Dennis Prager is of the opinion that the government has supplanted the man in the black community as the suitable husband figure, and a woman would rather get pregnant and raise children by herself on welfare than have a man there to help at all.  

And you know what?  Thank God that Prager pulled back the curtain on this.  You can barely even talk up a black woman these days without her asking you about your fertilty and then waxing poetic for hours on end about how she's going to take her WIC and her four kids to Red Robin for the endless fries.  

It's a painful phenomenon, this glut of well-employed men yearning to take care of their children but barred by the overwhelming appeal of several hundred dollars a month in temporary benefits.  It's almost enough to turn all of them gay, which I'm sure is the topic of tomorrow's episode.  

Alex Pareene at Salon has an excellent report on how Matt Drudge has spent the past few years concocting a picture of America as one torn apart by a crime-based race war, where random black people are "rising up" and attacking and killing white people.  If you, like me, find this image strange (including going to your window to make sure that so far, it's mostly birds chirping and moms pushing strollers, and not in fact mob violence), then you're not wrong!  Crime levels, especially violent crime, continue to cascade downwards in the U.S.  Overall, the nation has become a gentler one, at least within its borders. (The argument about our imperial adventures is outside the bounds of this discussion.)  I would even argue that the one area where crime is going up---domestic terrorism---is partially a response to the other trends in the U.S.  A lot of right wing extremists look at the growing emphasis on non-violence in the U.S. and feel like it's emasculating and turn more violent and gun-loving in response. 

Even though crime is going down, there's a perception in the American public that crime is going up. There's a number of theories about why there's such a disconnect, but I would argue that Matt Drudge is a large part of the problem.  In the past few years, Drudge has been steadily building up this image of a de facto race war, and since Drudge, as Atrios always notes, rules the world of the mainstream media, these local stories he trumpets become national stories.  And he's fucking relentless, as John Cook reports.  Alex summarized:

It all came to a head, as John Cook noted, this Memorial Day weekend when Drudge posted 10 separate headlines -- including the massive, above-the-logo one -- related to violent incidents involving "urban" people at venues like "Black Bike Week" in Miami and "Rib Fest" in Rochester, N.Y. There was an "Urban Melee in Charlotte," for example. Do you know what makes an "urban melee" different from a regular "melee"? It's not that it takes place within the city limits of a major metropolitan area. It's that it involves the world's most obvious code term for "scary black people."

As John at Gawker points out, the number of local news stories about crime invariably rise during Memorial Day weekend because holidays create crime peaks. it's the combination of time off and alcohol, basically. It goes up for all races. Drudge's choice of what stories to highlight is about creating a narrative, and the insinuation is now that we have a black President, all hell is breaking loose.  One of the weirdest, most long-standing conservative myths is that black people are aching to "rise up" and take the nation by force.  The argument is then that they have to, more in sorrow than in glee, argue against equal rights for black people.  They'd want to share, but you know, violence!  The notion that black America is revenge-minded is something that is surprisingly powerful for wingnuts.  That's why there's non-stop chatter on right wing radio about slavery reparations, even though the subject has no traction in real world discourse, and even if it did, said reparations would look much different than right wingers imagine it would like.  (They're picturing jack-booted thugs stealing your grandmother's pearls and giving it to some family you don't know to pawn, but it would more likely be a check that resembles a Social Security check or a tax refund.)  And that's why Andrew Breitbart thinks that some court settlement to black farmers who were systemically discriminated against for decades is the biggest problem our nation faces.  It's really a level of paranoia that's hard for me to wrap my mind around. 

Monitoring right wing rhetoric and skeptical debunking of conspiracy theories and woo are two of my major areas of interest, so hopefully you'll forgive me for being a little giddy when Barack Obama decided to take the birthers head on this morning by releasing the long form birth certificate they've been claiming they want so badly to see.  As soon as it happened, I knew two things were inevitable: 1) The birthers would not accept the evidence in front of them and their claims that he's not a citizen would just get more baroque and 2) There would be harumphing from the people who are convinced that this kind of silliness can be ignored until it goes away. 

On the second point, I want to come right out and say that Obama did the right thing here.  The only real objections I have are with regards to timing---he probably should have just taken advantage of the situation by waiting until a politically opportune time to release his birth certificate.  Jesse, in chat, suggested that right before the first GOP debate would have been awesome.  But as it is, I think he had to deal with it and deal with it head on.  I was skeptical initially, but upon thinking about it, it's clear that dealing with it was the only option.

We've tried the "ignore the liars and they'll go away" thing and it's failed. Time and time again, people on the left try to ignore some right wing nuttery in hopes that it just disappears from lack of oxygen, and it sneaks up to bite us in the ass.  An unwillingness to fight back hard is why ACORN was dissolved.  It's probably why John Kerry was swiftboated out of winning in 2004.   It's how Terri Schiavo suddenly became a national story.  It's why health care reform turned into such a clusterfuck, and why the Democrats are acquiesing on budget-cutting instead of demanding more stimulus.  Acting like we're too good to even acknowledge people screeching about death panels and conspiracy theories involving John Kerry's war wounds has proven a failed strategy.

Punching back and setting the record straight, on the other hand, has shown promising signs of working.  Case in point: It saved Planned Parenthood's ass.  As soon as Lila Rose started going on TV and telling straight up lies about Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood put forward an aggressive defense.  Every lie floated about them was smacked down with haste.  The result was that when Republicans tried to defund Planned Parenthood, Democrats were able to stand firm and feel supported.  Contrast this with the reaction to ACORN---Democrats folded, allowing the vicious lies about the organization to dictate their choices because, in part, there wasn't a well-publicized truth they could cling to in order to defend themselves.

Does setting the record straight stop the lies and bullshit?  Absolutely not, and I'm hoping that the Obama administration isn't surprised when it turns out the birthers won't shut up, and that probably will include Donald Trump. But hitting back hard with the facts does create polarization, and that's what needs to happen here.  The biggest danger conspiracy theorists pose is not that the public will just simply start buying their nutty ideas wholesale, but the perception that where there's smoke, there's fire.  Again, with the Planned Parenthood example, what we saw was that Planned Parenthood's willingness to aggressively contradict lies about what services they provide and how much they do work with law enforcement when it comes to sex trafficking seriously limited how much the right was able to imply that something fishy was going on at Planned Parenthood. 

And so it goes with this birth certificate thing. Full blown birthers won't be moved one bit on this.  But I fear that a growing number of people were beginning to suspect that Obama was hiding something, because they can't think of another reason you would avoid talking about it.  By showing that he wasn't afraid to engage and denounce the birthers, Obama has done a lot to clear the air of smoke.  Now we can see that there isn't a fire, but a bunch of right wing nuts pumping smoke machines. 

