The other politics

[tahnan]

I keep posting a lot about Sarah Palin. I don't know why I'm so obsessed with her—not stalker-obsessed, it's not a sex/sexism thing. It's more like the proverbial train wreck: I can't look away because it's just so painfully awful. So I get this constant sort of Schadenfreude out of watching her fumble through stock phrases when answering questions, or when hearing that McCain had to explain away a statement she made about Pakistan that matched exactly the policy of Obama's that McCain criticized, or reading Fareed Zakaria writing about how terrible she is, or reading Kathleen Parker in the National Review writing about how terrible she is....

But here, I think, is the thing. I stare at this because, meanwhile, you've got terrorism directed at a mosque in Ohio, and you've got practically no one carrying the story nationally, and you've got the non-profit apolitical Clarion Fund just coincidentally distributing its DVD Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West in swing states last week, including Ohio...and it's the other kind of train wreck. The utterly sickening kind, the kind I just can't watch because it turns my stomach and makes me angry and sickened and I know that ignoring it won't make it go away but I just can't deal with it. It's much, much easier to watch Tina Fey's impression of Sarah Palin.

Comments

[redbeard.livejournal.com]

Also see Cary Tennis's column from the other day. I don't normally like him, but this one is kinda spot on about some of the other places she hits psychologically - and so does Bush, imho.

It is entitled

Sarah Palin is ruining my life
I rant about her; I can't stop thinking about her; I cannot stand to look at her; I'm possessed by her!

[lauradi7.livejournal.com]

Fake Palin (Tina Fey) made what I thought was an interesting comment - when asked a question she couldn't answer, she asked for a lifeline. She was mocked for that, but really, nobody could know everything, and in the case of a US president (clearly what Palin's hoping to be), there's a huge building full of advisors to help out (or make things worse, but that's not what they are *supposed* to do). Why shouldn't the president or vp get to ask for help?

[prog.livejournal.com]

The thing was, it was a play on how real-Palin answered a real-Couric question with a series of non-answer dodges, and it's not like the question was about some obscure bit of foreign policy (or even a non-obscure bit of foreign policy with a somewhat ambiguous name); it was a request to name any one specific example of her own running mate's legislative history that proved a point she was making about him. That she couldn't think of any deserved all the raised eyebrows she got.

[prog.livejournal.com]

I give Obama credit for not even mentioning Ms. P at all during the first debate (even though McCain flopped out more than a couple winking references to her). I feel like we all got a nice little reprieve from thinking about her for a couple of days because of it. Wasn't that nice? whee...

Maybe we'll return to that after the second presidential debate, though Obama surely be tempted to toss in a zinger or two about any of the mind-scrambling things that Palin will have said at the VP debates...

[zundevil.livejournal.com]

The Gibson interview made...Gibson look bad. I've not seen the Couric interview, but from what I've heard, Palin didn't sound particularly, you know, "ready to lead". Anyhow, the real deal is this Thursday night. I'm very curious about that one...actually slightly optimistic, given Biden's way with words. I really liked the suggestion that Biden debate Obama, given how often he's been "off message" of late.

Not that you're looking for equal-time here, but Kirsten Powers has done a pretty good job of representing her fellow Alaskan. The Parker column really surprised me, but good for her for writing it.

It doesn't appear to be an act of terrorism that happened in Ohio, but thanks for bringing it to my attention anyhow. I'm actually surprised I hadn't heard anything of it, given all the hot buttons it hits.

Your thoughts on Obsession...look, nobody likes stupid people misinterpreting a noble purpose, and if the Ohio stuff turns out to have been motivated out of a hatred of Islam, that's awful.

Still, what's your beef with the DVD? It seems eminently honest and fair to Islam (based on the 12-minute promo I just watched). I can't imagine it was any worse than, say, Jesus Camp.

My stomach rarely turns anymore, but it's much more likely to happen when I read about the atrocities committed worldwide by Islamofascists than when I hear about an honest DVD being given out. But maybe that's me.

Happy new year!

