PDA

View Full Version : The Right Wing Gets Away With More



wheelchairman
02-07-2005, 10:19 AM
Let's face it, the right wing can say far more than any left-wing politician can. I'm mostly speaking in terms of the Right-wing in the United States, it's odd but in Denmark people tend to remain civil about politics.

But in America, the right wing can get away with being flat-out insulting to just about whoever they want. What's worse is, they'll get rewarded by being guests on Fox News and CNN for the more offensive they can be.

If we saw Left-wing intellectuals saying the same type of absurd things, they'd more than likely lose their jobs and have a lynch mob after them. What the hell?

We discussed before on this message board how the Left Wing seems to be the favored ones or some such, but quite honestly, that may just be an anamoly one only sees on college campuses.

Here's the article that first got me thinking about this:

http://www.thenation.com

Beat The Devil --
Ward Churchill and the Mad Dogs of the Right
by Alexander Cockburn

When it comes to left and right, meaning the contrapuntal voices of
sanity and dementia, we're meant to keep two sets of books.

Start with sanity, in the form of Ward Churchill, a professor at the
University of Colorado. Churchill is known as a fiery historian and
writer, often on Indian topics. Back in 2001, after 9/11, Churchill
wrote an essay called "Some People Push Back," making the simple point,
in a later summary, that "if U.S. foreign policy results in massive
death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of
that destruction is returned."

[...]

Now suppose Churchill had talked about Schwarzenegger's war on the poor
in California and called on someone to punch the governor in the face,
or have a jovial Graner force Pataki to masturbate what remains of
Schwarzenegger's steroid-shriveled genitals, or have Ann Coulter rub
her knickers in his face or get blown up by a bomb? He'd be out of his
job in a minute.

Right-wing mad dogs are licensed to write anything, and in our
Coulter-culture they do, just so they can burnish their profiles and
get invited on Fox or CNN talk shows. Why else would Tony Blankley
call on the Washington Times editorial page for Seymour Hersh to be
imprisoned or shot for treason? But it's a PR game only right-wingers
are allowed to play.

[...}



Ward Churchill and the Mad Dogs of the Right
by Alexander Cockburn

When it comes to left and right, meaning the contrapuntal voices of
sanity and dementia, we're meant to keep two sets of books.

Start with sanity, in the form of Ward Churchill, a professor at the
University of Colorado. Churchill is known as a fiery historian and
writer, often on Indian topics. Back in 2001, after 9/11, Churchill
wrote an essay called "Some People Push Back," making the simple point,
in a later summary, that "if U.S. foreign policy results in massive
death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of
that destruction is returned."

That piece was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting
Chickens. About those killed in the 9/11 attacks, Churchill wrote
recently, "It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target,
or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following
the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have
consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad,
this placement of an element of the American 'command and control
infrastructure' in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade
Center itself into a 'legitimate' target."


At this point, Churchill could have specifically mentioned the infamous
bombing of the Amariya civilian shelter in Baghdad in January 1991,
with 400 deaths, almost all women and children, all subsequently
identified and named by the Iraqis. To this day, the US government
says it was an OK target.

Churchill concludes, "If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these
'standards' when they are routinely applied to other people, they
should not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.
It should be emphasized that I applied the 'little Eichmanns'
characterization only to those [World Trade Center workers] described
as 'technicians.' Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children,
janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in
the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, [they] were simply part
of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my
point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when
applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else." I'm glad he puts
that gloss in about the targets, thus clarifying what did read to some
like a blanket stigmatization of the WTC inhabitants in his original
paper.

A storm has burst over Churchill's head, with protests by Governor
Pataki and others at his scheduled participation in a panel at Hamilton
College called "Limits of Dissent?" In Colorado, he's resigned his
chairmanship of the department of ethnic studies, and politicians,
fired up by the mad dogs on the Wall Street Journal editorial page and
by Lord O'Reilly of the Loofah on Fox, are howling for his eviction
from his job (Loofah? See O'Reilly's lewd fantasies:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11272004.html).

Why should Churchill apologize for anything? Is it a crime to say that
chickens can come home to roost and that the way to protect American
lives from terrorism is to respect international law? I don't think he
should have resigned as department chair. Let them drag him out by
main force.

So much for the voice of sanity. Now for the dementia of the right.
The New Republic's Tom Frank (not the Frank, please note, who just
wrote a book about Kansas) describes in TNR how he recently sat in on
an antiwar panel in Washington.

