Heed My Screed
"Anti-American" is ideological rhetoric which is intended to engender fear, hatred and division among the citizens of this nation. It is equating a difference of political opinion with treason. It is drawing craven ideological lines between which Americans are "real" and which are not. It is what Joe McCarthy did. It is what Michelle Bachmann, Nancy Pfotenhauer and, by extension, John McCain et al. are doing. Their rhetoric flies in the face of the fundamentally inclusive ideals on which America was founded and, as such, they are not allowed to designate anyone, save themselves by way of their own actions, as "anti-American."
Socialism is about state control of the means of production. If you can't explain what this means or how it relates to what you're discussing, you aren't allowed to call anything "socialist." If you are a Republican and you cannot explain how this relates to a recent law, voted on affirmatively by your Presidential candidate and signed into law by your President, which allows for potentially extensive nationalization of private sector debt-assets, you are not allowed to use the words "socialism" or "socialist."
Islam is an Abrahamic faith akin to Judaism and Christianity. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, prior to establishing protections for free speech and peaceable assembly, establishes freedom from state imposed religion or any restriction by the state on the free exercise of religion. "Anti-American" is using "muslim" as a slur, just as is so when "jew" is used in such a manner. If you do not believe in the separation of church and state or the free exercise of one's chosen faith, you hold an ideological point of view which is "anti-American" by definition.
We will have our political differences. We will have vigorous debate about these differences. We will have hard fought electoral contests. At times, we may not find ways to agree. But what we cannot have is a bellicose intolerance of difference. We have far too much in common, far too much at stake to define ourselves in this way.
---
Cross-posted @ dagblog.com
Socialism is not the answer.
October 21, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome! I'm also a huge fan of this one.
October 21, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I drink therefore I am ...
October 21, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
DRINK!!
October 21, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most people who post on TPMCafe probably thought intolerance was a good thing before they read DF's bold essay.
Intolerance is bad!
Who knew?
October 22, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that DF has produced this deep exploration of the situation of religion under the Bill of Rights, maybe he can also clear up a few simpler questions.
My religion is cocaine, and if some mama-humping sleazebag takes my package and can't pay, my religion says I should shoot that mama-humping sleazebag in the face!
But sometimes I get a special inspiration that says I should also mess up that sleazebag real bad before I shoot that mama-humping sleazebag in the face.
I'm talking about drilling out that sleazebags eyes with my fine electric drill that I bought at Ace Hardware for just such a purpose!
Now here's my question:
Is my special inspiration also protected by the Bill of Rights, like the rest of my religion?
October 22, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummmm, no. Sorry.
The Bill of Rights SPECIALLY excludes 'acts' (even if religiously motivated) if they directly involve the products of Ace Hardware. Drilling, fine. Ace Hardware drill? Public safety overrides.
Nice try with the 'special inspiration', but rules are rules. Now.... prison, or..... comfy chair?
October 22, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't make me get all jihady on your ass, quinn!
I think I'm getting a special inspiration about you!
(Italics flew thickly through the city of Priam, like locusts on the plains of Thessaly as often as the great wheel of seventeen years revolves anew, and their swarms are awakened from the bowels of Mount Ida where they sleep among the shadows of Orcus and shadowy daughters of Pentheus until the Sun God Apollo recalls them to the world of mortal men, and then their swarms darken all of Thessaly again, bringing sorrow to the farmer who watches them waste away the golden grain of his fields as the acid of Hephaestus the Contriver leaches away gold from chased silver, and sorrow the sun-obscuring swarms also bring to shepherds whose pastures are devastated in far-away Boetia, for thus is the twisted will of Zeus fulfilled, incomprehensible to mortal men.)
October 22, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note/Self: Must write Thessalonians. AGAIN. I donno why it's always ME that has to write those dorks. "Wash your hands before operating, avoid idols, never bet against Man U, locusts coming." Gawd, they're clueless. Epistle us this, oh Mighty Quinn. Epistle us that. I get TIRED, you know? And Boetian shepherds? They can kiss my rosy-red.
October 22, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cocaine is not a religion, but it is a helluva drug.
October 22, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's spelled 'Leicester'.
October 22, 2008 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very, very nice!
Thanks DF, I am getting weary of all the stupid de-corticated commentary that relies on scare-words like, "socialism," "anti-american", "real american", "liberal" "patriot", etc.
Wait a week and then repost this and I will rec it again!
October 21, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, Donal, in some European countries it provided a very good approach to an answer.
October 21, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
And continues to do so.
Even though mixed with such taboos as monarchy, and such ideals as democracy.
