I was reading the Huffington Post this morning. I usually skip the celebrity gossip stories and most of the pieces on TV shows and entertainment. There were a few interesting stories to note. Sharon Angle claims Unemployment Insurance ‘Really Doesn’t Benefit Anyone’. A puppy saved a boy from a bee swarm. And Glenn Beck admitted to lying (which is really like reporting that the sun is hot). I read the entry on how Unemployment Rate Rises In August For First Time In 4 Months As Labor Force Expands. And then I went to the comments. Every time there is a story on the Huffington Post about the downturn in the economy, increase in unemployment, a stupid bill, political corruption… any of these types of stories… the comments section is flooded with an immediate deluge of anti-Obama, anti-Democratic comments. I noticed in an unofficial capacity that this phenomena has been increasing over the past few months. I can’t help but wonder “why”? I mean, trolls are trolls. You cannot avoid trolling on any website. And I’m sure plenty of right-leaning sites get their fair share of leftist trolls. I have even seen a troll or two on the racist websites, like Stormfront. But when the trolls out-number the regular subscribers, what is going on? [More...] So, first, I’m wondering if these people sit and wait, or just wake up and start posting on the Huffington Post. I’m wondering if they are getting any incentives, or doing this of free will. Are they being prompted by Fox News and FreedomWorks? Like I said, I go to racist websites and peruse the content. I even go to Lawrence Auster’s website and read, and sometimes comment on here about them. I can understand that. But dozens, if not hundreds, of people going to sites that they are typically opposed to? Are they addicted to animosity? And then, I notice too, that there are several central themes. They refer to President Obama with disrespectful names, such as “Barry” or “Barry Hussein Obama” or something similar. They make references to “Change.” And they comment on how all of the problems in America are the fault of this administration, with no mention of the previous administration. I often comment about how the United States got in this economic mess, and point out that President Bush started passing the stimulus packages, and how President Bush signed the Patriot Act. I point out that President Bush gave tax breaks for the wealthy and the middle class shrunk. Debt for the bottom 80% of America grew during Bush. Jobs were disappearing before President Obama was elected. And I ask why there is no anger or hostility towards the corporations and wealthiest 20% who are sitting on (hoarding) their money instead of letting it “trickle down.” The response is always that I’m trying to defend President Obama. I don’t see how that is really the case. I’m just giving other people blame, too. But even more the case, if they are so blind that any blame outside of President Obama is defense of President Obama, are they really just corporate sycophants? or Republican sycophants? Or both? Do they love the wealthy and Right so much that any complaints against them is blaspheme? What is even crazier to me, is the way they deluge the comments page with anti-Left propaganda. According to people like Sarah Palin, this is a violation of the First Amendment. On Halloween of 2008, Sarah Palin accused the media of violating her First Amendment Rights by calling her complaints against Candidate Obama “negative.” (Here is the article on ABC News.) Palin has continued this logic, complaining that those protesting her speaking engagements were violating her First Amendment rights. (Not too long ago at UC Stanislaus.) Well, aren’t these people filling up the Huffington Post (or this site) with anti-Left comments violating the Left’s freedom of speech? What is really concerning is this false sense of the sentiments of the American public, and the purposeful shifting of sentiments. Do people really feel this way? Or this this some Carl Rovian way of directing sentiment? I really don’t know. But I do know that this is odd. It is similar to how the Right derided Obama for using “grass roots” organizational skills, and utilizing student groupds, Facebook, Twitter, email campaigns and the like, and now you have Glenn Beck and every other New Right ad on all of these sites. Palin doesn’t even update her website, but makes comments to everyone via Twitter and Facebook. How’s that for “grass roots”? And in a similar area, these are the same people that want to “kick the bums out.” They are tired of “partisan politics” in DC. Really? Because it really appears that anyone who disagrees with you is a “Leftist” or a “Communist” or a “Liberal Fascist” or whatever dismissive term you can throw at them. No need to accept complexity of issues, I guess, when we can turn them into an “US vs. Them” issue… but then to turn around and accuse your opponents of using the same tactics. It’s not a phenomena of an entire group of people getting Borderline Personality Disorder. If you are really tired of partisan politics, why don’t you stop making me defend everyone on the Left? Why don’t you stop assuming the Left has any cohesion at all? Indeed, the Right is not that simple. The GOP has been tearing into the Tea Party for a little while now. It is pretty obvious that there are several rifts on the Right. So, I guess, this is my way of saying, forgive me if I give the impression that I believe the Tea Party Movement, The Libertarians, The GOP and the DINOs (Democrats In Name Only) are all one ideology, or cohesive movement. I accept the nuance of difference and identify that every person has their own views, whether shaped by another or not. If anything, the GOP looks like the Weimar aristocracy that just realized what a bad idea it was to give the Sturmabteilung any power or political mobility. I also will not accuse dissent of violating my “First Amendment Rights,” nor will I suggest in “Second Amendment Solutions” in protecting these delusional rights to “freedom from disagreement.” . . . → Read More: First Amendment Solutions
