Listen to the YouTube embedded in Glenn's post.
In case taking the lead in pissing away a generational opportunity for HCR weren't enough....
Here's a transcript (sorry about the source), annotated, and with emphasis added on the money quotes:
[WABC radio host David] GOODMAN: Governor, what's your position on the controversy surrounding the mosque near Ground Zero?
DEAN: I've got to believe there has to be a compromise here. This isn't about the rights of Muslims to have a worship...or Jews or Christians or anybody else to have a place to worship, or anyplace, or Ground Zero. [It's not about Ground Zero?] This is something that we ought to be able to work out with people of good faith, and we have to understand that it is a real affront to people who lost their lives, including Muslims. [Treating Muslims as full citizens and not collectively guilty pariahs is as real an affront as it gets. Heck, even Muslims know that.] That site doesn't belong to any particular religion, it belongs to all Americans, and all faiths, so I think a good, reasonable compromise could be worked out without violating the principle that people ought to be able to worship as they see fit. [Did the U.S. take a two- or three-block radius of the WTC under eminent domain? I must have missed that. Does that mean we own the strip clubs and Olga's Salon and Spa, too?]
GOODMAN: You're calling for a compromise, so are you calling for the mosque to be moved?
DEAN: Well, I think another site would be a better idea, again, but I'd look to do that with the cooperation of the people who are trying to build the mosque. [Mario Puzo couldn't have said it better.] I believe that the people who are trying to build the mosque are trying to do something that's good, but there's no point in starting off and trying to do something that's good if it's going to meet with an enormous resistance from a lot of folks. [If that's not an inspirational, progressive statement, I don't know what is. Nothing good that's met with enormous resistance is ever worth fighting for. Words to live by!]
This is a very difficult, delicate religious, and cultural issue. [But not so delicate that we won't bully Muslims into wherever we want to ghettoize them to.] I think it's great to have mosques in American cities. There's a growing number of American Muslims. I think most of those Muslims are moderate and I hope that they'll have an influence on Islam throughout the world because Islam is really back in the 12th century in some of these countries like Iran and Afghanistan where they are stoning people to death and that can be fixed, but the way it's fixed is not by pushing Muslims away but by embracing them, and having them become just like every other American, Americans who happen to be Muslims. [Yes, let's "fix" Islam by not pushing Muslims away, rather by showing them the wisdom of pushing themselves away and becoming "just like every other American." Could the greatest country in the world get any more welcoming?]
So the way you do that is to integrate people into the fabric of the United States which is I think what this congregation wants to do. But I do think we ought to work out a compromise so that everybody is accommodated by this. [Everybody but those Brown vs. Board of Education dead-enders, that is.]
- vastleft's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
Can we turn down the temperature for a moment?
Please read this, by an Indian Muslim discussing what happened to Pakistan after the Partition of India in 1947. It's important.
The question facing Muslims in the West is whether they can in good faith live under secular government or are bound by their religion to work for sharia, which is Islamic government. Under sharia, there is no separation of church and state; the church is the state. Nonbelievers are not equal to Muslims. Although there are various historical traditions of sharia, the current versions are harsh, as are their punishments for infractions. Questioning the rules is impermissible. Lying for the cause is permitted.
(I don't know which version of sharia the Cordoba Initiave endorses. Their website mentions The Shariah Index book, "an Islamic legal benchmark for measuring 'Islamicity' of a state," but provides no ordering information.)
What Westerners need to know is whether Muslims in their lands are citizens first or members of the ummah (community of the believers) first. Ayatollah Khomeini said: "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."
Americans have the right to want good neighbors. We should be helping those American Muslims who favor secular government, not those who would oppress them.
What happened to freedom of religion, freedom of expression,
and innocence until proven guilty?
This embrace of helping "the good ones" and prejudging and mistreating those whose religions don't suit us, well it does get my temperature up. My bad.
All religion sucks. Maybe we could collectively work on communicating that, but do it without bullying anyone out of their rights and free assembly.
I don't believe in freedom of religion
when a religion calls for killing apostates. I think it's reasonable for a religious leader to tell his followers that that's haram. Rauf and Khan were invited to sign a statement to that effect. They didn't sign it.
The Judeo-Christian religions call for
Stoning to death anyone who works on the Sabbath (one weekend day or the other). Do make sure all of their leaders formally renounce that before they get to buy real estate in semi-arbitrarily selected zones.
Also, their dogma is the direct cause of much discrimination, especially against women and gays, and is tightly associated with America's military overzealousness, which has killed millions. Do we really want our children raised under Bible law?