October 21, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I expect you will have to extend your list by the time November arrives. eg Mel Martinez = Obama is communist
October 21, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edited from an earlier comment today: Just ask the "socialist" name-callers if they've ever been hunting or fishing in Canada. The Province of Manitoba has, oddly enough, the only "socialist" government in North America. Socialized medicine, public auto insurance, 100% of electricity & gas from a 100% public utility, subsidized university tuition (of $3,000/year), etc.
Interestingly, its electricity rates are the lowest on the continent, its auto insurance rates the lowest in the country, it has a redhot economy, has reversed the population drain which has hit most prairie/plains states, has had 9 straight (all-socialist) years of balanced budgets, it has the highest charitable contribution rates on the continent, houses a Level 4 Lab in its capital to help the CDC work on Ebola & similar diseases, it led Canada into Kyoto & was named by Business Week as the #1 state/region/province in the world for taking action on climate change, it allows Catholic & religious schools, is bilingual, the Speaker of the Legislature is Inuit and two of the main Cabinet Ministers are Cree, and it's is led by a (3-term, hugely-popular) Premier who hunts, fishes, and supports Canada's active role in Afghanistan.
You can like it or loathe it, but are these people completely disconnected from reality with their "socialist" rants? Ye gods....
October 21, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You betcha. What's more is that what all of these foul-mouthed, free-market evangelists refuse to acknowledge is that we already have a mixed economy and the world hasn't crashed down on our heads. They act as if anything short of laissez-faire is absolutely sacrilege, but they haven't caught up with Stiglitz.
October 21, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're laying the groundwork for the Rev. Wright encore to come. It's all about patriotism and the doubts that were sown by misinformation at the begining of the primaries. They started with Ayers/terrorism and are now broadening that to include liberals. If you don't buy that Obama hearts terrorists then perhaps you'll eat the socialist porridge. Against this backdrop they will trott out Rev. Wright early next week and hammer on it. I believe this was always in their plan.
They say anti-American and the asshats like Bachmann and Hayes happily pile on. It's incredibly divisive though and completely offensive to all of us that don't live in small towns. The way they have been going about it is also fomenting hatred and anger amongst the most gullible and xenophobic of their supporters.
It really is a scary campaign but I think pushing too hard on the anti-American theme and applying it so broadly has now backfired by offending so many people.
October 21, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
But... why is John McCain not wearing a flag pin?!
October 22, 2008 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's incredibly offensive to plenty of us who do live in small towns as well.
October 22, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's been suggested elsewhere, that this ia reminiscent of Goldwater, '64. I can attest that I was hearing complaints of "socialism" from at least one Goldwater booater then, although both he and I were in 8th grade.
They went down in flames that year, but unfortunately the GOP did not move left, they just learned to cheat. Maybe his time they'll simply explode into factions, if cheating isn't enough.
October 21, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Careful, Tom. Did the GOP "just learn to cheat"? Isn't that the same broadbrush problem? If they did "just learn to cheat", should we blame the 1960 election (won by a Dem) as an example of how the GOP learned to do it?
Especially in the historical context of the 1950s, the GOP stood for more sound fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and government out of your life.
These are all worthy goals in my view. Apparently, most Dems think so too as they are central to the Dem party trend these days.
The more things change...
October 22, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not denying the validity of policy differences. This is not bellicose intolerance, but history. I am not callng Republicans Nazis, (might make an exception for O'Reilly).
Yes, the GOP in the 50s, with Eisenhower at the top, was the sober, if unimaginative party; Ev Dirksen afraid Ike was too liberal and would take them down to defeat in 1952.
I was making the point that after 1964, with a landslide loss to LBJ, they did not change their politics, but offered the same guy that lost in 1960, with success, but then Nixon wanted total power, so we got the Plumbers, and Don Segreti.
The 1960 Democratic candidate, JFK, "cheated" by emphasizing an imaginary "missile gap" and there is some reason to believe then-mayor Richard Daley threw Chicago toward him, a crucial block of votes.
What I mean by cheating is vote suppression, divisive race-baiting, the southern strategy, and illegal race-based caging.
The platform of the GOP did not move toward the center, even if Nixon promoted certain polices now considered liberal. And after the disgrace of Nixon resigning, we eventually got Ronald "Government is the problem" Reagan.
October 22, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tom: interesting points. I especially appreciate your knowledge of history!
Just a few volleys back in return:
The GOP didn't just give the party over to Nixon, in fact, Nixon had a ridiculously tough road to hoe (just think of the number of people who attained POTUS after losing a GE for POTUS). Nixon was very much involved with the GOP after 1964 (he took a "break" after the CA Governor loss) and campaigned for a number of people in the 1966 election.
But events in the late 60s, including the Vietnam war and a general sense of lawlessness, made "the great silent majority" look for a change. Except for the Ike blip in the 1950's (much like the Clinton blip in the 1990's), the Dems had been in power since Hoover. The GOP offered that change -- to the middle class. Just as Obama is now offering change -- to the middle class.
