Huh

The liberal watchdog group Media Matters has issued a study claiming conservative religious leaders are disproportionately favored as guests in the mainstream press than liberals and progressives.

Go ahead and reel your jaw back up, I'll wait.

Really, this seems obvious and not even all that sinister. It would be better to have equal representation, but sadly this only reflects the reality that conservative religious folks are just that much more plentiful. And certainly when it comes to politics it's far easier to find ardent, on-message spokesbots for the righties than it is to find a comparable preacher, priest, rabbi etc. who will openly embrace liberal/progressive opinions. (It's unfortunate in this case that the press generally shares my distaste for "moderates," when it comes to people of the cloth, that's often the most you can hope for.)

Having said that, however, it is a problem that journalists regularly defer to religious conservatives for any "true and proper" interpretation of the faith, (witness any number of reporters through the years who uncritically say the rapture nuts are using "a literal interpretation of the Book of Revelation.")

I can't believe...

...we're going to lose to those Orange County wankers.

I need a stiff drink.

This week in sweet revenge

Progressive Gold found a great story from Colorado about a high school senior yearbook editor who sprung a little surprise on the community when this year's book was published.

The yearbook for the high school in this mountain town near Denver published photos of students smoking marijuana and drinking beer, drawing the ire of parents and administrators.

Hannah Fredrickson, the senior who served as yearbook editor, said she regrets not balancing the yearbook pictures of teenagers smoking pot with pictures of non-drug users. She also said she is sorry about not warning her principal.

But she said people need to know what is going on.

“The point of the yearbook entirely is to cover what happens in the year,” she told KCNC TV. “You’d be surprised at how many children at Conifer High School smoke pot. I wanted to push more for a deeper side of Conifer, which, for a lot of students, is drugs and alcohol,”

I don't really care whether this was some principled stand or a blind stab at revenge, and I'm willing to suspend my disbelief at how this managed to get through the faculty supervisor (if there was one.) My hat's off to her. It takes a lot of fortitude, and a great deal of youthful naivete, to take on the pristine illusion of suburban/small-town American that "all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above-average, especially mine."

Palau has said everything else in her post that I might have imagined saying, but this reminded me of Robert Lipsyte's March column about college basketball players and how it would only take one team standing out to upend the whole racket.

Six years ago, Sonny Vaccaro said to me, ''The kids these days know what's going on. They also know they're the only ones not getting big dough. If the kids had a plan, they could cut themselves in. All you need is one kid who can rouse the posse.''

That seemed like an invitation to tell him my longtime Final Four fantasy: Just before the title game, the opposing captains demand $50,000 per player from the TV producer. No cash, no game.

The devil chortled at my innocence.

''Almost been there,'' he said. ''Some years ago, one of the Final Four teams had T-shirts and statements ready. The team leader was a terrific spokesman -- he's playing pro now -- but they were upset in the semifinals. But that's their story to tell, not mine."

Someday Debs

"The issue is Socialism versus Capitalism. I am for Socialism because I am for humanity. We have been cursed with the reign of gold long enough. Money constitutes no proper basis of civilization. The time has come to regenerate society — we are on the eve of universal change."

-Eugene V. Debs, Letter to the American Railway Union, 1897

I will openly confess to knowing almost nothing about economics. It's not even fair to say I know just enough to get myself in trouble, though that might be accurate in a way. When someone begins throwing all manner of numbers and concepts at me, my eyes glaze over and roll back in my head.

The question, I'm sure, is how did I find out I was a filthy pinko without airtight knowledge of economic principles?

The slow slide toward my current state had a number of little benchmarks along the way, and oneof them occurred a few years ago when I was participating on a message board of mostly twenty-something evangelical Christians of the "emergent" variety (many things came from there, really, I'm just pointing out this one in particular. Making my mind more receptive to change was the fact I didn't like many of the people there. I've always figured if you're an asshole, one ought to take a closer look at what might make you such.)

Anyway, off in some thread about a subject I've forgotten, a poster came along enlightening us to the wonderful saving power of the profit motive; and how dangling fistfuls of dollars in front of people and promising them a life of luxury is the only efficient way to produce innovation, great art and culture, or scientific breakthroughs.

And the thought occurred to me, from somewhere buried deep inside my consciousness of which I was previously unaware that, wait a minute, this means we are effectively relying on the human capacity for greed to advance our species. If the only way you can get a leg up on your fellow man and push his face under your boot where it belongs is by curing his disease then, by God, that's what we'll have to rely on.