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

I disagree, of course, about the Gibson interview; but the Couric interview really, seriously made Palin look like someone in way the hell over her head. But I, too, am looking forward to seeing how things come out on Thursday.

But really, the point of my post here is the mosque story, so to answer your comments in full:

First, when you say that what happened in Dayton "doesn't appear to be an act of terrorism"—right now, it's a little hard to know, I think. There's an article from the Dayton News saying that there's no evidence of a hate crime, but that's based solely on nothing having been said during the attack. The motivations aren't known. But "hate crime" or not, when you take the simple fact of what happened—an attack on a 10-year-old girl in a place of worship during a holy day service, leading to an evacuation of the building—it certainly looks like what I'd call "terrorism". If it had happened to a 10-year-old girl in a church during an Easter service, what would you call it?

Second, when it comes to Obsession, I'll freely admit that I've not seen it, only read about it. What I've read about it suggests that it's more propaganda than fact; speaking as a Jew, I'm really leery of any film that tries to make its point with comparison to Nazis. Perhaps I'll sit down and force myself to watch it, at some point.

And finally, my stomach turns at atrocities committed by fascists. I see no real need to specify "Islamofascists", which I gather means nothing much more than "fascists, using Islam as an excuse" (as opposed to, e.g., Christian fascism).

[lilisonna.livejournal.com]

Here's my beef with the DVD -- it's wrong. It's also a deliberate marketing ploy that clearly associates Islam with terrorism. Yes, there's a 2 second flash of "Not all Muslims are terrorists" at the beginning, but everything else is generalized. "The main thing about Islam..." "Through-out the Arab world..." "Arabs are..." There are quotes taken out of context, the word 'jihad' is used without any sort of translation or context, and the Nazis are brought in as a bogeyman.

However, attempts to tie radical terrorists directly to Islam -- and even radical Islam -- just isn't true. Yes, there are some radical extremists who are Islamic. There are also radical extremists who are Catholic, Jewish, Atheists and oh-just-muddling-along. The single thread found by M15 was that people involved (at least in British) terrorism acts were almost all employed in low grade jobs. By focusing only on Islamic terrorists, we are smearing an entire religion, and we are dismissing potential threats because they don't match the profile that we've committed ourselves to.

An Arabic translator recently (and alas, I don't have a source here) said that the translation of "Death to X" was really overly extreme. "Down with X" was really a more accurate translation of the intent behind it. "Death to America!" sounds a lot more troubling than "Down with America."

Radical extremists are bad; there is no doubt about that. However, the promo of the DVD clearly is saying that Islam = Nazi, and I think that is a horrible distortion of the truth. Not only is it a horrible distortion of the truth, it is a dangerous distortion that will only lead to increased misunderstandings.

We could make the exact same DVD promo and substitute Christianity for Islam. Christians would scream bloody murder (and rightfully so) about smear tactics, distortions and oppression. Muslims should be doing the same thing.

[zundevil.livejournal.com]

I'll watch the whole DVD if I find it. I really didn't get the impression you got, and find it particularly unlikely given the Arabs (and Muslims?) who appear in it. I absolutely do not believe (and a full airing may prove me wrong) that the video attempts to equate anything other than the *radical* followers of Islam with Nazis (or, specifically, followers of some cause greater than yourself that requires death to freedom-loving people). And that's a case that's worth making. There's no doubt that these people exist, and their methods are horrifying.

If such methods are being utilized among radical believers of other religions, I'd personally welcome the production of a video that shows little Christian/Jewish/Buddhist girls speaking of setting fire to foreign leaders, or where Christian leaders proclaim that dying in process of attacking and killing non-believers (due to their non-belief) is a good thing. I'd like to know about this kind of stuff if it's going on worldwide, and see if there's anything we can do to stop it. If IRA tactics were spreading, that's something worth noting. But the scoreboard (Bali, Beslan, Tube bombings, Madrid, WTC (x2), daily persecution of Christians, etc.) seems to show a landslide in the other direction.

