America persecuted Mormons and discriminated against Catholics.
But both understandings of this country have real wisdom to offer, and both have been necessary to the American experiment’s success. During the great waves of 19th-century immigration, the insistence that new arrivals adapt to Anglo-Saxon culture — and the threat of discrimination if they didn’t — was crucial to their swift assimilation. The post-1920s immigration restrictions were draconian in many ways, but they created time for persistent ethnic divisions to melt into a general unhyphenated Americanism.
Um..duh.
On the web, ideologues are both journalist and pundit. Indeed, with the rise of investigative blogging, we should expect a long future of biased, inflammatory “evidence”—on both sides of the political spectrum.
The official psychological term for this behavior is “motivated cognition”—a tendency to bias our interpretation of facts to fit a version of the world we wish to believe is true. For instance, one study found that college basketball fans, viewing the same video of a game, were likely to believe the rival team committed at least twice as many fouls as their own.
Political beliefs are even more susceptible. Research has found that when psychologists confront political partisans with facts contradictory to their opinions, they become even more convinced of their existing beliefs.
Another gem from Ezra Klein:
In other words, America does not currently conceive of marriage in the way that Douthat and Tushnet would like it to conceive of marriage, and in the way it would need to conceive of marriage in order for there to be a good reason the institution can’t accommodate gays. So to oppose gay marriage, Douthat and Tushnet must first construct an alternative version of marriage, and then argue that if real marriage opens to gays, that’s another step away from the idealized marriage that would be closed to gays. It’s like partisans of VCRs opposing improvements to DVDs because they make the widespread resurrection of VHS unlikely.
This whole commentary is actually pretty amazing. Here’s another nugget of enlightened reason:
When you hold a position that you feel very deeply but can’t justify with persuasive facts or clear theory, it’s generally a signal that something is awry in the underlying position.
Amen.
Sadly, unless we successfully tackle this upsurge of anti-Muslim rhetoric from New York to California, to Tennessee to Connecticut and other places across our great land, it saddens me to think that the infamous lunatic terrorist known as Osama bin Laden may be in a cave somewhere in central Asia laughing at us—and perhaps even mockingly referring to our beloved country as the United States of Islamophobia.