Then the bell went off in my head, and I realized I didn't actually care what maze of numbers someone might try to hypnotize me with concerning how capitalism was really the most wondrous way to achieve Real Equality (which seems demonstrably false anyway, which first-world country has the greatest wealth disparity besides our own?). I'm not going to be that skeptical about human depravity. (Or should I say total depravity? Or perhaps Original Sin? Well, there are many interesting things to be written about Calvinism and capitalism that I'm nowhere near capable of writing, but perhaps someday I'll take a crack at it.)

The Indy 500 and the Hoosier Aristocracy

Dario Franchitti won the 91st Indianapolis 500 on Sunday in a sluggish race frequently interrupted by accidents and the persistent, and eventually realized, threat of rain that shortened the race to 164 of the scheduled 200 laps. Franchitti, a Scotsman of Italian descent, is the second Scottish-born driver to win the 500 following Jim Clark in 1965.

That may be a parallel that many of the nostalgia hawks and pubic faces of Indiana and Indianapolis have come to rue. Though the Indianapolis 500 carries all the trappings of militaristic pro-American "heartland values," most of the participants themselves are not good ol' boys (and they are no longer all boys), a distinction that the Hoosier Aristocracy has infamously struggled with coming to terms. Witness, among other things, the radio interviews with current governor and ex-Bush lackey Mitch Daniels or theocratic congressman Mike Pence, for whom the race is now just a business opportunity, a way to cash in on the partygoers and fluff the state's feathers for a national TV audience. Virtually all the teams and drivers in this year's 33-car field come from a road-racing background, sneered at by the traditionalists as the venue for wine-and-cheese sissies, and, while most of the male drivers are liked reasonably well by the Hoosier public, very few are really embraced.

And Jim Clark is one of the people responsible for bringing this about.

The Beatles and Stones were not the first British Invasion to sweep the USA in the early 1960's. In the early 60's, an English Formula One owner named Colin Chapman brought a revolutionary rear-engined car to Indianapolis, and, piloted by Clark and others, it quickly established an inevitable victory over the blocky, American "roadsters." In a matter of a few short years, every car in the field mimicked the Chapman Lotus' rear-engined design. It was the beginning of the ascendancy of Formula One and "formula car" racing, and the decline of the short-track, good ol' boy network. European designed-and-built cars have effectively dominated the Indianapolis 500 ever since, and consequently much of the present-day talent comes from that environment.

One could go on and on for pages, of course, but this is the genesis for almost all the petty disputes and squabbles, and many would also say the crushing unpopularity, plaguing American open wheel racing today. It's interesting in that context to note that Clark is generally well-regarded by the traditionalists in spite of his role in all this. There are two possibilities at play; first is noting that Clark became a racing fatality in 1968, and there is an unspoken rule among gearheads to speak no evil of someone killed in a racing accident. The second is that, for many of the nostalgics, Clark is simply a figure from their heavenly childhood, so there can naturally be no wrong in him.

I return to the caveat about male drivers, because, in the absence of an American conservative red-blooded male to rest their hopes, the eyes of the Hoosier Aristocracy have turned curiously to the figure of Danica Patrick, everyone's Favorite Driver in this bizarro world not known for visionary leadership in women's advances. More curious yet is that she is another example of the above phenomenon, having spent most of her formative racing years turning right in Europe. But Patrick, by far the most well-known of the record three female starters in 2007, represents the opportunity for attention from the American sports landscape from an event desperately crying out for it. (There was significantly more skepticism about Janet Guthrie, the first female starter in 1977 at a time when the race was still an unassailable landmark of the sporting scene.) But Patrick is also a convenient exhibition for the great conservative moan about Title IX and gender equality in sports ("why can't all the wimmin play against the men instead of stealing opportunities from poor, oppressed, white boys?").

The Body, The Blood, The Machine

For the past couple of weeks I've been wholly addicted to The Thermals 2006 record "The Body, The Blood, The Machine," a loosely-tied-together concept record about two young lovers fleeing a Christian theocracy, kind of like "American Idiot" without the suburban angst. Indeed, it's that relationship between the characters, exemplified most in the touching closer "I Hold the Sound," that gives this record more of a grounded humanity that many punk screeds lack (although the record is hardly devoid of those, either.) It also disposes of unfocused anger in favor of the truth that having to leave a once-treasured community is often bittersweet ("Maybe when I die, I won't die escaping/I'll die returning to the fold.")

The Thermals Myspace

Moore

Salon.com's indiefilm superguru (and sometime soccer pundit) Andrew O'Hehir has the buzz on Michael Moore's film "Sicko" at the Cannes Film Festival.