Frank listened to Stan Goff, a former Delta Force soldier and current
organizer for Military Families Speak Out, who duly moved Frank to
write that "what I needed was a Republican like Arnold [Schwarzenegger]
who would walk up to [Goff] and punch him in the face." Then upon
Frank's outraged ears fell the views of International Socialist Review
editorial board member Sherry Wolf, who asserted that Iraqis had a
"right" to rebel against occupation, prompting TNR's man to confide to
his readers that "these weren't harmless lefties. I didn't want Nancy
Pelosi talking sense to them; I wanted John Ashcroft to come busting
through the wall with a submachine gun to round everyone up for an
immediate trip to Gitmo, with Charles Graner on hand for
interrogation." After Wolf quoted Booker Prize-winning author
Arundhati Roy's defense of the right to resist, Frank mused, "Maybe
sometimes you just want to be on the side of whoever is more likely to
take a bunker buster to Arundhati Roy."

Now suppose Churchill had talked about Schwarzenegger's war on the poor
in California and called on someone to punch the governor in the face,
or have a jovial Graner force Pataki to masturbate what remain of
Schwarzenegger's steroid-shriveled genitals, or have Ann Coulter rub
her knickers in his face or get blown up by a bomb? He'd be out of his
job in a minute.

Right-wing mad dogs are licensed to write anything, and in our
Coulter-culture they do, just so they can burnish their profiles and
get invited on Fox or CNN talk shows. Why else would Tony Blankley
call on the Washington Times editorial page for Seymour Hersh to be
imprisoned or shot for treason? But it's a PR game only right-wingers
are allowed to play.

After savaging Churchill, the mad dogs of the right turned their sights
on Shahid Alam, a professor of economics at Northeastern University in
Boston. Alam, author of the excellent Poverty From the Wealth of
Nations, wrote a column for the CounterPunch web site in December in
which he argued that the 9/11 attacks were an Islamist insurgency, the
attackers believing that they were fighting -- as the American
revolutionaries did, in the 1770s -- for their freedom and dignity
against foreign occupation/control of their lands. Second, he argued
that these attacks were the result of the political failure of Muslims
to resist their tyrannies locally. It was a mistake, Alam said, to
attack the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Now he has been labeled "an
un-American" professor by Fox News, and there's an Internet campaign to
have him stripped of his faculty position.

So write to all the appropriate names, defending Churchill and Alam;
and if you feel like an outing to execrate Frank and The New Republic,
there'll be a demonstration sponsored by the DC Anti-War Network, the
DC chapter of the ISO and others at 5 pm on Friday, February 11,
outside TNR's DC editorial offices at 1331 H Street NW.

Betty
02-07-2005, 06:44 PM
Oh my god. You are insane. Seriously.

So I looked up this "Some People Push Back" article... it was definitely super civil towards all involved.


There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . .

Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in and in many cases excelling at it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.

Little Eichmanns??

So basically, his point of "if U.S. foreign policy results in massive
death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of
that destruction is returned."

was actually "the people in the world trade centre DESERVED to be killed".

How the hell can he get away with that?

And it's not only the stock traders, etc, who were in that building. There are also all the care staff, the charity groups, etc. They all deserved to be killed too apparently.

Regardless of whether you agree with his point or not, he is most certainly getting away with a hell of a lot in the way that he is expressing himself.

I can only shake my head at the whole subject of this debate. Wow.

wheelchairman
02-07-2005, 07:02 PM
Hmm I interpreted it as him trying to do a left-wing version of the typical right-wing editorial crap we hear all the time. But perhaps I gave him too much credit. Either way, I think the point he was trying to make was that the WTC were just as much a legitimate target as some of the 'targets' we've had in Iraq.

NOAMR
02-08-2005, 03:40 AM
Idd, it isn't that the people f the WTC deserved to die, but it was a normal thing after what America did to the people of the Middle East. If you opress them, it's normal that they will opress you. That doesn't make it good, but America does the same thing.

Vera
02-08-2005, 04:46 AM
Denmark just had elections? I think I heard something about it this morning.

wheelchairman
02-08-2005, 05:53 AM
We're having them today. I just voted. I didn't get a free t-shirt for being a first time voter. Stupid Cheap Copenhagen Commune.

Vera
02-08-2005, 06:18 AM
Gotcha. We always have elections on Sundays, feels weird when people mention having them in the middle of week.

wheelchairman
02-08-2005, 06:39 AM
We just have elections whenever the prime minister feels he can win.

Izie
02-08-2005, 02:23 PM
We just have elections whenever the prime minister feels he can win.

(Jesus)
Haha, yeah that surprised me when I read it in my newspaper today. Since I'm too lazy to do some research on it I'll just ask you, can they like have them whenever they want? Like for instance after 1.5 years or after a certain period, what if they are on the same day as the local elections, etc?

They had some quotes of him today in the paper, he seems to be you're standard european neo-liberal (which europe is sadly full of right now and will be for some time).

wheelchairman
02-08-2005, 02:45 PM
Oh it's incredibly depressing. He is one of the pioneers of Europe's Neo-Liberals.