I'm increasingly convinced that the way to deal with right wing lies is to spend less time worrying about the drawbacks to thorough rebuttals, and just issue the rebuttals.  I understand the fear of giving credence to lies by attending to them.  I definitely get why you don't want to validate some underlying narratives by correcting the record.  For instance, there is a very valid concern that by saying 97% of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortion, you're validating the taboo against abortion, or by demonstrating that it's false that feminists are ugly/humorless, you're throwing the ugly and the humorless under the bus. But it's also possible to overthink this.  Lies are a lot like fires that have gotten out of control.  You need to put the fire out before you start to fix the damage it's done.  And with lies, you're not even going to begin to counteract the damaging implications of them until you actually get the facts out in the first place.

With this birth certificate thing, I think we're going to see the refreshing effect that a little truth-telling can have on a debate.  Within just the course of the day, I've seen a dramatic uptick in the number of people willing to say directly that birthers are just straight up racists, for instance.  Part of the reason was that as long as birthers could hide behind the claim that all they needed was to see the long form birth certificate, there was plausible deniability.  Now that they've seen it and they're still squawking, it's become undeniable that they just don't like seeing a black man representing the nation, and they're willing to say any crazy thing that occurs to them to deny that he's a legitimate leader.  Hopefully, being a birther will soon be seen as being just as obviously racist as being a segregationist is (and let's be clear, segregationists have tried in the past to claim they're not racist).  I don't think that we were going to get any movement in that direction without the White House dealing directly with this problem. 

Early morning amusements: Salon caught Fox News being taken in by a satirical article, and reprinting it as straight news.  Not-so-amusing is that they did it as straightforward hate-mongering, and still have not taken the story down or apologized for it. 

The story, which is still featured on Fox News’ Fox Nation website, was illustrated with a picture of a woman’s mid-section and carried the headline “Pakistan: Islamic Clerics Protest Women Wearing Padded Bras as ‘Devil’s Cushions.’” The lead of the Fox Nation story, which sources the piece to the Indian news website sify.com, reads:

The Council of Islamic Ideology in Pakistan has protested the use of padded and colourful bras by Muslim women, and recommended that Pakistani Muslim researchers should try to invent an innerwear that makes female assets unnoticeable.

The problem is, if one takes the time to track the story back to its source, the whole thing is an obvious Onion-style satire—a fact first pointed out by Arif Rafiq of the Pakistan Policy Blog.

Naturally, the comments are filled up with wingnuts using this as an excuse to lambast every Muslim in the world.  Salon quoted one commenter calling Islam a “cult”, just to give you an idea of the levels of stupid and bigoted we’re dealing with here.  Yet again, I find myself irritated lately, because it’s not like I’m Team Islam or anything, since I think all religions are pretty silly.  But American conservatives aren’t making the case against religion.  (LULZ.)  They’re just playing the game of “my made-up bullshit is better than your made-up bullshit”. 

Most of the panels/speakers I saw at the Women in the World Summit were awesome, but by far the most troubling—-though definitely interesting at parts—-panel was one hosted by Andrew Sullivan titled “The Multiculturalism Debate: Is Europe Stigmatizing the Veil?”  It was supposed to be a debate over banning the niqab, which is a face veil, and while some pains were made to try to differ between wearing a niqab and wearing a hijab of any sort that covers your hair completely or just partially, the distinctions got blurry. Some good points were made by Liesl Gerntholtz about how bans—-or requirements—-on religious garb of any sort usually serve only to limit women’s movement, because women who object to the requirement, or are forced to do so by their families, will just find themselves staying at home or being forced to more often.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali made a lot of interesting points, mostly objecting to how this debate swallows up larger discussions about how religion is used as cover to control and oppress women in ways that are significantly more damaging than anything clothes could do to you.  But mostly it was a confused mess, and not helped by the fact that no practicing Muslims, much less anyone who wore a hijab (which Ali sensibly pointed out can often be a non-obtrusive item of clothing, instead of one that says, “Look at how modest I am.”) was part of the panel.  They said they couldn’t get anyone to agree to do it, which to me should have been an indicator that it was time to go back to the drawing board.

Anyway, setting aside the debates on the legal restrictions, one thing that annoys/amuses (we need a word for this in English) me about the whole debate—-and thankfully this was something that was alluded to by people who got up and asked questions—-is that it presupposes that only Muslims fall into the trap of obsessing over how much skin is too much skin, or other questions of women’s “modesty”.  (And it presupposes all Muslims do, which is simply not true.)  I guarantee every fucking person frothing at the mouth at this satirical story has spent some time judging some woman or other for being immodest.  I was thinking about this while watching the panel, and tweeted an observation, I think, about skirt length and bra thickness. 

Which is the irony here.  While all these wingnuts are frothing over an imaginary ban on padded bras, in America, the padded bra is, in and of itself, an object of modesty obsession. While some communities are more liberal, and thus this falls under the radar, in other communities, leaving the house without a solid amount of padding to conceal your shameful natural breast shape is a big fucking deal.  At Slate, Emily Yoffe dealt with this concern.  The question:

I find myself at the age of 31 wondering what proper nipple etiquette is. I recently read an article that led me to realize that some people are offended by the sight of the outline of a woman’s nipples showing through her clothing. I own a variety of bras, some padded and some not. I know that if I wear an unpadded bra and it gets cold, the outline of my nipples will show through my top. My mother never mentioned anything about this when I was growing up (she didn’t object when I sometimes went braless as a teen), and the only person who has ever said anything about my nipples is my boyfriend. I am inclined to think that it is not improper, and I have never been offended by the sight of nipples. Would you please educate me?

Read All...

Check out this video that Digby posted, particularly the footage starting about 13 seconds in.

Look at the images in that video.  Take note of what people are wearing, the way the trees look (especially the palm tree), and the ground.  Compare it to this picture of the protests from the Madison paper.

Notice a difference?  Goodness, when the Fox cameras show up, there’s a lot less snow and a lot more leaves on the tress in Wisconsin!  And palm trees!  They must bring warmth and sunshine with them. 

Of course, that deception is far from the only one going on in this short clip.  There’s also the ongoing right wing narrative that The Left has infinite resources to bus “professionals” in, a lie that, as I noted yesterday, is reminiscent of Mubarak claiming that the protests against him were being directed by foreigners, particularly from Qatar.  The lie depends on an audience that is completely sheltered from reality, because anyone who even knows a liberal probably knows that the last thing our side has is the financial infrastructure to pull such a thing off.  Of course, I’m sure there’s plenty of people there in solidarity, but I’m also hard-pressed to think of why that would be so wrong.  I wasn’t aware that there was a new rule in American politics that we can’t support our fellow citizens when they fight for what we believe in.  If that’s the new rule, then the right better start explaining quickly how they’re going to start denouncing the very existence of churches. 