Much of this is played as comedy; Moore corners a young Afro-British couple with a wiggling bundle in the hallway of a London hospital and says cheerfully, "So -- how much they charge you for that baby?" But Moore is trying to push us beyond the universally shared idea that something must be done to the slightly more controversial idea that something has been done, and that all we have to do is appropriate it. Americans have of course been conditioned for generations to believe that socialized medicine is first of all a disaster in its own terms, and secondly, the pathway to totalitarianism.

His portrayal of the Canadian, British and French systems is undoubtedly simplistic , and several Canadian reporters took that up with him at the press conference -- although all of them admitted they wouldn't trade their system for ours. But Moore's overall point is, I think, inarguable: Flawed as they may be, those systems are a hell of a lot more humane and civilized than anything we've got. (Life expectancy is significantly higher, and infant mortality lower, in all of those countries than the United States. Whatever outdated stereotypes you may hold, these days poor people in Britain are statistically healthier than rich people in America.)

The latter paragraph is a nice reflection of how progressive programs are held hostage by our spin'n'say capitalists, who moan in their sleep about "socialized medicine...socialized medicine...class warfare..." They will quickly latch on to any and all small gripes from Canada or Scandinavia or wherever as testimony for the superiority of the status quo without acknowledging the suggestion that said Canadian might want to trade in his Commie-tude for some 'Murican freedom will earn you a hearty "go frak yourself." Only more polite, 'cause this is Canada after all. The burden of proof is apparently unduly on the left to produce proof of an absolute utopia, because the market-worshipers aren't going to butcher the golden goose for anything less.

Studs

The June issue of In These Times has a short interview with legendary historian (and Chicagoan) Studs Terkel on the occasion of his 95th birthday.

Let me ask you something. You’re an old radio guy: Don Imus?

Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly. Don Imus is just one of them. He happens to be stupid. They all are! That’s one of the things I have in the book—the lack of yesterday, of memory. The big thing that bothers me is the lack of history. Gore Vidal used the phrase, “United States of Amnesia.” I call it the United States of Alzheimer’s. We forget what happened yesterday.

Take this story. You know I walk to the bus. Bus number 146. They know me in the neighborhood. They know I’m a writer. They know me as the old guy who’s garrulous. I talk to myself. [Laughs.]

So one day there’s this one couple, they ignore me completely. So my ego is hurt. And I say, “The bus is late.” And I say, to make conversation, “Labor Day’s coming up.” And the man just turns and looks at me—Brooks Brothers, under his arm, the latest Wall Street Journal. And she’s a beauty. Neiman Marcus, Bloomingdale’s. She’s got Vanity Fair in her hand. And he turns, looks at me, and says, “We despise unions.” And then he turns away.

And I said, “You what?” And the bus hasn’t come yet. “Do you know that in 1886, ‘87, four guys got hanged? How many hours a day do you work?”

He says, “Eight,” reflexively. I said, “How come you don’t work 18 hours a day? Four guys got hanged for you. Did you know that?”

They think I’m crazy. They’re scared. (Laughs.)

Now I’ve got him pinned against the mailbox. He can’t get away. “So how many weeks do you work?” No bus yet.

So finally they get onto the bus, and she looks out the window, and he says, “Is that guy nuts?” And that was the last I saw of them. This is Uptown—the haves and have-nots. I’ll bet they live in a condominium. Maybe the 15th floor.

Terkel has done a very clever thing here, although I can't promise a complete endorsement of it, it is tasty nonetheless. In America today we are anti-union and pro-military, because we are beholden to the fanciful idea of the messianic soldier who "died for our freedom." They did not, one assumes, die for an eight-hour workday and child labor laws. That was left for someone else to accomplish. But then, such things are not a part of the definition of "freedom" for our jingoist, militaristic ruling class who propagate that narrative.

Falwell's other legacy

Max Blumenthal has a web-only piece in The Nation today with an important reminder that the deceased Reverend Falwell had a different burr in his ass long before he knew or cared anything about Teh Gay.

"If Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God's word and had desired to do the Lord's will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision would never have been made," Falwell boomed from above his congregation in Lynchburg. "The facilities should be separate. When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line."

Falwell's jeremiad continued: "The true Negro does not want integration.... He realizes his potential is far better among his own race." Falwell went on to announce that integration "will destroy our race eventually. In one northern city," he warned, "a pastor friend of mine tells me that a couple of opposite race live next door to his church as man and wife."

As pressure from the civil rights movement built during the early 1960s, and President Lyndon Johnson introduced sweeping civil rights legislation, Falwell grew increasingly conspiratorial. He enlisted with J. Edgar Hoover to distribute FBI manufactured propaganda against the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and publicly denounced the 1964 Civil Rights Act as "civil wrongs."