With all the equivocating, I get the feeling that distributing any video showing these radical elements (maybe even one that shows a strict, every-five-seconds disclaimer that these are not your typical Muslims) would be a bad idea. I happen to think it's a good idea. If we disagree, no big.

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

I'm hoping that Lilisonna or Jadelennox will have the energy to explain that indeed there's no shortage of Christian extremists calling for that kind of violence and hatred. Instead, I want to ask about that last paragraph, insofar as "no big" doesn't seem an adequate response to "hey, you think this is racist, and I think it's OK".

You say that you think it's a good idea to "distribut[e] any video showing these radical elements". I'm really unclear on why that is. What exactly is the purpose of a video like this? Is it purely informational, or is there an implicit or explicit call to action? What action? If it's purely informational, what's the information: "There are extremists out there who believe in violence and terrorism. And they're Muslim"? Why not distribute a video making the point without the last three words: there are extremists out there who believe in violence and terrorism? Why is their religion even relevant, given that (as the video's producers supposedly agree) this is not an inherent fact about that religion?

[zundevil.livejournal.com]

How about it, guys? Pass along those links to news articles of people using some sort of Christian religion to kill hundreds or thousands of innocent non-believers -- anytime in the last ten years. How about videotapes of Christians pledging to fight to the death for the end of the US or any other democratic society? I sincerely hope the point wasn't to elevate some crackpot televangelist to the equivalent/equal of terrorist leader -- as if these jokers have any sway when it comes to getting their follower(s) to sacrifice themselves in the task of killing non-believers. They are embarrassments -- and no, not because they're ineffective at evangelizing suicide bombers either.

As to the goal of distributing a factual video on the religiously-motivated hatred of the US -- any benefits would be almost entirely informational. Wanna see how bad the hate is? Here it is, and here is how serious the threat to this nation and the Free World is. We are at war with an ideology (that happens to be religiously-framed), not a group of people (that belong to said religion); for all the demagoguery that's out there, the fact remains that Osama bin Laden could die tomorrow and, outside of some warm fuzzies, nothing would change. Nothing. A backwards-ass group of people want to forcibly invite the rest of the world to the join their backwards-ass system, and are willing to die if it means you do too. And now you know why.

(Incidentally, this may or may not be said factual video, but that doesn't appear to be your beef.)

Focusing on the fact that they claim to be religious is important for two reasons. First, to make the distinction that this is a fringe element of Islam, not the real thing; if this case weren't made, and if (hypothetically) every one of these bastards was rounded up and thrown in jail (with just cause, of course), it'd look pretty conspicuous that they all belonged (at first blush) to the same faith, no?

Second, the religious component is important because of its implications for their fervor. The IRA is a bunch of terrorists -- and they want some land. Well, now it's in context. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Abu Sayyef, Jemaah Islamiyah, Islamic Jihad, and many, many others are terrorists -- and they want submission from you now or reward in the afterlife (preferably both). That's a much more meaningful context.

A third, minor point can be made when it comes to educating people about how minor offenses can lead to major uproars. Danish cartoonists published cartoons of Muhammad...AND PEOPLE DIED. That's important to note, especially given that our American system is profoundly at odds with the worldview of these radicals. But I didn't see any indication that the Jyllands-Posten incident was in the movie, so oh well.

(I should state, for the record, that my "no big" comment was my way of saying that, even if you don't think it's worth publicizing that there's a religiously-motivated group of millions that wants to kill you for being an American, I wouldn't hold that against you. I friended you (and others) because we share a love of puzzles, not because I count on any of you to agree with me. That's all I was saying, in not so many words.)

Last point: shouldn't you have to answer your own question? Why did you mention that it was a mosque in Ohio? How about it just being a house of worship? Was that a call to action, informational, what?

(I gotta confess -- I'm checking outta the comments box after this one. I don't like taking on people I know (a little) and like (more than a little) on things we profoundly disagree on, certainly not by myself. Maybe see you on a puzzle or language-based post.)