The iman proposing the cultural center is a Sufi, iirc-and Sufis
are considered apostates by the Islamist extremists: They are to be repressed at best and destroyed at worst.
Interesting that so many Americans are on the side of the Islamist extremists.... Who knew we would do Bin Ladin's work for him. Oh, right: He did. He attacked America so we would sow the seeds of our own destruction.
We become what we hate...anyone know the source of that quote or aphorism?
So does the same standard apply to native Christians?
How many American Christian movements would like to subsume secular government to Biblical "law"? Do they get a purity test?
But see, the thing is that A. it isn't a mosque and B. it isn't at "ground zero", but rather in a neighborhood with BBQ joints, "gentlemen clubs", McDonald's and the like.
Further, let's not perpetuate the propaganda myth that Islam attacked the United States on 9/11, because it didn't. And let's not then decide that every Muslim is guilty until they somehow prove themselves innocent.
Finally, maybe we should get away from the idea that "ground zero" (what a stupid fucking name) is some sort of hallowed ground, because that's the lynchpin that holds the whole Global War on Terror/Crusade against Islam/perpetual war narrative together. Why is it that we don't call the people who died on 9/11 collateral damage?
“Don’t believe them, don’t fear them, don’t ask anything of them” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
regulararmyfool
"American Christian movements would like to subsume secular government to Biblical "law."
Note: The so called "Christians" derive every thing they support from the Old Testament. Apparently the "Christians" didn't even read the New Testament which has a complete different message from someone who had a little compassion for the poor, the females and the children.
I would appreciate it if they just flat came out and converted to Judaism rather than pretending to follow the message of the New Testament. They seem to have a particular affinity for Israel, why not just move there? They can even join the groups of Israeli fruit cakes who believe that a bunch of donkey jockeys solved all problems millenniums ago.
Self exile
I disagree with Dean on this...
...but that doesn't mean that he's a douchebag. Frankly, calling him a douchebag isn't really helpful, at least from my point of view.
I never agreed with Howard Dean on everything and I don't expect that I ever will. But as much as I disagree with him on this issue, I give him some credit for being willing to explain his position further. Still don't agree with him though...
What's a more appropriate description of...
Someone who rationalizes bigotry, sabotages health-care reform, and is a party to election fraud (giving Obama delegates in states where he didn't run, including delegates that were won by another candidate)?
"Statesman"? "Progressive hero"?
How about "irrelevant, amoral, gutless tool"
Although it is wordy and doesn't have the zing of "douchebag", it makes it up by being an accurate description.
Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....
He's been plenty relevant in
neutering HCR
and misappropriation of delegates. But perhaps I erred by imagining he was a useful tool for personal hygiene.
Sorry, Dean is irrelevant
Except as another talking head on the periphery of the Versailles
teebee circuit. And a bumbling buffoon as well. You don't go and actually say this kind of transparent shit, sure, it's the intention and everybody on the cocktail weenie circuit knows it is true, but you have to be a little more opaque, more "nuanced". My guess he ultimately gets his access card yanked for stupid.
Now, I suppose that still makes him more relevant than you or I, but he's not the one making the judgement calls on what talking point to push. Basically, he's a pimp, mouthing the script. A replaceable one.
Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....
I can't see how the person who
was the linchpin in legitimizing the "public option" canard, which a majority of Americans came to support (as much as one can support a phantom), could be declared irrelevant.
I thought it was Obama that legitimized it
and Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid and, and, and....
But fine, if you insist, I totally retract it, though he was thrown out as head of the D party, holds no "official" position (outside of some manufactured industry group front), is not elected to anything and is basically just a shill on cable tv talk shows for D talking points (not even fit for Sunday network fare), he's completely relevant. A major leader of our times.
Talk about "purity" tests: you are a very hard person to agree with.
Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....
The "Stand with Dr. Dean" campaign was
... the cred-builder that the likes of Open Left and (I think) FDL used to kick-start the whole fake-fest.
Oh, and I think "purity" gets a bad rap. I don't blog to agree with things I think aren't true. A terrible habit, no doubt.
Relevancy is transient
Relavancy* is not a permanent state, nor wholely transferable.
I'm not going to argue over whether Dean had relevancy during the primaries in his official role. Clearly he did. I'm also not going to argue regarding the relevance or impact of the "Stand with Dr. Dean" campaign, as I don't know enough about it to make an informed opinion. I'm also not going to argue whether he is "relevant" regarding his role as a bellweather of some segment of beltway Dem opinion. He clearly is that, though on the level of MSNBC jabber shows.