But all this—-the lies about violence, the lies about foreign influence—-is really going straight up to a larger narrative, which is that protest is wrong because it’s indecorous.  Certainly, that’s been the theme of Ann Althouse’s meltdown.  I want to point out that I haven’t seen any liberals suggest that Tea Partiers are in the wrong just for hitting the streets and waving signs.  I’m sure it’s happened some time, somewhere—-people can be really stupid, sure—-but the universal complaint on the right is that protesting is icky if liberals do it.  At the most, liberals complained that Tea Partiers were shouting down their opponents, because they’re unwilling to hear their arguments. Also, there was mockery for Tea Partiers being stupid, and waving signs that were illiterate or illogical. And mockery because they’re so clueless, calling themselves “teabaggers” without doing a simple Google search to find out if that word had another meaning that hipper people—-and by “hip”, I mean someone who’s purchased a record that has come out in the past 40 years—-might already know.  I did see many liberals longingly complain that our side won’t get out in the streets like that, a complaint I didn’t truck with, because I think protests are best if they’re targeted and meant to be effective, and not just demonstrations of one’s willingness to leave the house to prove that you’re morally superior.  Once a protest has value, I don’t see that we have a big problem getting people out.  The Planned Parenthood rally I spoke at had three times the projected numbers.

Here’s the thing:  I don’t think Walker is getting shouted down.  Walker just looks stupid, because he is stupid and he doesn’t have a real argument. If you strip away Fox News lies, what you’re left with is a bunch of people who are just holding firm.  They’re not shouting anyone down.  They’re just not giving up. That right wingers find this offensive demonstrates that they believe that the little guy’s role is to roll over and take whatever abuse the powerful and the wealthy dish out.

I could write some about how the GOP is trying to use anti-choice nonsense to redefine rape so that simply saying “no” or being legally unable to consent isn’t enough, but it’s Friday, and I’m in a good mood and I don’t want to depress myself.  So, instead I’m going to deliver to you a cheery tale of how to monetize right wing idiocy, brought to you by Tyler Cowen.

Moving to dispel claims that President Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii, his supporters in the state’s legislature have introduced a bill that would allow anyone to get a copy of his birth records for a $100 fee.

The idea behind the measure is to end skepticism over Obama’s birthplace while raising a little money for a government with a projected budget deficit exceeding $800 million over the next two years.

If they’d done this up front, when they were getting 10-20 requests a week, this would have netted them $78,000 a year.  Not a lot, but not nothing.  But there’s a little nugget that’s interesting in this story that doesn’t bode well for the Tea Party.

But the number of birther requests has been declining from the 10 to 20 weekly inquiries received early last year, according to the Department of Health.

“Requests have decreased significantly over the years. Currently we receive anywhere from zero to five per week,” said department spokeswoman Janice Okubo.

Are Birthers losing enthusiasm?  It seems like it.  There’s been a resurgence in right wing media over the past month or so in Birther nonsense, and Jesse’s been sending me near-daily links to places like WorldNetDaily that are really pumping this crap up.  My initial feeling was that they’re bored and so going back to the well, but I was all wrong.  They’re actually acting like someone in a relationship who feels the spark waning, and so starts buying new lingerie and proposing going out on date nights.  They’re trying to win the Birthers back! And now it’s not just the usual crew of rabid internet goobers.  Even Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, who in the past have either ignored or even criticized Birther nonsense, are jumping on the train. 

Limbaugh:

Top-rated talk radio host Rush Limbaugh on Friday questioned why new Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie has not gotten support from the White House in his efforts to resolve the doubts of so-called “birthers” about Barack Obama’s place of birth.

Limbaugh also says he finds it “stunning” that Abercrombie still can’t prove Obama was born in Hawaii as he maintains.

What’s great about being a Birther is you can be a Birther while pretending you’re not a Birther.  I think it was Rick Perlstein who summed it up to me once, which is that all conservatives think everyone else in their movement is the sucker. 

Glenn Beck, as is his custom, is putting his own spin on it.

For those who can’t click the link, Beck—-while holding a bunny he probably then decapitated so he could drink its blood as soon as they quit filming—-claimed that Obama referenced the five pillars of Islam in coded terms in his State of the Union speech, by having five platform points, or something like that. While not directly questioning the birth certificate, this is part of the general Birther tent, since the imagined lack of a birth certificate is part of a larger conspiracy theory about how Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim that is out to turn the country into a socialist theocracy. 

Looks like the wingnuts have taken hold of New Mexico.  Here’s the new head of the state’s Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department on Alex Jones’ show, ranting about how environmentalists are just undercover communists conspiring to create false alarm over the environment.

New Mexico is one of the most beautiful states in the country, but the leadership now will happily wipe their asses with it to show the imaginary commies in their minds who’s boss.  That’s where we’re at as a country.  What’s scary, too, is this sort of thing doesn’t even stick out anymore, since so much Republican leadership is engaged in hysterical rants against imaginary enemies, and spinning conspiracy theories so they don’t have to face reality.  What makes this stick out from the herd is that it was done on Alex Jones’ show.  I remember, in college, one of the ways we used to get cheap, adolescent laughs was call into Jones’ show and challenge him, just to watch him get even crazier.  He was the leader of the black helicopter guys, and, if you can believe it, it’s gotten even uglier and weirder since then.  It was always alarming to me how popular Jones was, but I rationalized that a lot of it was folks like me, who found his “nothing I believe in is real!” act to be amusing and, at times, endearing.  But who fucking knows?  It appears that a lot of people take this shit seriously, seriously enough to elect these folks to offices where they can do real damage. 

In the many years since then, though, Jones has gone from an out-there kook to the role of a front runner in where the mainstream right is headed.  He complains regularly that Glenn Beck steals his act, and he should, since Beck totally steals his act.  Which means that we’re probably going to get some intimations that enemies are suffering from demon possession from Beck any day now.  (Do Mormons believe that? I have no idea, but I don’t think Beck is constrained by something as simple as the actual teachings of his church.) 

Fred Clark is a man of remarkable insight when it comes to the inner workings of the wacky right, since he’s basically made the transition from being in the thick of it to being a sensible person who lives in the real world.  He recently wrote a post about anti-choicers, and their fantasy that they’re doing something important and noble and brave, when in fact they’re basically being petty little cowards. I think his thoughts are relevant when discussing the conspiracy theories of anti-environmentalists, as well.