In a 1964 sermon, "Ministers and Marchers," Falwell attacked King as a Communist subversive. After questioning "the sincerity and intentions of some civil rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mr. James Farmer, and others, who are known to have left-wing associations," Falwell declared, "It is very obvious that the Communists, as they do in all parts of the world, are taking advantage of a tense situation in our land, and are exploiting every incident to bring about violence and bloodshed."

Falwell concluded, "Preachers are not called to be politicians, but soul winners."

Blumenthal goes on to suggest the modern Religious Right metastasized not out of the aftermath of Roe v. Wade as is commonly believed, but out of the ecumenical (among fundamentalists, at least) need to secure rights for private Christian schools for their children to escape the wave of integration from the 60's. (I believe it's Michelle Goldberg's book that looks at this thesis in more detail.)

To dust he returns

Jerry Falwell bites it. Just in case you might have it in you to feel some kind of remorse for the Reverend, for whatever reason, I thought it might be nice to relive some of the greatest hits of one of the spearheads of the modern fundamentalist movement.

"[Jimmy Carter's] "message of peace and reconciliation under almost all circumstances is simply incompatible with Christian teachings as I interpret them. This 'turn the other cheek' business is all well and good but it's not what Jesus fought and died for. What we need to do is take the battle to the Muslim heathens and do unto them before they do unto us."

"I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!"

"I do not believe the homosexual community deserves minority status. One's misbehavior does not qualify him or her for minority status. Blacks, Hispanics, women, etc., are God-ordained minorities who do indeed deserve minority status."

"The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country."

"I do question the sincerity and non-violent intentions of some civil rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mr. James Farmer, and others, who are known to have left-wing associations."

"Labor unions should study and read the Bible instead of asking for more money. When people get right with God, they are better workers."

"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh's charioteers . . . AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."

"...throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, "You helped this [9/11] happen."

I think the most generous remark one can possibly make in this situation comes from commenter biggerbox at the Mahablog:

I’ll just say that his Maker has called him Home, and I won’t share my opinion about which direction that call came from

Yer killin' me, Smalls!

I didn't realize until quite recently what a iconic film The Sandlot was to a lot of kids my age (though mostly younger, and mostly male). Even though I'd seen it twice, and I've heard the above line many times from people my age, I couldn't remember that one begat the other. So I had to rent it for nostalgia purposes to see what all the excitement was about.

Two things that struck me while trying to understand a kids' movie as an adult. Firstly, this movie is a great example of a memorable picture coming about more by luck than skill. All the ingredients are of a hokey, made-for-TV dozer, and how they avoided instant Dollar-Theater disaster can mostly be attributed to picking a particularly inspired group of kid actors.

Of course, one way to save your movie is by having James Earl Jones in it, which is the subject of my second point. Jones' character Mr Mertle, we find out near the end of the movie, was once a great player in his own right and contemporary of Babe Ruth who might have challenged the Babe's records if not for some unfortunate circumstances. So far, so good, right? Except those unfortunate circumstances are not what you're expecting. Apparently the quite-dark-skinned Mr. Mertle had his career cut short by going blind.

Oh dear.

Now, perhaps your excuse here is that you don't want to talk about a "heavy" issue like segregation in a children's movie, and, while I think kids can accept and understand a fictional character intervening in history, having him do something he couldn't possibly have done is insulting their intelligence. I was hoping, at the very least, for an explanation that perhaps Mertle played in the Negro League, but it wasn't to be.

Halfway home

I've been trying to hold it off for two weeks, but the bubbly optimism that This Could Be The Year has now wholly come over me.

The Senators took a 2-o lead in the Eastern Conference finals on Saturday night in Buffalo when Joe Corvo chucked a knuckler past Ryan Miller five minutes into the second overtime. The series heads to Ottawa tonight giving the Senators a chance to put a chokehold on the series at home.

It's these situations where things seem to be in hand that are the most dangerous, of course, and I'll only start feeling truly comfortable with a win tonight. But the Senators are now a glossy 10-2 in the playoffs, and a march to the Finals seems inexorable. All the games where the team would have folded in years past--such as giving up two goals in the first five minutes, or an equalizer in the last 10 seconds--have this year been the catalyst for even more dominance.

Though it's not a surprise, the Senators are giving the tired CW pundits a cold bath. Daniel Alfredsson, long derided as a postseason softie, has been dominant and might be the early frontrunner for the Conn Smythe. And Ottawa is winning despite the lack of a Proven Dominant Goaltender, though unheralded Ray Emery has been spectacular at times, and thoroughly outplayed Martin Brodeur in the second round.