My calling him "irrelevant" is related to the impact he will have on this discussion, which is, pretty much, zero. He is a sideshow, a clown act.
Harry Reid, relevant. Barack Obama, relevant. Howard Dean? A low buck get. My formulation also hits him where he lives, namely, his relevance*. In the beltway, that is worse than being a douchebag: at least a douchebag has some kind of (presumed) utility.
I think we can disagree without being disagreeable, since the point (to me) is minor.
* The highest coin in the Versailles
realm.
Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....
What's "a more appropriate description"? How about...
Democrat?
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Word
nt
Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....
Ayup!!
What's sad is I used to be able to discriminate between Corporate Dems, Blue Dogs (more socially conservative), Dems of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, full-throated liberals, progressives (kinda squishy, but could fit a catagory).
Now? Can never tell when a Kucinich is going to be...rolled?...whatever. And with Wiener, where's the follow through? I think he takes stands to get lib cred, then just seems to fade away, only to find a "cause" another day. Or two. Or three.
I was never quite sure where Dean fit, but he seemed to have a good idea in taking the Dem message to all 50 states.
This whimping out...to damn sad.
(And thanks for a chance to laugh...I'm sick beyond measure of this manufactured outrage. Which the MCM loves to pieces. Which means they don't have to really dig into real issues.)
Oh, and what on Earth from his follow-up comments
deserves any credit?
That someone says something dreadful and continues to defend it doesn't impress in my book, oddly enough.
Project much, vl?
.
JFK has been shot, we miss him a lot
He always knew what to do
-- Philly Cream
Wow, what a zinger!
Really cut me to the quick with that one!
My apologies for not seeing the glory that Dean wrapped himself in (again).
become just like every other American
because our morality is uniquely American.
It should become more clear with every word uttered that none of this is about "fear". It's really about what is "offensive" or not. When pressed to describe what exactly it is that is offensive, it's all just "You know.... Offensive!"
Unwritten code.
This isn't about "bad" muslims over "good" ones. (Actually, the phrase "good" muslim is never even mentioned (should you keep track), it is always "radical" or "moderate". Those terms defined by......?) Nope, this is about whether muslims know their place in our society. As a group they are supposed to be in perpetual communal guilt over 9/11. All the easier to maintain our view of them as perpetual bombing candidates "over there". If we looked at these brown people as human beings rather than the other, we might lose our enthusiasm for blowing thme up.* Coincidence that the World Trace Center site is referred to as "Ground Zero" and a "battle" site?
During WWII we interned Japanese people; the current attitude is cut from the same cloth.
*I've said it before (at the risk of plagiarizing myself), but we wouldn't even be having this discussion if these were blonde, blue-eyed Norwegians we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Just like we never had it about the IRA and their proven mass-murderers.
Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....
Slogan for 2012
A little long, but I sense the Democratic Party's and Obama's campaign slogan for 2012. It does accurately capture their behavior nowadays, doesn't it?
It is perhaps the best distillation of their philosophy
I've heard to date.
Not that I'd expect much good from them even when and if there isn't resistance.
Does it never occur to anybody that perhaps people come here...
... because they don't want to live in the 12th Century?
Of course, our own Christianists are doing their best to take us back to 1 AD, and "progressive heros" like Hoho are doing their best to help them, but still, the point applies.
And all this from the party faction that smeared its opponents as racist, too. The irony is a little too rich, even for me.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Hey! don't go knocking 1AD!
(and technically, lb, you should use the modern, scientific "CE" [common era] instead of "AD" which as you know is a xtian notation.)
life in 1CE wasn't so bad. sure, slavery was rampant and there were constant imperial wars and occupations, but for a Roman citizen of that time, life could be pretty good. literacy, property-owning, politically active, educated women, a rich and diverse culture, significant wealth...
no, today's xtians want to take us back to say, 570CE or maybe even 800CE. when all the benefits and freedoms of the Roman civilization were mostly gone, replaced by feudal theocracy and ignorance.
Had Dean been alive then
It's a certainty he'd have taken a bold stand against the slavery and imperial wars. Unless there was "enormous resistance," of course....
Give me liberty..
And let's not forget Dean's Revolutionary War ancestor with his famous cry of "Give Me Liberty but not if anyone disagrees, is uncomfortable or annoyed by it..." ;)
The heart swells, and the eye tears up!
And I don't think this runs afoul of Somerby's standing "cult of the offhand comment" caution, because Dean said exactly what he meant, that popular bigotry is a wholly appropriate reason to expect people to fold their tents and move along.
comment of the day
in my book!