As far as the "tricks" -- most of the tricks were already well developed. You had political bosses and unions in the north (Old Union), in the south (Old Confederacy), you had well documented cases of voter fraud -- almost as an expected part of the election. Google "Landslide Lyndon" for example -- as I know you won't have to.
What happened in the years of more modern communication was that these regional tricks -- used by both parties -- were able to be brought to the national level. That we know about them today means we have made more progress, not less, in rooting them out.
I think the major difference between the Dems and the GOP is that the GOP invested a lot of money into thinktanks in the 1960's-1970s to figure out how best to control their message. The notion of "family values" was pre-Reagan and developed at places like the Heritage Foundation.
The Dems, by the 1960s, were the party of little money (they unwisely eschewed all business and the middle class as a general rule) and couldn't afford these thinktanks. (By the way, between the courting of Wall Steet -- as led by the Clintons -- and middle class donations -- as led by Obama -- the Dems may now have enough money to develop their own thinktanks.)
As a result, the GOP was able to trounce the Dems for years -- because they had a well thought out effort and long term plan. Of course, the lack of competition from the Dems, allowed the GOP to go further and further with their thinktanks, and you eventually spawn Atwater, Ailes, and Rove... culminating in blatant propaganda-as-news (FNC) and the ultimate thinktank travesty: the Project for the New American Century.
The irony is that the GOP -- now guided by the neocons (who are radical, not conservative) -- were openly publishing their views throughout the 1990s. One wonders if the mature Internet had been around in the 1990s, would someone on HuffPo or TPM connected the dots between the Project for the New American Century and Rumsfeld, Wolfewitz, etc. and the fact that these men were tight with GWB.
(It's also possible that many would have relished the idea of "finishing off Saddam" as people now forget that many in the US were very upset that GHWB didn't do that in the first Gulf War.)
Anyway, the point is that I think the larger issue is the GOP's undue influence in controlling the message and truly mastering modern communication late in the 20thc. (You can also draw a line from HR Halderman who, as you know, as an ad exec.) As we began living in a media-saturated age, the GOP was right there to take advantage of it.
It's under these circumstances that little bits of "cheating" can tip things in dramatic ways. Now, however, it looks like the Dems (under Obama) have mastered these lessons -- and extended them into the Internet. The Dems are now becoming the masters of the media.
The results are staggeringly successful.
And the pendulum swings back.
PS: One last tidbit I love to tweak my GOP friends with: Since Nixon, there has only been one president to actually reduce the size of government. And he, who was able to implement that "good Republican value", was named Bill Clinton.
October 22, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sound points, thanks.
October 22, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dammit CT, sometimes you make me FURIOUS!
You hoe rows. NOT roads.
Any damn fool knows hoeing roads does nothing to protect your crop, and costs the taxpayers billions of dollars EVERY YEAR in pavement patching.
Your irresponsibility is breathtaking.
October 22, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've made many typing errors on my posts over the months. I'll add another, thanks for pointing it out. Coming from the guy who didn't learn about run-on and punctuation (yes, I know you think your arty), your critique means quite a bit.
Then again, I've often wondered if you can see the forest from the trees.
October 22, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a sec.
Yup. You can see it.
October 22, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Your arty." Fighting words, and you ignore the thrown gauntlet.
October 22, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn you, Tom! You just spoiled everything!
I made a bet with a friend of mine that I could get quinn to go berserk in my reply. I made 3 intentional errors -- you caught one. Had quinn found 1, I would get a beer, 2, would be a bottle of wine and the hat-trick gets me a decent bottle of cognac.
For those that like to follow such things, here is the post corrected:
Apparently, we can't count on quinn for anything.
October 22, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forest got in the way of those trees.
October 22, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
October 22, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe Quinn has too much class to be an asshat about grammar more then once a day.
October 22, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that's not it.
October 22, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm way to stubble for you guys. I showed that I DID catch one.
Good show though, CT. I was thinking, "Hrrrmmmm, that guy never screws up on his presentation.... He screws up on his FACTS. Must be a trap!" l-)
October 22, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Next time there's SERIOUS booze on the line CT, let me know. I'll play along, and we can drain your friend's account.
October 22, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unbelievable. This is the most anti american rant I've read in years. I've tried to find some reasonable point in your overblown hyperbole but could find none. We have a vision of america that is directly at odds.
I've seen much ideological rhetoric from the left which is intended to engender fear, hatred and division. Much as I dislike the hatred and venom there's a little thing called free speech here that I value more than I dislike that venom.
Here in America any one can call anyone anti american. The KKK can march down the street passing out pamphlets with there vile rhetoric. Anti war radicals can call soldiers baby killers and so can anti abortion protesters. Peace marchers can call government officials murderers and so can environmentalists. The only limitation to that march, protest, publication is if there is a reasonable expectation that it would incite a riot or violence.