The Danish Parliament, is a super-democratic thing in theory. The Government can call an election whenever they chose to, but it has to be before their 4 year tenureship runs out. However, if the Danish Parliament votes in majority against the government, a new election will be called immediately.

Revolver-2005?
02-08-2005, 02:59 PM
The only reason right wingers get away with everything is because the middle section of america is right winged, and it makes a large part of america. Republicans are normally 1. Christian 2. White 3. Has a southern accent ( usually) 4. Speaks on a 3rd graders level

Thats why so many like the Republicans, because they remind them of themselves, Democrats are just, well more intelligent, you can't deny the fact that Bush couldn't say one intellectual word without a gun to his head.

Republicans control the media, and then they blame the media for being too liberal, who blames the Democrats for controlling them. Then the media goes bashing Democrats. Remember the whole Howard Dean thing? He didn't really scream like a maniac, his mic acted up, and it sounded that way. The news came up with these insane stories about him being crazy, or going crazy.....bull shit. If the media was controlled by the Democrats, like the Republicans state, then they wouldn't have over dramatized that event.

Republicans made any words associating with Democrats, such as liberal, something close to a swear. I myself am liberal, and liberal is really just being more willing to understand and do things.

Theres one Democrat, who makes the whole party look bad, I dont remember his name, but he refuses to switch parties because it makes the Democrats look like theyre turning on each other.

It's a sad time to be a liberal American, anyone with a brain is crucified, the intelligent have to deal with the unintelligent, politics are becoming even more of a joke than before.

Izie
02-08-2005, 03:30 PM
The Danish Parliament, is a super-democratic thing in theory. The Government can call an election whenever they chose to, but it has to be before their 4 year tenureship runs out.

(Jesus)
What suprised me the most is that the elections were already one month after they decided to hold elections, we'd never be able to pull that off. Mostly because we vote electronically for a while now and it takes time to put all the computers up and running, but even without that I don't think they could organise it so soon (hell finding all the people to work at the voting stands in such a short time).

wheelchairman
02-08-2005, 03:43 PM
It's one of the quaint things about Denmark. I would also imagine that it's much harder to coordinate that kind of thing in a federal state.

Remember we are a small geographic area with only 5 million people total. And political campaigns are only supposed to last 3 weeks. So it was 3 weeks of intensive campaigning. I was out there on the 1st day with my party putting up posters against the government. Messy work.

Moose
02-08-2005, 05:29 PM
The only reason right wingers get away with everything is because the middle section of america is right winged, and it makes a large part of america. Republicans are normally 1. Christian 2. White 3. Has a southern accent ( usually) 4. Speaks on a 3rd graders level

Thats why so many like the Republicans, because they remind them of themselves, Democrats are just, well more intelligent, you can't deny the fact that Bush couldn't say one intellectual word without a gun to his head.

Republicans control the media, and then they blame the media for being too liberal, who blames the Democrats for controlling them. Then the media goes bashing Democrats. Remember the whole Howard Dean thing? He didn't really scream like a maniac, his mic acted up, and it sounded that way. The news came up with these insane stories about him being crazy, or going crazy.....bull shit. If the media was controlled by the Democrats, like the Republicans state, then they wouldn't have over dramatized that event.

Republicans made any words associating with Democrats, such as liberal, something close to a swear. I myself am liberal, and liberal is really just being more willing to understand and do things.

Theres one Democrat, who makes the whole party look bad, I dont remember his name, but he refuses to switch parties because it makes the Democrats look like theyre turning on each other.

It's a sad time to be a liberal American, anyone with a brain is crucified, the intelligent have to deal with the unintelligent, politics are becoming even more of a joke than before.

you speak as if you are some sort of god...not all republicans are stupid, my friend is a republican and he isnt stupid, even if i disagree with him on certain issues. they are opinions at the end of the day anyway. just because you are a democrat or a liberal doesnt make you smart and just because you are a republican or a conservative doesnt make you stupid. after all, if your statement was true, you wouldnt sound like such an idiot.

wheelchairman
02-08-2005, 05:30 PM
I've learned not read what Revolver2005 says. Why haven't you?

Moose
02-08-2005, 05:32 PM
...a lesson learned.

Revolver-2005?
02-08-2005, 07:08 PM
you speak as if you are some sort of god...not all republicans are stupid, my friend is a republican and he isnt stupid, even if i disagree with him on certain issues. they are opinions at the end of the day anyway. just because you are a democrat or a liberal doesnt make you smart and just because you are a republican or a conservative doesnt make you stupid. after all, if your statement was true, you wouldnt sound like such an idiot.

Did i ever say I was a god? No. I was just stating the fact that the vast majority of Republicans tend to be uneducated. I have republican friends and they aren't stupid, just ignorant. So i should rephrase that into them just tending to be ignorant, not stupid...if there is a difference