|
||||||
|
I may be a masochist. Today I went to Laurence Auster’s website, A View From The Right. I know that I really should know better, but I am just a glutton for punishment. What kept me on the site was his feelings towards Glenn Beck. It seems Mr. Auster could, quite possibly, dislike Glenn Beck more than I do. Anyway, I was reading his entries, and he had one that was entitled, “Black woman throws acid in face of white woman.” (Do we italicize online articles or put them in quotes? I don’t know the protocol.) I really wanted to respond to his entry, but he only accepts email comments and selectively adds comments at his discretion. I figured, since he has already tried to dismiss me as a “knee-jerk liberal blogger,” that I would be better suited addressing my concerns here. So, there’s an article on MSNBC.com about the “Acid attacker,” in which a woman in Oregon had acid thrown on her face. It was an especially heinous crime because the girl who received the acid was particularly pretty. Mr. Auster only added this as a preface to the article on his site: The assailant was a stranger and the attack was unprovoked. MSNBC does not mention the race of the assailant until the last sentence of the article. When you read the article, this is indeed correct. The last line of the article states: Police said the assailant was described as a black woman between 25 and 35, who wore a green shirt and khaki shorts, The Columbian reported. She had medium-length black hair that was pulled back. [If you are wondering, The Columbian is the newspaper name. It is not an olive skinned man with an impeccable suit and shoes that sits at the end of the bar with an unlit cigarette dangling from his lip and manages to observe, through his Latin mistique, all types of things that other people tend to miss.] They described her race as part of her physical description. Where is the problem with this? Well, my problem with this is simple: The same people who claim minorities are always “pulling the race card” tend to have the same things to say in these situations. How can we win? Do you want us to judge people as individuals, or be predisposed of racial judgments? Mr. Auster contends that he is not a racist. He was rather upset that I compared him to Stormfront. (The Nazi website.) But, my comment to Mr. Auster is this: Mr. Auster, Why are you bothered that MSNBC did not mention the woman’s race until the end of the article and why do you feel the need to headline race in the topic? Is it not possible that the acid attacker was just a mentally deranged person? Do you really want a world without preferences to race? Or do you just want people to stop challenging white preference? On one of the pieces regarding Glenn Beck, Mr. Auster stated the following: How many times have I condemned George W. Bush for going to Africa and saying that the racism that drove slavery is still operative in America today? How many times have I excoriated his pal Condoleezza Rice for saying that America still hasn’t reached racial justice for blacks, and has much further to go? Wake up, Beck supporters. White America owes nothing to black America. The debt has been paid in full, and more than full. Any person who believes that whites still must repent for slavery and discrimination is locked inside the suicidal liberal mindset–and lost to any meaningful conservatism. Coupled with the recent complaint that MSNBC did not disclose the perpetrator of a crime as “Black” until giving her physical description, this has a more than a tinge of racism in theme. But that’s not all. I have to admit, this anti-Muslim slant is a bit concerning, as well. Auster states: However, I regard Islam as a permanent, deadly threat to our civilization and everything we are; but I don’t have an emotion of hating Muslims. I simply believe that they do not belong among us and should be returned to and isolated in their own world where they can’t threaten us. I constantly talk about context, so I will put the above statement in context. The piece was about hatred of Jews. I actually commend Auster on pointing out that hatred and belief someone is an enemy are not the same thing. And I agree with this. Farther, I think it is important to acknowledge that racism is not hatred; no more than hatred is racism. It is possible to be racist and not hate people of another race. If you simply feel one race is superior to another, then you are a racist. On the same hand, when people hate those they perceive as their oppressor, they are not racists. Whether the feeling is warranted or not, if Black people feel as though they are oppressed in America for being Black, that feeling is not racism. It may be contempt, and even hatred, but it is not racism. There is no implied belief of superiority. Now, why the