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

I'll take the easy one first: why did I mention that it was a mosque in Ohio? (a) Because it's more concise than "house of worship"; (b) because it's relevant in the context of the Obsession mailings; and (c) because it's relevant to the lack of national media coverage. (In contrast: Obsession wasn't just reporting an incident, as I was; it chose to focus on a particular subset of terrorism.)

Now, to answer the broader question:

• Paul Hill (http://www.armyofgod.com/PHill_ShortShot.html), shooter of abortion doctors, and in general the Army of G-d, who call him a hero (and I'm not linking to their main page because oh god the images are vile).


• Mark David Uhl (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/diary-of-a-christian-terr_b_49167.html), who "was an a devout evangelical Christian who advocated religious violence in the name of American nationalism.... Uhl implores Christians to die on the battlefield for 'Uncle Sam.' He justifies his call to arms by quoting several Biblical passages and reminding his readers that the 'gift of God' is eternal life.


• In general, the Wikipedia article on Christian Terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism).


• And, since you brought it up, what about Jesus Camp? I haven't seen it, but there you have, apparently, a pastor saying "I want to see [children] radically laying down their lives for the gospel"; why not include them in Obsession?


• And that's just in America, where Christians often don't have to resort to these tactics to get their way. Consider India (http://www.stephen-knapp.com/christian_terrorism_in_northeast_india.htm), and e.g. the National Liberation Front of Tripuria (http://www.christianaggression.org/features_nlft.php) which, if there were any doubt about its motivations, has "gunpoint conversions" right along with rape and murder on its list of techniques.

And in closing, let me say this: the Yom Kippur War, in which Syria and Egypt launched an attack against Israel on a High Holy Day, occurred within my lifetime (i.e., about four months after I was born). Keeping that fact as a reference, let me state categorically that, as a Jew, I have deep, not-entirely-irrational fears about my freedoms being taken away and my religion persecuted; and that every single one of those fears concerns, not any Muslim group anywhere, but the Christian Right in America. The fact that they don't need to use terrorist tactics makes them, to my mind, no less dangerous. When Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell say that part of the blame for 9/11 lies on "throwing G-d out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing G-d out of the public square, out of the schools....all of them who have tried to secularize America", I fear for my religious and social liberty. When the Alliance Defense Fund (http://adl.org/PresRele/RelChStSep_90/5363_90.htm) urges clergy to break the law and oppose candidates who "do not align themselves with Scriptural truth", I fear for my liberty. When a major candidate for the presidency, one who seemed to be leading for a time, says "What we need to do is amend the Constitution so it's in G-d's standards", I fear for my liberty. And I fear all the more because people like Falwell and Huckabee have (or had) more chance of influencing the course of American politics than Al-Qaeda.

[tablesaw]

Looking for a good stomach-turning? All right then. How's about you read through this series of essays, Eliminationism in America, which will take you on a whirlwind tour of America's history with genocide, segregation, and massive-scale abuses of human rights.

For extra credit, make a note any time the language used to commit these historical atrocities is similar or identical to the language used today to describe Muslims or illegal immigrants.

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

It seems eminently honest and fair to Islam

I watched the first three minutes of the "abridged" version on Google Video, and here's what strikes me: you're absolutely right that it seems honest and fair. But is it? What I saw consisted of two things:

* Interviews with experts;
* Footage from TV in other nations

Who are the experts? They all have attributions under their names, nearly all of which are think tanks. But even if I grant their expertise, that in no way assures me that they're being fair—are their think tanks non-partisan? Who funds them? And so forth. (I looked up a few of them and didn't learn much. I did learn that the father of Nonie Darwish, "daughter of a martyr", wasn't exactly the kind of "radical Muslim" that the video warns us against; he was an assassinated intelligence officer in the Egyptian Army.)

And the footage: again, is it fair and honest? There's a lot of footage I could take from American TV to prove that "radical Christianity" is evil: the Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson exchange after 9/11 comes to mind, as does, well, anything said by James Dobson. But what does my ability to find footage really tell us? Would those quotes really be representative of, well, anything?

And