The inglorious return of SIR (Short, Incompetent Reviews)

Borat (****) There's a certain point at which I just can't appreciate cruelty, even when it's done to people who have it coming. In theory, I'd love to go bash some Confederate antiques, but I'm just too damn polite. It's a personal failing.

A Scanner Darkly (*****) How do you make Keanu Reeves something other than stiff as a board? By making him a cartoon! Worth it for Robert Downey, Jr.'s performance alone, though I've never read the book, so I can't compare.

Shut up and Sing (**) There's a good story to be told on how country music went from appreciating solidarity with working-class people everywhere to close-minded fascist pablum, which I suspect would parallel the some progression in rural America in general, but this movie doesn't tell it. While one can feel some appreciation for for the Dixie Chicks bucking the disturbingly mainstream Bush-worship in 2003, it was hardly the career-ruining movie it is sometimes made out to be, and this is only marginally better than an overblown Hollywood sob story.

American Hardcore (***) A documentary scrapbook of the hardcore punk scene in the early 80's. The grainy video footage of Minor Threat, Bad Brains and co. is cool to look at, but the movie itself feels disjointed, and there's too much inside baseball with little exposition for people who weren't around at the time.

The Cave of the Yellow Dog (****) This is the second film of Mongolian life from Mongolian-German director Byambasuren Davaa. It drags on at times, and the "docudrama" format left me scratching my head wondering how much of it was real, but the photography of the Mongolian countryside is lovely, and the fascinating glimpse at the daily life of the nomads who still populate some of the country is enough to recommend it.

Land of Plenty (**) A tale of two stock characters who begin the movie at opposite ends of life who slowly help each other reach Mutual Understanding. Save for a few fleeting moments, it's mostly trite.

My Country, My Country (****) Now here's an idea for a movie. Let's go to Iraq and actually follow a Sunni family around to see how they feel about the "elections" held in 2005. Nah, that would force us to consider them as something other than spoiled, ipetulant brats.

Children of Men (*****) Did I read somewhere recently that we are now rounding up illegal immigrants in camps and sorting out the ones who get to stay and shipping the rest out? Or was that one of the strange dreams I've been having lately? Considering last night I had a dream about a store full of Wal-Mart employees who committed a mass suicide by frustrating customers into choking them to death, that's certainly possible. I'm pretty sure that dream was brought on by the next movie....

Jonestown: The Life and Death of People's Temple (****) I would be interested to see someone compare "Jonestown" side by side with Werner Herzog's "Grizzly Man" and compare the psychopathy of Jones and Tim Treadwell. I don't know why I feel compelled to apologize for Jones' socialist leanings; he was a charlatan swindler who latched on to a message that would get him followers, much like any number of oily preachers holding forth on Capitalist Calvinism in the past 20 years.

Looks like hate's back on the menu, boys

Updated below

Last week, the House passed a bill to support improved prosecution of hate crimes. The vote was mostly on party-line (as usual), and President Commander Guy has threatened a veto. Among the Dems voting to keep Hate in circulation was Brad Elsworth (D-KKK-Indiana) unsurprisingly fulfilling his campaign promise to hate Teh Gays with the same fervor as his fascist forerunner (Down with Tyranny! has the full list).

"Hate crimes" are, of course, a bugbear for the right in general and the Christian Right in particular, who apparently believe such laws would cause them to be liable if someone takes one of their anti-gay sermons as an inspiration to help populate the Devil's housing colony. There is a rich irony here, from many of the same goody-two-shoes who support invasiveness because "innocent people have nothing to worry about" suddenly are singing a different tune when it's their own lives under scrutiny. (Here's some of the more ridiculous paranoia from the Traditional Values Coalition.)

This is not, however, the best irony in play here. As usual, slacktivist has done most of the heavy lifting, but I will summarize his main point here. Hate crimes, essentially, are a kind of terrorism. They are punished more severely because they are not crimes against only one person. When two jocks rough up a guy outside a bar for being uncomfortably femme for their liking, the implicit message to all similar people is that they are putting themselves in jeopardy of violence just for being who they are.

At this point, it should no longer be surprising to anyone that, even though the right is ostensibly preoccupied with terrorism, they haven't the first idea what "terrorism" actually comprises. "Terrorism" for them is little more than a euphemism for "insidious brown people." For some time it was quite easy--and it still may be--to get apparently reasonable people to claim only Arabic-looking people should be subjected to searching at airports, because "Arabs are the only people blowing up buildings," oblivious apparently to Timothy McVeigh and, more recently, the crackpot trying to blow up a women's health center in Austin, TX with a pipe bomb (made from supplies bought from Soviet-Mart, no less!).