Let’s pretend that our unremarkable lives of quiet desperation are actually epic quests in the service of something meaningful. Let’s pretend our lives are driven by some purpose. Let’s pretend we are engaged in the great moral struggle of our time—that we are opposing some massive and twisted evil. Let’s pretend that this struggle requires courage and commitment and let’s pretend that we possess those things. Let’s pretend that we are all that stands between this country and brutal chaos—that we and we alone are the ones keeping it all together.

Let’s pretend we are not who we actually are. Let’s pretend that our lives are not what they actually are. Let’s pretend.

It’s one of the best and most telling posts I’ve ever read, especially since Fred has lived it from the inside.  I think his observations really apply here.  Conspiracy theories and fantasies proliferate on the right because the right is basically about stalling progress, and putting up roadblocks to a better world.  But saying out loud that you don’t want a better world is intolerable.  The ego cannot handle admitting to itself that you oppose feminism and environmentalism because you’re petty, vindictive, or selfish.  And so imaginary enemies are created.  Fantasies like the ones Fred describes are lived in until reality feels less real than the fantasy.  You don’t oppose abortion because you’re a petty person who can’t stand the idea that other people are living their lives without your control or even input.  Oh no!  You’re like an abolitionist!  And you’re not an anti-environmentalist because you’re petty, hostile to change, and don’t want to be bothered to think about how wasteful you’ve been all your life and why that needs to change.  You’re fighting a worldwide conspiracy of communism that just happens to involve the vast majority of scientists in the world! 

Obviously, there’s liberal fantasists, as well.  Anti-vaccination types and 9/11 Truthers come to mind, though it’s well worth pointing out that both subcultures have more than their fair share of right wingers, whereas most right wing conspiracy theory subcultures have few, if any liberals.  And these folks have similar motivations—-there’s a truth they can’t handle for some reason (in my experience, they’re highly privileged people who cannot accept the basic reality of bad luck, and bad luck is both the main reason for autism and the Bush administration being poised to take political advantage of 9/11), and so fill in a fantasy where they’re noble, brave people speaking truth to power.  But generally speaking, this stuff hasn’t taken off with liberals and I think it’s because we have real problems to deal with, and are familiar with how tedious and un-noble it can feel to grind at these on a day to day basis. 

The anniversary of Roe v Wade is a big deal for both the supporters and detractors of the belief that women are people, as I’m sure you’re aware.  RedState.com decided to commemorate the anniversary by competing for the first prize in the contest of who could write the most tasteless, ignorant, and offensive post ever in support of forced childbirth. I think you’ll agree that what they came up with is a contender in what is a crowded field.  It’s a post that manages to assert that embryos are people, but women are nothing more than “physical locations”.  It suggests that black people have equal claim to be considered persons as multi-celled entities that, unlike black people (or women, or children, or gay people, or whoever else conservatives care less about than the initial evidence that a male orgasm has definitely occurred in the recent past in a bona fide vagina), do not have brains, emotions, rationality, consciousness, relationships, desires or ambitions.  They tried to gross you out in lieu of making a real argument. They compared themselves to abolitionists while also trying to trumpet the Confederates as noble insurrectionists against federal tyranny.

But all these things are par for the course when it comes to wingnuttery.  What really made this post stand out was this passage:

Here at RedState, we too have drawn a line. We will not endorse any candidate who will not reject the judicial usurpation of Roe v. Wade and affirm that the unborn are no less entitled to a right to live simply because of their size or their physical location. Those who wish to write on the front page of RedState must make the same pledge. The reason for this is simple: once before, our nation was forced to repudiate the Supreme Court with mass bloodshed. We remain steadfast in our belief that this will not be necessary again, but only if those committed to justice do not waiver or compromise, and send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials of what must be necessary to earn our support.

Yep, they threatened armed revolt if they don’t get their way on this.  I guess they figured that Gabrielle Giffords was being moved from the hospital to rehab, so it was okay to loosen the tie a little and get back to business.  This was pretty stunning all the same, so I did what I’m accustomed to doing in these situations, which is leaping to Twitter to make fun of these golf pants-wearing nimrods with fantasies of armed revolution in their heads.  This was not, as you can imagine, well-received by said wingnuts.  Josh Trevino, especially, decided to start arguing with me in that tone that’s unique to very stupid men who have bought into the cultural lie that their penises make them smarter than all women.  It was kind of entertaining for awhile to argue with him (particularly asking questions he refused to answer, mostly in terms of who actually started the Civil War by seceding in defense of slavery, and whether or not people who shoot abortion doctors feel strongly on the subject of banning abortion), but I did hit my fool-suffering limit and dropped out after awhile.  There are Brussels sprouts to roast and toilets to clean, you know For all I know, he’s still ranting about how I’m illiterate because I believe the insurrection that started the Civil War was in defense of slavery.

Nonetheless, I’m always up for a challenge, and Josh challenged my ability to read English, so I figured we’d have some fun doing what those of us with degrees in English lit call a “close reading” of the passage above.  For funsies. Also, because I, you know, take domestic terrorism very seriously and don’t think it’s all that cool for RedState to deliberately provoke would-be anti-abortion terrorists. And I like believing that my four years of college gave me a useful skill beyond obsessive pop culture list-making.  We’ll start with “The reason for this”, because that’s where shit gets really interesting.

The reason for this is simple: once before, our nation was forced to repudiate the Supreme Court with mass bloodshed.

It’s clear from both the wording of this and the squawking on Twitter that this passage is supposed to be ambiguous enough to both allow the readers to read whatever they want into it, and create plausible deniability for the editors at RedState.  The Supreme Court decision that’s being referenced is the favorite one of anti-choicers, which is the Dred Scott decision of 1857 that held that slaves or even free people whose ancestors were slaves could not be considered U.S. citizens. As part of the offensive project of comparing black people to literally brainless clumps of cells that could become people but are not yet people, anti-choicers really like to linger on this one.  They also like to compare themselves to abolitionists, even though abolitionists by and large thought black people had more claim to personhood than brainless clumps of cells.

The problem with borrowing the abolitionist legacy is not just that it was a liberal, progressive movement (that gave birth to the anti-racist movement and the feminist movement) is that conservative sympathies usually run not towards the Union, but towards the Confederacy, which gave them the “states rights” arguments they’re so fond of and a flag they often like to use for decorative purposes.  Also, with all this Tea Party talk of insurrection, the Confederacy—-the largest and most successful (in the sense that it took four years to put it down) insurrection in American history—-is a natural precedent to look towards.  And that’s what they’re doing here, drawing on a previous insurrection that was, as they note, national in scope.  Indeed, over half a million people died in this particular insurrection.

Read All...