1CE
Even Christianity was a more interesting religion in that time frame, before it welded itself to the state in the fourth century. There's probably a good reason it steadily gained converts. It was before the political church fathers got a book out...and one that threw away all the best bits, i might add.
“Don’t believe them, don’t fear them, don’t ask anything of them” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Is relevance the coin of the Beltway realm?
It's an interesting question. I think I'd go with "acceptance," myself. Most of the time, these characters aren't pushing any agenda besides bipartisan bliss and their right to a seat at the table, so re: relevance, one does well to examine how much clout they have when they do try to steer things.
Fist in glove?
I'm not sure how separable the two are, least ways regarding beltway "opinion-makers". Certainly if what one of them says is outside of "accepted discourse" they render themselves irrelevant*. The swing of what is "accepted" likely being just wider for the top power-brokers and media figures.
In another thread I improperly called this controversy "faux", I agree it is not faux at all. Ginned up, manufactured, yep, but I'm thinking this controversy was created just for the purpose of defining what is "acceptable". At least regarding "acceptable" behavior by muslims in this country, and "acceptable" levels of religious, ethnic and cultural tolerance. So maybe I'm wrong, maybe Dean is relevant after all as a bellweather, a recognized "left of center" face on hand-wringing regarding the "acceptable" bounds of being muslim in America. Certainly that sentiment has found support even here.
*Note this only applies to the putative "left", if you are Pam whats-her-ass Atlas Shrugged or Glenn Beck you can say any damn thing you please and it is acceptable. Even if you are demonstrably batshit insane. That's because these people represent "Real Americans", according to beltway wisdom. "Real Americans" in their eyes being rubes: foaming at the mouth reactionary xeno-phobes.
Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....
Now, that's easy to agree with
Really. Thanks.
nt
nt
Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....
Ding!
+1000 on "defining the bounds of acceptable discourse" from "real Americans." Well seen. And with Beck and the rest of 'em holding down the right side, Obama in the mushy middle, and Dean on the "left," and all firmly placed in "hatred of Other," so useful in keeping those pesky proles in line and giving them something to do while waiting for the Depression to end.
Analytically, the entire controversy is faux from the ground up, as the photos of strip clubs show. Alas, faux controversies can have all-too-real political effects, as -- to pick an example at random -- the controversy about the so-called "public option" shows. One side is lying, and the other is not telling the truth seems to be S.O.P. in Versailles
, and that's just one of many reasons why the legacy parties need to be destroyed.
That said, I'm perfectly happy to abandon the word "faux," since it apparently doesn't communicate what I mean, and substitute "manufactured" (which I believe is better than "ginned up," because these controversies are, literally, made by hand, by artisans, in Versailles think tanks, talking shops, and teebee studies. And around the dinner tables and at the bars, no doubt.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
"Useful Idiot" 2.0
Apparently the term "useful idiot"* has a new face and new purpose**.
Oh, and Steve Benen is "confused". Well....
* Sure, "Wikipedia" but sufficient for the task.
** "Hero of the Left", there it is, the desired effect.
Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....
Manufactured Consent
I was entrenched in Dem Party politics as late as 2007 so I haven't always been one who dislikes the Dem Party. But since Obama came around and "took over" (2008) the controversies definitely seem more manufactured than ever. Looking back, I can see some controversies before then (the gang of 14 on the supreme court "battle" comes to mind) that also were manufactured. This hit home big time for me during the general election, when Obama was quietly whipping for TARP, while Dems were fighting for reforms (they actually controlled the Senate at the time and Reid pushed TARP through). Everything *since* Obama took office appears, to me, nothing more than a manufactured show, where the show masks the fact that Dems are doing exactly what the GOPers did.
This is a very important concept and I'm glad its getting repeated repeatedly. Even if its only at the blog that everybody hates and nobody reads.
Only tyrants rig elections.
mosque:2-4-1 Am. sellout! Legal & moral laws!
Pragmatism rears its crony-addled head once again.
Say it ain't so, Howard!
What would MLK and RFK say to all this? Christ? Mohamed? Gandhi? Mother Theresa? Rosa Parks? They were all so non-pragmatic for our evolved (HAH!) left (but not really) leadership.
Well, the mosque situation is a (one more) moral litmus test for our time. The nation, no surprise, flunks BIG time.
9/11, 9/11, 9/11 ... KILL, KILL, KILL!
Vast, as I said before, we have a choice come mid-terms: rat bastards or rabid rat bastards.
Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare. (Japanese proverb)