Update: Joe Donnelly, the other Indiana congressman who voted against the bill, is on Bilerico today to weasel explain his vote, with Ellsworth scheduled to follow tomorrow. Read and be amused.

If lovin' you is wrong...

Jock-writer Dan Wetzel of Yahoo! Sports:

Until the great athletes and personalities such as Mayweather and De La Hoya return to the sport, all the corruption hardly matters. Americans want to watch sports with Americans. Swiss tennis star Roger Federer is as great a champion as that sport has ever known, but without an American rival it has sunk into obscurity here in the States.

No fascism here, just another chance to beat an old hobby-horse of mine that had been idle for awhile.

American fascism, exhibit C

Proving they can dump more than just useless waste into the world's population, my alma mater has conducted a study (pdf) on Bill O'Reilly and propaganda, comparing Mr. Loofah favorably (in a sense) to the original American Fascist (and original talk-radio gasbag) Fr. Charles Coughlin. (Boldface mine in all cases.)
...
Research question 2 asked how often fear was a dominant frame in O’Reilly’s
discussion of issues. The answer is that O’Reilly used a fear frame in over half (52.4 percent)
of the commentaries. Related to this is research question 3 that asked specifically about
cases where the fear frame is invoked. Specifically, how often was the restoration of order
principle present in fear frame cases? When O’Reilly invoked the fear frame, he offered
resolution to the threat in only 1 percent of cases. A frequent target of O’Reilly is
the ACLU. In one commentary (1 March 2005) he called the ACLU ‘‘flat out dangerous. It
panders to its far-left base by portraying the USA as a bad country, giving terrorists aid and comfort, as it holds America to an impossible standard.’’ After listing what was wrong with the ACLU, O’Reilly ended the commentary with ‘‘Get the picture? It is awful.’’
....
Most role-players were bad (58.2 percent). In fact, all of the 22 identities were
described as bad at some point in this census of ‘‘Talking Points Memo’’ episodes. Leftleaning
media made up the largest portion (21.6 percent) of bad role-players with media
without a political leaning in second place (12.2 percent). When it comes to evil-doers
(those who are supremely bad), illegal aliens (26.8 percent) and terrorists (21.4 percent)
constituted the largest proportions.
...
Celebrities were bad more than half the time and victims less than a third of the
time. They were also good, but not often. O’Reilly acknowledged the goodness of ordinary Americans far more often as a group than in individual reference. The group was never evil, whereas individuals were. Both groups and individuals emerged mostly as victims* more so than any other identity category. They were framed as bad with similar frequency.
...
Left-leaning media as well as media without an identified leaning, political
organizations associated with the politically left, and Democrats were the four entities
with the highest frequencies of being bad. Together they represented 53.7 percent of
those framed as bad and were further scrutinized for reasons (see Figure 2). Left-leaning
media were bad for an assortment of reasons: most prominently for criticizing the
President (35.5 percent) and for their apparent anti-Americanism and affront to Fox News Channel or O’Reilly (17.7 percent each). The bad categorization of Democrats was derived mostly from incompetence (30.8 percent) and unpatriotic behavior by not supporting President Bush (23.1 percent) and anti-American (19.2 percent).
...
The best [role-players] of all, the US military, achieved goodness through its battle against terrorism. Americans as a group were good mostly because they upheld social norms but also because they were competent citizens. The criminal justice system earned the good
label by upholding social norms and being competent. The Bush administration achieved
goodness through fighting terrorism, upholding social norms, and serving the American
people with competence.
...
Four groups emerged as the most prominent villains in O’Reilly’s world. At the top of
the list are the media*specifically those that O’Reilly framed as politically left but also
outlets he referred to without mentioning political leaning. These media outlets comprised
28 percent of all villains, primarily because of their lack of support of President Bush and
their disregard for O’Reilly himself. Second is the political left*including political
organizations that O’Reilly labeled as left as well as Democrats and other politicians
who were referred to in vague terms such as ‘‘politicians’’ or ‘‘Congress.’’ What earned
them O’Reilly’s contempt is their apparent moral corruption and incompetence while
daring to criticize the President. Third is a collection of foreigners, including terrorists,illegal aliens, and the citizens and leaders of countries abroad who, according to O’Reilly, all pose a physical threat to Americans. In fourth place are members of the academe, who were framed as anti-American violators of social norms. Overall then, the political left was constructed as a shady bunch who is a nuisance to those in power. Yet, foreigners are those who should be feared for their direct physical threat to America. Academics, somewhat similar to the political left, were put in a frame of moral unsteadiness*but they were most clearly traitors to American ideals.
...