I’ve been told that Chris Christie is too imperious and too much of a bully to win the Republican nomination, and my feeling on that is that Republicans like imperious bullies (see: John McCain), so I don’t see how that could hurt him. I mean, it will in the general, but not so much in the primary.  But he hasn’t learned the most important lesson of being a Republican favorite, which is that no matter how sure of yourself you may be, if you refuse to pander to bigots, you’re screwed.  McCain knew this; he changed his position on immigration to the one that most appealed to people who flip out if they hear someone speaking in Spanish in public.  But Christie’s gone and appointed a Muslim to the state bench of New Jersey, and the wingnuts are freaking out, sure this is a sign that sharia law is imminent.  Adam Serwer:

The case against Mohammed—if you care to tumble down that rabbit hole—is that he’s represented people accused of ties to terrorism. The “stealth jihad” crew, despite ostensibly being concerned about the secular rule of law being subverted by Islamic fundamentalists, don’t actually believe in the presumption of innocence, or in providing legal representation to Muslims accused of crimes.

Sohail Mohammed defended some men who were caught up in post-9/11 secret sweeps looking for potential terrorists, and most of them were innocent of the accusation of having ties to terrorism.  “Innocent” is a key word here when understanding how completely ridiculous the wingnut reaction is, though grown-ups have to also point out that even if they’re not innocent, they have a right to a legal defense, like anyone else accused of a crime.  Basically, the tattered remains of the once-powerful 101st Fighting Keyboardists don’t believe that there is a difference between “Muslim” and “terrorist”. 

So now, according to the warbloggers, New Jersey is about to turn into Iran.

  – In a widely linked post, “Governor Christie’s Dirty Islamist Ties,” blogger Daniel Greenfield writes that “New Jersey, the Garden State, has just taken its first step toward becoming the Sharia State,” and criticized Christie for being “willing to stand up to the teacher’s union, but not to the terrorist’s union.”

  – Hate blogger Pamela Gellar, in a post titled “Governor Christie’s Hamas Pick for Superior Judgeship,” declared Christie’s political career over: “Governor Christie looked and sounded like he could be presidential. He’s not. He’s in bed with the enemy. All the other stuff doesn’t matter if you don’t have your freedom.”

  – At Commentary magazine, Jonathan S. Tobin wrote a post about Christie’s “troubling appointment,” and charged that Christie’s “appointment of Sohail Mohammed to the court shows that his judgment on the issue of support for terrorism is highly questionable.”

  – The Investigative Project on Terrorism warned Christie’s appointment of an “Islamist” to a judgeship “betrays either naivete or calculation. Either is troubling.”

  – PowerLine blog took extra pains to note that “The attorney’s name is Mohammed, first name Sohail — Sohail Mohammed.”

I, for one, cannot wait for the farmer’s market to have the crescents to indicate which tomatoes are sharia tomatoes.  All that radical juiciness!

I think it’s time to start a Republican nomination index.  Measure all the potential candidates against each other, see who is ahead which week, etc.  My money is still on Christie getting it, but this has weakened the case, and I feel Pawlenty is now ahead.  But watch out for dark horse Huckabee.

Who should be on such an index?  Maybe creating a graphic for it would be a good idea.

Here is my working theory of Kanye West: Many years ago, he won the love of some ancient god that no one believes in anymore.  When he rejected the affections of this god, he was cursed.  Though he would continue to find fame and fortune, he would also be unable to resist a very specific situation.  Whenever people gathered together and there was some elephant in the room composed of bullshit that everyone was dutifully ignoring, West would be compelled to open his mouth and say something, and in a style that implies he was the only one who didn’t realize that it wasn’t socially acceptable to speak truth right at this moment.  And despite his truth-saying abilities, he would be shunned.  Whatever he said would be blown way out of proportion, as if t was the most hurtful thing ever.  He would be forced to retreat to Twitter and wonder aloud why he’s cursed in just this way.

In other words, it’s like Cassandra’s curse, except instead of being gifted/cursed with prophecy, he would be gifted/cursed with cutting through the crap.  As a side bonus, his words would have the ability to make the target feel like they’ve just faced the most cutting thing anyone’s said about them, even though that feeling is completely ridiculous.

The most recent new story of a person pulled into the Kanye West Curse is former President Bush, who deftly avoided the complaints of millions of people after he left New Orleans to drown, but got all bent out of shape when Kanye West complained about him.  So much so that he focused on that as the worst moment of his presidency.

Lauer quotes from Bush’s new book: “Five years later I can barely write those words without feeling disgust.” Lauer adds, “You go on: ‘I faced a lot of criticism as president. I didn’t like hearing people claim that I lied about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction or cut taxes to benefit the rich. But the suggestion that I was racist because of the response to Katrina represented an all-time low.’

President Bush responds: “Yeah. I still feel that way as you read those words. I felt ‘em when I heard ‘em, felt ‘em when I wrote ‘em, and I felt ‘em when I’m listening to ‘em.

Lauer: “You say you told Laura at the time it was the worst moment of your presidency?”

Bush: “Yes. My record was strong, I felt, when it came to race relations and giving people a chance. And it was a disgusting moment.”

To be somewhat fair to Bush, it’s factually true that he lied about weapons of mass destruction (and then joked about the con he pulled on the public), and that he cut taxes to benefit the rich.  But why he left New Orleans to drown is purely a matter of conjecture—-is it that he doesn’t care about black people, or that he doesn’t care about most people that aren’t his rich friends?  But I humbly submit that either way, West’s main crime was speaking the truth.  Most black people aren’t Bush’s rich friends; they are therefore a subcategory of the larger group of people that George Bush doesn’t care about, a group that also includes most people of all races and ethnic groups.  All West said was Bush doesn’t care about black people.  This doesn’t preclude Bush not caring about other people.  There’s enough of Bush’s not giving a shit if you live or die to go around.
Here’s a transcript of what West actually said.  You’ll find more evidence for my assertion that West is cursed, because Lisa de Moraes implies that he’s wildly out of control because he’s passionate about speaking the god’s honest truth.  He accuses the media of being racist—-true enough—-and then accuses Bush of not caring about black people.  That he didn’t take the time to note that Bush makes a few exceptions for his friends, or that he didn’t expand to point out the many, myriad groups of people Bush doesn’t care about doesn’t change a word of truth of what West was saying.

But even within these parameters, it’s amazing that Bush is going to let Kanye West say that he’s a racist stand out as the worst moment of his presidency.  Not 9/11?  Not the day it became clear his imperialist war on Iraq was south and he wasn’t showing his daddy who was the bigger man?  Not when it was revealed that his administration promoted torture in direct violation of international and federal law? Not, you know, Hurricane Katrina itself?  Not the day that his (amongst others) lackadaisical approach to regulating the finance industries sent out economy spiraling into a depression that bled out jobs from the economy? 

I was far from the only one who found this amusing. SEK at Lawyers, Guns, and Money says:

According to the man himself, then, Bush placed more importance on whether people perceived him to be racist than what happened to actual black people in the city of New Orleans.