problem with Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece stating she has a problem with ‘White privilege’? I see on his site that Auster claims white guilt has superseded white privilege, and that is a debatable topic. But to call contempt for white privilege anything other than contempt would be in err. And what is the cause of this feeling that Muslims should be isolated? The history of manifest destiny and divine providence in regard to Christians are sufficient evidence to make the same claim about them. And there are more non-Christians than Christians in the world. Shouldn’t the Christians be delegated to their own corner, and let the Muslims, Hindu, Buddhists and Jews have the rest without fear of them? I also want to give credit to Mr. Auster on his piece entitled “Clueless, cowardly whites.” There is a picture of two white men at Glenn Beck’s rally with signs saying “Do I look racist?” standing on the sides of a Black man wearing a fanny pack. (I think the Black man in the photo is drunk and confused.) [The photo was from pandagon.net.] In reference to this image, Auster states: George W. Bush would literally say, “How can I be a racist, since Condi, my National Security Advisor / Secretary of State, is black?”, while Condi, as clueless, tone-deaf, and lacking in taste as her boss, participated in the idiocy. And in addition to being pathetic and weak from a conservative point of view, these eagerly non-racist whites, whether Bush or the white men in the photo, don’t see how offensive it is from a liberal or just a human point of view—how condescending it is to use a black person as a prop to demonstrate one’s own virtue. So these whites degrade both their own dignity and that of the black people whom they treat as badges, while the blacks who willingly join in the charade, whether Condoleezza Rice or the black man in the photo, are blind or indifferent to how they are degrading their own dignity. That’s what right-liberalism does to people–it takes away their humanity and makes them see themselves as symbolic abstractions. I literally had to read that three times. Laurence Auster actually pointed out that this degrades everyone involved, including the Black people who participate? I wholeheartedly agree. I felt it would be prudent to mention the positive things I see, as well as the negative, in the interest of being fair. (Even if Glenn Beck himself says something I agree with, I will admit it.) On the whole, I have to admit, at least Laurence Auster does see the lunacy that is Glenn Beck for what it is. And he does seem to have a degree of concern for non-Whites. But I do not see the reason to be so concerned that a brief media article did not make a big deal about the race of a Black assailant in a heinous crime. I also fail to see the rationale in debasing Islam over any other religion. To a Buddhist or a non-Theist, all Abrahamic religions have a pattern of violence. And what of this claim that America “owes nothing” to Black Americans? I assume this also applies to the indigenous populations and the Asians, that also contributed and received little reward for their contribution? Surely this does not apply to those of Germanic and Gaelic descent in Appalachia, right? I mean, at least they are the right color, aren’t they? Did Germany owe the Jews anything? Do they today? Oh, wait, they actually made reparations. This whole tangent was spurred by one sentence. Regarding how they did not mention the alleged assailant’s race in the article. And then I go on to read that there is some reason and logic in these opinions. So, why the selective application? Why can you not apply your rationale to people and situations that might slightly differ from yourself? Is it possible that non-Whites just believe they are not treated fairly and react accordingly? Is it possible that Muslims and East Asians fear cultural hegemony as a form of domination as much as you fear them? Is it possible that I am Gay, Black and Married? (Or is that just an album title?) . . . → Read More: Comment To A Racist Right Wingnut: I was watching Cradle Will Rock last night. Although I thoroughly enjoyed it, that is not what I intend to discuss today. I was thinking about many of the topics of the film and how they relate to contemporary issues. Some issues are historical and not directly relevant. Other issues are associative. But then I started thinking about the period itself. The movie takes place in the 1930′s. More specifically, I was thinking about how Lukács describes history and class consciousness in his work titled History and Class Consciousness. It seems to me that, as a society, we ignore issues that are uncomfortable, or even contradictory, to the way we wish to view society today. Even more specifically, I’m talking about the House Un-American Activities Committee, Fascism in Europe and the build-up to WWII. It would be easy to describe the selective amnesia over specific parts in this area of history as reactionary. But I think it really lies deeper than that. Sure, there is a nostalgia of the past. Every society suffers from some type of reactionary nostalgia. When looking at the history of China, you see this occur at the end of each dynastic cycle. When the empire begins to degrade, everyone recalls the “good ole days” of the “Mighty Empire.” And there is definitely something to be stated about the all-too-human existential crisis of chasing the past. What I feel is troubling is the way in which our selective memory of the past is shaped by those in power. It appears, to me, that there is something to be said for the way the power structure shapes our recall of past events. In my mind, I wonder what it would be like to go to Detroit, or Cleveland, or Flint, or West Virginia, or Kentucky, or Texas, and discuss with the laborers there how they feel about Unions. To ask them if they realize that in the 1930′s, Unions were viewed as a part of the “Communist Threat,” and how police were used by the Robber Barons of the time to keep labor ‘in order.’ It’s not that I believe these people are very different from me. Indeed, I’m sure many of them would say they did understand that and even have stories from the period, either from themselves or from their relatives. But I also do not think it would be a majority, as we view that many people in these regions appear to be pro-Union and anti-”Liberal.” Any places with large amounts of Industrial labor tend to be GOP strongholds. (I just want to be clear that I am not trying to be divisive or condescend.) Once upon a time, the “Left” was the party of the poor. It seems a bit twisted now. The media and society portrays the American-Left as Ivy League snobs: “The Educated Elite.” And the GOP is the party of the “Working Class.” These are unofficial party lines. We are reminded, on occasion, that the Republicans were the “Party of Lincoln,” the “man who freed the slaves.” And that the Democrats were the pro-slavery, pro-south, pro-every evil thing in the American past. This is, indeed, all too true, but we never want to discuss how there was a dramatic shift in party ideology. Like I pointed out to the shift of the use of “Progressive” in contemporary discourse. Progressives were pro-prohibition. How can “Progressives” also be the pro-cannabis ideology? On the same hand, how can the pro-regulation ideology also be supportive of ‘big business’ and ‘corporate greed’ ? In the 20th Century CE, the anti-Communist movement in the United States had particularly high fervor. We all know at least a little about this. We hear about Senator McCarthy and his “hearings” on “Communist activity.” But we rarely discuss the root cause of all of this, outside of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. The reality of the anti-Communist sentiment is that it was born out of the Industrial Revolution in the previous centuries. Volumes have been written on the impact of the Industrial Revolution(s), and I do not contend to be able to succinctly summarize them in one entry. But, the advent of mechanized production lead to incredible growth in industry as well as growth in education and standards of living. The down-side to this growth was the growth of labor and the exploitation of this labor. As production increased, so did motives for profit growth. With this growth increased the need for unskilled labor. The incentives to exploit labor were tremendous. The exploitation was horrendous. Working 18 hours or more a day in sweatshops with little to no regard for safety was common in this era. If an employee refused to accept these conditions, they were replaced. It became an environment where most laborers had no other options. It is very odd the way the pendulum swings. The Socialist, Communist and Anarchist movements that grew out of these conditions were just as tremendous. They swept through Europe into Russia. Civil unrest continued to grow as laborers grew uneasy with the situation. And just as these movements grew as a backlash to Industrial greed, they spawned counter-reactions across the globe. As the Bolsheviks took over Russia, Hitler and Mussolini seized the opportunity for power as “anti-Communist” protection. Although the United States did not see the fascist takeover that Europe saw as a response, the House Un-American Activities Commitee did grow in force. In the 1930′s, prior to the War, much popular sentiment leaned towards Mussolini and Hitler, as they stood opposed to Communism. (They probably would have supported Sun Yet-Sen if they had properly understood the situation, as well.) Just as well, in the United States, the International Workers of the World (IWW) and other Union organizations were seen as a “threat” to the nation. The reason for this scattered history lesson is simply that I feel we selectively recall this era. Just as Country, Rock, Blues, Jazz, Rockabilly, and most other American forms of music were deemed “Negro music” at their conception but are regarded as simply “American” today, many of the methodology of the “Communists” and “Socialists” of the past are ignored. On Saturday, we saw Glenn Beck organize a rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC. Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and the rest of the Tea Party Movement claim to be a “grass roots movement.” They talk about how they are tired of the Elite, although they claim to support a moderately “classless” society. In reality, they organize much like groups did under the IWW, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and the Green Party. They espouse similar themes towards the “elite” as to Michael Parenti and Hannah Arendt, while claiming they are devout Ayn Rand zealots. Life is much simpler when there are only two sides to every issue. It is plain reality that there are many sides to many issues. Unions protect laborers from exploitation. The means they use to achieve that end can be varied. The Tea Party Movement is constantly debasing the “Liberals” and “Progressives” as the “Liberal Elite,” claiming they are out of touch with the middle class and working class. The Democratic side is busy trying to paint Conservatives as racist corporate henchmen. And we are ignoring how much the current situation resembles the past, and how these issues were born out of the past. I would not be surprised if many of the people who attend Tea Party rallies were Union members, or some type of Artisans that were members of Trade Unions. Just like the Democrats choose to ignore the fact their party used to chant ditties like “N*gger Doodle Dandy” and, even, “All De Way Wif LBJ!” The New Right chooses to ignore how the people who won the right for them to have these Unions were slandered as Communists and “un-American.” Union organizers were treated much worse than supporters of Universal Healthcare are treated today. Selectively, we seem to have forgotten that Catholics, Germans, Italians, and Irish were not “White.” (More specifically, not WASPs.) We choose to ignore how long racism and antisemitism have flourished in the United States. We choose to ignore that it was not long ago that females were not allowed to vote. In our not-too-distant past, there were no labor laws, no child labor laws, no protection for non-Protestants, and no universal suffrage. What does this all mean? I really do not know. One point I intended to convey is that it may be easier to believe that there are hard-lines that separate ideologies. It may be easier to believe that it is “us against them,” but is that really the issue? And, are these really all the issues we are concerned about today? Or are they vestiges of a cultural leftover? Could it be that half of our disagreements lie in propaganda of a by-gone era? Do we selectively choose to ignore history, or are we taught to ignore specific aspects as to not upset the balance of power? . . . → Read More: contemporary selective amnesia  Leave a comment  Main category, Neo-Conservative, Neo-Fascism, New Left, New Right, Racism, definitions  anti-communist, Bolsheviks, Cold War, communists, Glenn Beck, Hitler, House UnAmerican Activities Commitee, Industrial Revolution, International Workers of the World, Mussolini, Red Scare, Restoring Honor, Revolution, sarah palin, socialists Glenn Beck University is NOT an accredited University. It is a series of classes that anyone can “take” for a fee. It is an “unaccredited online education program.” Judging by the use of terminology by those in GlennBeckistan, I hesitate to even mention it as an “education program.” It can be found here: http://www.glennbeck.com/becku/ What I really wanted to discuss today is this misuse of terminology, mainly by the New Right, the Teabaggers, Libertarians and everyone else marching around angry that a Black President wants to give people health care. The term “Progressive” is being thrown a lot. I fear that many people do not even know what a Progressive is, or what Progressivism really was. The Progressive Era started in the end of the 1800′s and lasted until the 1920′s. Progressivism is marked by several characteristics: * Progressives were against corruption. They had “muckrakers” that exploited corporate and government waste and abuse. They stood against any form of corruption. * Progressives believed in education, science and technology. * Progressives believed in the power of democracy over the elite. * Progressives were for Prohibition, and wanted to alter the Constitution to promote ‘morality.’ * Progressives believed in government regulations against monopolies and unfair wage practices. Many today use the word “Progressive” to mean something similar to “Socialist” or “Communist.” Does that sound like a Socialist agenda? I really don’t feel it does. But, what does seem interesting, is when you look at Glenn Beck U: The tagline is “Faith, Hope and Charity.” The “Faith” is teaching of history, the “Hope” is teaching of Economics, and the “Charity” is political science, connecting the Constitution, Federalist Papers and “the U.S. as a charitable nation.” (Time Magazine) The motto on the ‘coat of arms’ is latin for “Revolution against tyrants, submission to God.” Sounds pretty “Progressive” to me (in accordance to the beliefs of American Progressivism). Progressives did institute social programs, such as Child Labor Laws and Unionized Labor practices… those radicals! They also changed the Constitution to inhibit freedoms. Who wants to do that today? . . . → Read More: Glenn Beck Dictionary Seriously, just think about it rationally for a moment: How are we to take you seriously when you have no complaints during the past 5 Presidents, and now you are furious that the Black guy won the election and wants everyone to have health care? That he is not inciting other countries? What I’m trying to point to is the extreme outrage of the current President by people who were not outraged by the previous President, who actually did EVERY SINGLE THING THESE PEOPLE ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT TODAY! If you want the rest of us to listen to you, you need to come up with something better than “The Black guy with the Muslim name wants to give everyone health care” as a rallying cry. . . . → Read More: Why You Appear To Be Racist. Yes, You. |
|
|||||
|
Copyright © 2010 SIGHED EFFECTS - All Rights Reserved |
||||||
Recent Comments