I think that's more than enough direct quotes, but I heartily encourage reading the whole study (it's not long.) Thanks to Alex Blaze of Bilerico for pointing it out.

American fascism, exhibit B

Glenn Greenwald unearths this lovely piece of work from a guy who apparently is also the last-best hope for rightwing hawks to explain the absence of WMD's in Iraq.

It is our task to conduct an extensive mapping of all the Islamic day schools, mosques, and other identifiable organizations in the US and to determine which ones teach or preach Islamic law, Shari’a. Further, the mapping will scale the Shari’a threat by identifying to which school of jurisprudence it belongs, its historical and contemporary call for Jihad, and whether the Jihad includes violent Jihad against non-believers.

Be in touch with us by sending in tips on new mosques, Islamic day schools, and the like. There is no crime in keeping tabs on these organizations but it is a crime of indifference to pretend that the Jihadists walking down your streets and preaching to the faithful are not a threat to our national existence and existence simply!

Whoo, that's strong stuff for an appetizer; are you sure you can handle the main course?

American fascists, exhitbit A

Eric is correct to point out Dwight Eisenhower's co-opting the traditional Socialist holiday May Day, but he left out the most interesting part; Eisenhower not only designated May 1 as "Law Day USA," but simultaneously "Loyalty Day." Guess which half our Dear Leader decided to recognize? It turns out protecting ourselves from the Red (and Brown, Black and Yellow) Menace is more important than the rule of law! Who knew?

Our Nation has never been united simply by blood, birth, or soil, but instead has always been united by the ideals that move us beyond our background and teach us what it means to be Americans. We believe deeply in freedom and self-government, values embodied in our cherished documents and defended by our troops over the course of generations. Our citizens hold the truths of our founding close to their hearts and demonstrate their loyalty in countless ways. We are inspired by the patriotic service of the men and women who wear our Nation's uniform with honor and decency. The military spouses and families who stand by their loved ones represent the best of the American spirit, and we are profoundly grateful for their sacrifice. Our country is strengthened by the millions of volunteers who show deep compassion toward their neighbors in need. All citizens can express their loyalty to the United States by flying the flag, participating in our democracy, and learning more about our country's grand story of courage and simple dream of dignity.

England America prevails!

Forecast fascist future

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
-Sinclair Lewis

I was a bit disconnected from the blogosphere last week, so I missed much of the chattering about this column by Naomi Wolf in the Guardian. The word "fascist" often gets thrown around carelessly without exposition, and everyone agrees that any definition of the term would be amorphous at best. But Wolf (I almost called her Naomi Klein there) doesn't help matters by essentially using characteristics of any authoritarian state, which is not, in itself, enough to be called "fascist."

Wolf also has the advantage, in trying to define Bush's America as fascist, of being able to pick out definitions that fit the specific example she has in mind. A better template is Umberto Eco's modern classic "Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt," which is excerpted in Chris Hedges' recent book on the Christian Right "American Fascists." Like Hedges, I think there are legitimate strains of fascism on the American Right, but we need to avoid the further careless devaluation of the word which has led to it being wildly mis-applied to anyone who happens to be our political enemy.

1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.

As Eco says, traditionalism in itself is not enough for fascism, which is why we can distinguish between fascism the plain conservative cult of tradition, which, although it's a flaw of conservatism, isn't an especially toxic one. Interestingly, the hardline Christian Right is very opposed to syncretism, unless by syncretism you mean "all traditions of the world serve to prove Christianity correct" which is present in some cases. It's no matter, they'll have a high enough batting average by the end of this.

2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.

As much as "postmodernism" is the great straw man of the Christianists, they are equally dismissive of modernism, being very much in love with an innocent, pre-modern, obedient hierarchy.

3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake.

I think you could sucker a number of people with the Goering/Jobst quote "When I hear the word 'culture,' I reach for my gun." For fascists, the only value in "art" is its coercive power, its usefulness in leading people to The Way, cf, Left Behind, Thomas Kinkade, etc. At least the Nazi's had Leni Riefenstahl.

4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.

5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.

6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.

7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.

I'm skipping ahead a bit, because this is the one I really wanted to reach. This, to me, is the single defining characteristic that distinguishes "fascism" from mere dictatorships, and it's a place many people are afraid to go.