In short, he proved Kanye right.

Part of Kanye’s curse is that after everyone chills out a little, we all realize he was just saying what everyone was thinking, and we were unfair to leap all over him.

Ta-Nehisi Coates calls Bush thin-skinned, and says this:

I thought Kanye West’s comments were pretty silly, and typical of Kanye. It’s also typical of George Bush that implication that he’s a racist is worse then the implication that he sent thousands of people to their deaths on a lie.

I’d argue all that’s part of the curse—-most of the public thinking West is silly and the target feeling like West criticizing you is the worst possible thing that can happen to you.  Those Greek gods are wily motherfuckers when scorned.

Adam Serwer takes the long view:

[T]he left has accused Bush of being a war criminal for “legalizing” torture but he finds the implication that he’s indifferent to the suffering of African Americans far more offensive.

That said, West’s criticism of Bush was unfair. The response to Hurricane Katrina was a reflection of basic administrative incompetence and cronyism, not active racial animus.

I have to point out that this is a continuation of the West Curse. His accusation was that Bush’s animus wasn’t active, but passive.  He “doesn’t care”.  West wasn’t suggesting that Bush pushed the levies down or anything.  And not caring about black people, I will restate, doesn’t preclude not caring about others.  There’s a lot of not caring in Bush. Singling out black people was perhaps a little off the mark, since Bush does care about a handful of black people.  But he was wound up.  I’m not going to stomp him on a technicality.

After all this, I’m going to point out that Bush is far from the only example of the Kanye West Curse, of course.  The incident involving Taylor Swift was way more famous, in fact, but it went down exactly the same way.  Swift was getting some big, fat award when someone else obviously deserved it more, most people politely pretended not to see this, but West—-in the thrall of an ancient curse—-spoke up. And then everyone acted like he took a dump on the floor instead of just said what everyone was thinking at an inopportune moment.  And then the target of the truth bomb proceeded to hold a major league grudge, and act like this is the worst thing that ever happened. Bush wrote it in his memoir, and Swift did the same, since her shitty little songs are her memoirs. And she titled it “Innocent”, which is obnoxious, and the lyrics are even worse, implying that West is a child.  Apparently, part of the curse is having the target of your criticisms go on to demonstrate record-setting levels of butthurt. 

This round-up of Republican race-baiting ads by Alex Pareene at Salon is at turns hilarious and frightening.  But it also gives us an excellent glimpse of what Republican politicians think of their base—-how they feel they need to speak to them to get a message across.  Conservatives are always accusing liberals of stereotyping them and ascribing to them ugly motivations they don’t actually have.  But what do Republican politicians that conservatives vote for, give money to, and sometimes hero worship think of them?  If anything, their opinion seems to be lower than liberals’ opinion of conservatives. 

*Republicans believe the base is stupid.  By far, the most hilarious part of these ads is how over the top they are.  Like I said on Twitter, the ideal Republican ad would be: “Mexicans. Mosques. Abortions. Butt Sex. Democrats Love These Things. Be Afraid.”  By Tuesday, I expect at least one candidate, probably Sharron Angle, to put out an ad that shows a bunch of Latino dudes leaving a mosque and gang-raping a white woman.  (Though I suppose you could turn that into a counter-ad that says, “But Sharron Angle says she should make lemonade out of these lemons.”)  I remember a time, not that long ago, when these sorts of messages were sent through dog whistles, that in turn were hastily researched and analyzed and translated by bloggers.  But no more!  Fearful that their base is too stupid to understand nudges, Republican candidates are spelling it out in big red letters.

*Republicans believe the base is racist.  Any time a liberal points out there might be a little racial animosity motivating the conservative base, conservatives get all upset, saying “RAAAAAAACIST”, as if this disproves the charge, or accusing liberals of being the “real” racists, in the classic “I’m rubber, you’re glue” maneuver that they picked up from their local kindergarten playground.  But we’re not the only ones saying it.  If there’s one thing that an ad is saying when it shows Latinos as a group hellbent on raping and pillaging, or suggests that there’s something wrong with Arab Americans being involved with politics at all, it’s that the people making it believe their audience is not only racist, but considers racism to be an extremely important part of their political identity.

*Republicans believe their base doesn’t give much of a shit about policy.  As I noted earlier, the weirdest thing about about all these political ads is how unmoored they are from the real world consequences of voting and electing people to office to enact policy.  A number of candidates around the country ran ads about the Islamic community center near the WTC, but the only one who, in theory, could even do anything about it is Carl Paladino, and even that’s iffy.  And, as I noted earlier, voting on the topic of “immigration” isn’t actually going to accomplish the desire goal for the bigots, which is the expulsion of the people they spend so much time hating.  Angle is backing up the Arizona law, but running for a national office where she wouldn’t actually be able to pass that kind of legislation.  Even if Republicans pass some laws addressing immigrants, they are almost certainly going to be laws that are aimed at keeping immigrants coming to the U.S., where they can be used for cheap labor, but limiting their rights so they can’t ever get to a point where they’re voting, drawing Social Security, or getting a shot at fair wages or joining unions.

In other words, these ads basically encourage people to vote as a form of self-expression.  This is (see point #1) stupid.  It’s a secret ballot, and not really the appropriate place to express yourself.  Write a blog, make a sign, read crappy books by assholes like Laura Inagraham in public, if you want to express yourself, but the voting booth is where you try to affect policy.  I suppose the rationale is that if enough people express their racism at the voting booth, then they send a message by electing their candidate.  But surely there are better ways for the bigot voters to send the message “We hate people that don’t look or worship like us” than to send morons like Sharron Angle to Congress, I’d think.

Many of the ideas I get from blogging are due strictly to what is probably a low-grade, undiagnosed form of ADD.  I’m constantly jumping back and forth between Google Reader, Twitter, and whatever long form articles I’ve pulled up to read.  Seriously, if I want to just buckle down and read something, I often just put physical obstacles between myself and jumping around—-like bring a book on the subway, where there isn’t any wifi access anyway.  Or lay down in the living room with a cat firmly placed on my lap so I can’t reach for anything but my book or magazine. 

But for blogging, hopping around works.  For instance, I hopped between this Matt Taibbi article on the Tea Crackers and this blog post from Digby.  It was such a great mix that I’ll just point out the pertinent information to you, and frankly at this point I’m not sure long-form analysis is even necessary.

First, from Taibbi’s article:

But this spring, when confronted with the idea of reducing Medicare payments to doctors like himself — half of his patients are on Medicare — [Rand Paul] balked. This candidate, a man ostensibly so against government power in all its forms that he wants to gut the Americans With Disabilities Act and abolish the departments of Education and Energy, was unwilling to reduce his own government compensation, for a very logical reason. “Physicians,” he said, “should be allowed to make a comfortable living.”

Then the quote that Digby pulls from the NY Times:

“We as Republicans need to realize that you can’t just cut off the welfare queen and balance the budget,” says Rand Paul, a Senate candidate in Kentucky….

Then Taibbi’s article:

[Teabaggers] are all furious at the implication that race is a factor in their political views — despite the fact that they blame the financial crisis on poor black homeowners, spend months on end engrossed by reports about how the New Black Panthers want to kill “cracker babies,” support politicians who think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an overreach of government power, tried to enact South African-style immigration laws in Arizona and obsess over Charlie Rangel, ACORN and Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

From another link of Digby’s, this time to a blogger covering an email forward that is burning through Tea Crackerdom.  It’s a letter that a doctor wrote to President Obama, though I should put “supposedly” there, as apparently there are many versions.  This is one version of the forward that is getting all these totally-not-racists fired up:

During my last night’s shift in the ER, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient with a shiny new gold tooth, multiple elaborate tattoos, a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and a new cellular telephone equipped with her favorite R&B tune for a ringtone. Glancing over the chart, one could not help noticing her payer status: Medicaid. She smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and, somehow, still has money to buy beer.

What I particularly enjoyed in this version of the letter is singling out a gold tooth as evidence that someone is living high on the hog via government largess.  Gold teeth are associated with poverty for a very practical reason—-they’re cheaper than porcelain veneers, and of course having to have dental interventions at a young age is associated in general with the poorer health associated with poverty.  But in this instance, the letter writer wants to have it both ways.  He wants to invoke the class associations of gold teeth—-that you’re lower class if you have them—-but he wants to imply that gold teeth are somehow a sign of someone who is swimming in cash by invoking the gold=wealth association.  But I’ll bet that even if all these things he whips out as indicators of someone being spoiled—-tattoos, gold caps, tennis shoes, cigarettes, a cell phone, a ring tone, and beer once a week—-were purchased in the course of a year, the total is still probably way less than a single visit to the ER. 
***************
Update: There was some discussion about the urban legend status of this letter in comments. By quoting this letter, I was in no way, shape, or form trying to imply that the contents within were true.  On the contrary, I was trying to use it as an example of one of the many thousands of email forwards sent around right wing America that are a second tier form of media that’s under-discussed but probably more indicative of everyday views than what you hear on Glenn Beck. 

So, out of curiosity, I looked the letter up on Snopes.  It turns out that it was correctly attributed, and that the man who wrote it really is a doctor.  The letter was written as a letter to the editor of the Mississippi Clarion Ledger.  However, as the letter got passed around—-as usually happens in these cases—-some details were added, in this case the detail about the shoes.  But it’s mostly the same. 

My feeling about this is that Dr. Jones did see the patient he described—-someone carrying a cell phone who has a lot of tattoos and smokes a pack a day is hardly an unusual person—-and he is an unsympathetic, uncaring asshole and I feel very bad for her and all other patients that have to deal with him.  It’s interesting that he doesn’t mention what her medical emergency was that brought her to ER, which strikes me as a deliberate oversight on his part to avoid drumming up any sympathy for this person he’s trying to demonize.  The description makes her sound young, so I’m guessing she had an accident unrelated to any of her “choices” that he disapproves of.  God forbid you realize what happened to her could happen to any of us. 

It sucks, but doctors can be right wing, shit-for-brains assholes, too.  This one happened to be all those things and capable of writing an email that teabaggers across the nation really enjoy forwarding.
*************

But as Taibbi’s article demonstrates, this isn’t a crowd that’s good with logic.  So one more quote from him, to give all this some shape:

That’s because the Tea Party doesn’t really care about issues — it’s about something deep down and psychological, something that can’t be answered by political compromise or fundamental changes in policy. At root, the Tea Party is nothing more than a them-versus-us thing.

“Them” is, as I’ve noted, a particularly large and diverse group.  But at this point,anyone who think that race isn’t a major factor in who gets put in the demonized “them” is fooling themselves.

Like Atrios, I feel both surprised that Cal Thomas went there and sadly ashamed that I was surprised.  And by “there”, I mean that Thomas has gone ahead and come out against the First Amendment.

We are doing a poor job of fighting the terrorists at home if we continue to allow Muslim immigrants, especially from Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, into America. We won’t win this war if we permit the uncontrolled construction of mosques, as well as Islamic schools, some of which already have sown the seeds from which future terrorists will be cultivated. We won’t win this war if we continue to permit the large-scale conversion to Islam of prison inmates, many of whom become radicalized and upon release enlist in al-Qaida’s army.

He then suggests that we model ourselves after Syria when it comes to monitoring imams and Muslim congregations.  No word, of course, on whether or not we should extend that surveillance to Christians, even though Christian terrorists are an ongoing problem.  Ask any abortion provider. 

Of course, because some moron will inevitably accuse me of wanting to monitor all Christians, I am not saying that.  It’s a violation of basic human rights and not a good use of limited resources to monitor everyone.  Which is to say that Thomas manages, in a couple of paragraphs, to come out against the Fourth Amendment that protects against unwarranted search and seizure, as well as the First Amendment, that protects the freedom of religion.  My point is simply to draw attention to the wild double standard here.  Thomas would revolt if you proposed putting the same restrictions on Christians that he would have put on Muslims.  Which means, once again, that he and people like him are motivated by delineating who is and isn’t a “real” American, and only extending rights to those people who pass their arbitrary, unconstitutional standards. 

I also want to draw attention to how unabashedly fascist Thomas is, in his use of the term “purging” to describe his proposal to scrub Muslims and presumed Muslims out of our society through immigration restrictions, harassment, preventing prisoners to convert, and disallowing Muslims to build houses of worship. If you suggested that Muslims be pushed into ghettos and had their movements controlled through the use of a badge system, I have little doubt that Thomas and his buddies would be all over that, too.  Of course, we had idiots showing up in comments here and claiming that Islam is an “ideology” and so the concerns about racism are misplaced, as if restricting people’s basic human rights based on a cultural/religious/ethnic identity is so easily bracketed off from previous and similar assaults on Jews, African-Americans, the Irish, etc.  If you don’t think so, ask yourself this: How do you think Thomas and his buddies intend to tell who is Muslim and who isn’t?  Do you think that someone who, like Barack Obama, had a Muslim parent but isn’t Muslim himself would count?  What about someone who isn’t really faithful, but does participate in family occasions and holidays?  What about people who hail from predominantly Muslim countries but aren’t Muslim?  The haters have already made it clear that they don’t distinguish between Al Qaeda and a thoroughly integrated Muslim community center like Park 51, and if anything, they find the latter more threatening because it exposes the lie that is their black and white worldview.  This is about creating an “us” and a “them”, and then scapegoating the “them”.  Truth and basic decency get in the way of that project.