A few weeks ago we had the "Blog Against Theocracy," event, which was very useful but ultimately incomplete because it only addressed the latter half of Sinclair Lewis' maxim. The American proto-fascists have certainly been able to tap into religion to serve their needs, but it isn't necessary. And indeed, they are already at work creating a surrogate religion of "Americanism," where national symbols and iconography are sanctified, and where even liberals are afraid to encroach upon because of the tried-and-true slur "anti-American." The BAT event used the logo of the Statue of Liberty holding a cross, and eagerly set about swatting the cross out of Lady Liberty's hands, without recognizing that she will just grow something else in its place.

8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.

Eco "However, the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak."

A frequent source of puzzlement for those of us who watch the religious right is how seamlessly their leaders can go from being oppressed and persecuted to a "silent majority," which will use the force of democracy to crush their outnumbered foes.

9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.

The long shadow of communism provided an excellent villain for the American fascists during the Cold War, insomuch as they could imagine a communist takeover of the United States as the impetus for this struggle. But the 21st-century Enemy, Islamic terrorism, has proven to be a poor replacement in the way of believability. At least, no one should take seriously the idea of Islamic fundamentalists instituting a theocracy in the United States, but this is solemnly intoned as a legitimate threat by far too many people.


10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.

11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero.

Eco: "This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death."

Sound like anyone you know with a yellow ribbon magnet on their SUV? Our exploding militarism is now so mainstream that tempering every statement with "but the soldiers are the Real Heroes!" is now almost necessary to avoid being label an extremist.

12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.

Not much need be said here, except for a note on "chastity," which, of course, is the only accepted standard sexual rule for Christianists, if not one closely followed by many of their leaders. This is why I think sexual (and otherwise) bullies like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are better representatives of American fascism than James Dobson or Pat Robertson, as both of the former also share the same preference of "Americanism" as a religion to Christianity.

13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.

Eco: "Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism."

14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.

Eco again: "All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning."

I think we are all blessed to know a few fascists, and the question we would likely have to face is what makes Fascism more odious than other ideologies, so much that the first scent of it is enough to send people running for the hills? Fascism is never harmless because it can never be peaceful; it must always fight somebody, and it is too closely linked to a warrior masculinity to deal with its opposition peaceably.

It is a good thing that we are taking on the theocrats head-on, but that is only part of the battle, The theocrats are potent because they are tying themselves to American exceptionalism, which everyone either believes or is too timid to say otherwise. I am far more concerned about the serial flag-wavers and sanctified militarism as creeping fascism than the Bible-beaters. They are far more numerous, far more mainstream, and, while there are hordes of people piling on the tracks to slow down the plastic model-engine of the Christianists, the runaway train of nationalism continues downhill with no one in sight to apply the brakes.

Sunday Debs

Taft and Roosevelt in the exploitation of their boasted individualism and their mad fight for official spoils have been forced to expose the whole game of capitalist class politics and reveal themselves and the whole brood of capitalist politicians in their true role before the American people, They are all the mere puppets of the ruling class. They are literally bought, paid for and owned, body and soul, by the powers that are exploiting this nation and enslaving and robbing its toilers.

What difference is there, judged by what they stand for, between Taft, Roosevelt, La Pollette, Harmon, Wilson, Clark and Bryan?

Do they not all alike stand for the private ownership of industry and the wageslavery of the working class?

What earthly difference can it make to the millions of workers whether the Republican or Democratic political machine of capitalism is in commission?

That these two parties differ in name only and are one in fact is demonstrated beyond cavil whenever and wherever the Socialist party constitutes a menace to their misrule. Milwaukee is a case in point and there are many others. Confronted by the Socialists these long pretended foes are forced to drop their masks and fly into each other’s arms.

The baseness, hypocrisy and corruption of these twin political agencies of Wail street and the ruling class can not he expressed in words. The imagination is taxed in contemplating their crimes. There is no depth of dishonor to which they have not descended-no depth of depravity they have not sounded.

To the extent that they control elections the franchise is corrupted and the electorate debauched, and when they succeed to power it is but to execute the will of the Wall street interests which finance and control them. The police, the militia, the regular army, the courts and all the powers lodged in class government are all freely at the service of the ruling class, especially in suppressing discontent among the slaves of the factories, mills and mines, and keeping them safely in subjugation to their masters.

How can any intelligent, self-supporting wage-earner give his support to either of these corrupt capitalist parties? The emblem of a capitalist party on a workingman is the badge of his ignorance, his servility and shame.

-Eugene V. Debs; Speech at Riverside Park, Chicago; June 16, 1912.

I am long overdue in returning to this topic, but I am sure it will be forthcoming.