By the way, if it wasn’t true before, it’s now true that the word “balance” has come to mean “right wing propaganda”.  A Maine newspaper ran a fairly pedestrian story about the end of Ramadan on September 11th, and the date gave the bigots their in for freaking out.  And the paper apologized for not having “balance”.  What do they mean by “balance”?  If you show Muslims doing things that threaten to make readers ponder the possibility that they’re human beings, are you obliged to balance that with a story declaring that they aren’t human beings? 

This just reinforces the theory that what is really sending wingnuts around the bend is the understanding that the vast majority of Muslims aren’t terrorists.  They’re harder to scapegoat if the majority of Americans realize that they’re not scary, monstrous, or even particularly different.  And it’s clear that it’s really, really important to wingnut America that Muslims are available as scapegoats.  So any story that is humanizing or informative causes the wingnuts to lose their shit. 

Via Towleroad, a clear sign that it’s not a post-racial society across the pond either. Bonus points in this case for these clubs employing a shared security system to do their racial profiling and have closed ranks regarding the controversy.

“When Amaechi questioned the decision, the doorman said it was a ‘private members’ bar.’ He then allegedly claimed that the New York Times best-selling author had been flagged up as ‘trouble’ on the gay village’s shared security radio network. A spokesperson for the bar later told Amaechi’s representative: ‘Your group was stopped from entering the venue on Friday night as a message was received over the NiteNet radio system, (a system where several venues work together within the village, where they announce any issues they have with any customers), that your group had been argumentative and aggressive to another venue’s doorstaff. On interview with the staff who were present at the time, we are satisfied that there were no racism or bigotry comments as you suggest. All three staff who were present on the door at the time have been with us for over 14 months and none of them have ever displayed the attitude or characteristics you suggest in your email. You have clearly misunderstood the situation and perhaps justifying your exclusion that evening. We consider this matter closed now.’”

The other bars, VIA and Taurus, which use the NiteNet system deny there was any such warning about Amaechi’s behavior.

According to the paper, “Amaechi’s representatives have lodged a complaint with the Equality and Human Rights Commission along with a complaint to the Manchester City Council LGBT affairs director, Terry Waller and also with the Greater Manchester Police LGBT liaison office.”

This took place in Manchester, UK, Amaechi’s flipping hometown! Oh, and what part of “big and black and could be trouble” isn’t racist? Why would Amaechi even bother making something ridiculous like that up? I wonder where this case will go.

***

Back on our side of the Atlantic, and close to home, a sheriff here in NC goes on a nostalgia trip because required probable cause for pulling motorists over has cramped his style re: racial profiling, and general illegal chicanery.

Wake County Sheriff Donnie Harrison says the constitutional protection against unjustified searches and seizures inhibits law enforcement and it would be better if police could pull over motorists without probable cause.

Harrison, a Republican seeking election to a third four-year term in November, makes his comments in a video interview on the YouTube channel of Tom Murry, a Morrisville councilman running for the state House in the 41st District, which includes parts of Raleigh, Apex, Cary and Morrisville.

In the video, Murry asks, “Is the state making it easier for you to do your job or making it more difficult?”

Harrison, a former North Carolina Highway Patrol trooper, responds, “The biggest thing I see is the way we interpret laws. Back when I was a young trooper, we could stop a car anytime we wanted to to see if they had a driver’s license. Now you can’t do it. You have to have suspicion of probable cause. So, to me, it’s sort of burden on us.”

Since Muslims have decided to piss off conservatives by being Muslim on American soil, the inevitable response has finally come: an extended gay joke. 

So, the Muslim investors championing the construction of the new mosque near Ground Zero claim it’s all about strengthening the relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world.

As an American, I believe they have every right to build the mosque - after all, if they buy the land and they follow the law - who can stop them?

Which is, why, in the spirit of outreach, I’ve decided to do the same thing.

I’m announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.

This is not a joke. I’ve already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.

As you know, the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I’m building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.

It goes on, but you get the point.

You see?  People are angry about something a group of Muslims did.  Therefore, it is a perfect and totally proportionate response to do something that you think will totally piss Muslims off, except it’s actually just asinine and completely disingenuous.  It’s like that time your neighbors dropped their leaves on your lawn, so you converted your house into an S&M-themed clothing store called “Fuck 908 Higgins Avenue”.  Totally rational.

Of course, this has resulted in much glee and pun-based hilarity:

And of course, Twitter is getting into the swing of things by naming Greg’s gay bar. Here are some ideas:

Al Gayda — Chuck_Dizzle

The Velvet Sword, Jihard and/or Dome of the Cock — AceofSpades

United 69 — Iowahawkblog

Ba’ath House — DuchessRebecca

Now, I’m not particularly offended that these people are assembling to engage in the world’s biggest gay joke ever, or that they’re juvenile assholes.  This is America - we were founded on the premise that everyone’s allowed to be a juvenile asshole!  Megan McArdle is waiting for the outrage to arise:

I am hoping that at least one person will attempt to explain why we should support the mosque near Ground Zero, but not the gay bar next to the mosque near Ground Zero.  I would find that very entertaining.

I’m sure she would.

Now, if there’s anything wrong with this plan, it’s not a gay bar qua gay bar next to a Muslim community center qua Muslim community center.  It’s that it’s a gay bar qua people who are not gay and don’t particularly like gay people and don’t particularly like Muslims next to a Muslim community center qua Mohameddan obelisk of terror and jihadist victory. 

The plan only works for the builders of the gay bar if they think that Park 51 is being built as a disingenuous effort to piss off specific sensitive groups of people, which makes this simply a mirror effort to (you guessed it) piss off specific sensitive groups of people.  Oddly enough, this makes it eminently worthy of criticism if you believe that the community center is being built for one set of clearly stated reasons and the gay bar would be build for another set of clearly stated reasons that are based on a deliberate misunderstanding of the former set of reasons.  (This isn’t even to mention the fact that another group, gays and lesbians, gets their identity appropriated for a cheap and insulting political stunt.  If it works, the best that’s happened is that a bunch of straight Christian Republicans have made life harder for Muslims, gays and lesbians at no actual risk or harm to themselves.  Well done!)

Personally, I just think if you can get together the money to build a fake gay bar just to piss off a bunch of people who are getting together to take Pilates classes, you’ve got enough money to start an actual business that would make actual money and employ actual employees.  But fuck it, we’re not in a recession, and I know nothing about business.  Fake gay bar it is.

UPDATE: Glenn Beck clip on this under the fold.  Swear to God.

Read All...