Anyone can call you or me or Obama a socialist and no psuedo linguist with pretensions of grandeur can tell me that I can't use any word because I haven't passed their test that deems me worthy.
As Molly Ivins has often said, the answer to the excesses of free speech is more free speech. I'll defend your right to say or publish this load of dreck but I'd fight tooth and claw to make sure none of it was ever manifested either by social pressure or law.
October 21, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the words of John Stewart at Northeastern this past Friday, "Fuck you."
Call it out. That's your right.
Did I say any differently? Did you even read what I wrote? My post directly references the First Amendment. Do I have to quote it verbatim for you?
I think we all understand that. I can also write my response to it.
Sure, and anyone else can demand they explain just what their rhetoric is supposed to mean. Are they really talking about socialism or is it code for something else? Chris Matthews, of all people, did so with Bachmann. You've no doubt seen the result.
Yep. That's what I think. That's why I wrote this. Is there something about that which escapes you?
Did I suggest any law prohibiting speech here? I find it quite amusing that you're telling me that you don't appreciate my speech and that what I should be doing, instead I guess, is engaging in free speech. Or maybe you understand Ivins no better than you understand me.
October 22, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find it quite amusing that you're telling me that you don't appreciate my speech and that what I should be doing, instead I guess, is engaging in free speech.
--------------------------------------------------
I didn't say anything about you not being allowed to say anything. I'm relatively sure you don't believe any of the bullshit you posted and you see it as irony or snark. I care to much to let your asinine hyperbole pass with out pointing out how anti american I see it. How it violates the principle I hold most dear about this country.
If you want to call it irony or snark go ahead. All I can say is you really suck at it.
And yeah, fuck you too. The more I read the crap you post the more I dislike you.
October 22, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not snark. I mean every word. I had hoped that the title would clue people in to the fact that I'm self-aware in as far as it's a bit of a rant, but you don't seem to be taking any clues this evening.
Where's my hyperbole again? I found yours. Return the favor?
Which principle is that?
If it was, I would, but it's not. There are much better snarkers around here. I usually leave that to them.
No love lost here. Don't read it. It's a free country!
Seriously, I don't know where you're coming from here. Take a vacation or at least a walk.
October 22, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
they are not allowed to designate anyone, save themselves by way of their own actions, as "anti-American."
are not allowed to use the words "socialism" or "socialist."
--------------------------------------------------
The simple answer to that nonsense is yes they are, anytime they want to and for any reason they chose. So am I allowed to do so and so are you.
October 22, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is that what's up your ass? You're really taking that literally? As in you think that I mean they should be prohibited from doing so by law?
Take a break, my friend.
October 22, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
No fool, I didn't take it literally. I called it overblown hyperbole, snark, or irony. You're the one who corrected me saying that it wasn't snark and you meant every word. Now you tell me it wasn't literal, so what was it? Snark, irony, overblown hyperbole?
As I said I looked for some reasonable point to what is essentially a screed against free speech. I was relatively sure you didn't mean it, that it must be some snark I wasn't getting. But you assured me that it was not snark but that you meant every word. Well what ever it is for you, even if it was some snark, it deserved to be objected to in the most strenuous terms.
Bachman was dealt with just the way she should have been in a free society that values free speech. She was publicly condemned even by some republicans. Her opponent received a massive infusion of money to defeat her re-election. Even if re-elected she is a toothless blowhard without the ability to manifest any type of unamerican investigatory committee.
I'm well aware of Steward's video, his first one and the second one where he explained and expanded it. You think now that the "great" Jon Stewart said fuck you its cool to use it whenever it tickles your fancy? When I say fuck you it means one thing. That I am no longer in any sort of a civil relationship with someone nor am I engaged in civil debate or disagreement. I'll remember you saying it to me for a long time dude. You crossed a line and made an enemy.
October 22, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That you apparently see no space in between the strictest of literal interpretations and sarcasm or irony leaves little room to communicate with you at any rate. If you want to consider me an "enemy", that's up to you, but it's a been a long time since you've offered much outside of belligerence.
October 22, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you even bother to read you ignorant moron. I don't care if it was literal, snark, or overblown hyperbole. I posted, "Well what ever it is for you, even if it was some snark, it deserved to be objected to in the most strenuous terms."
October 22, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooo, ooo, can I be your enemy too? It doesn't seem like it takes too much, just a few semantic quibbles. I love semantic quibbles. I will quibble with you all day long until you hate me more than anyone else on earth.
Hey I have a great idea. In addition to the "Follow Me" button, TPM should add a "Hate Me" button. Then we can all keep a list of people we hate.
October 22, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
They can't even get the "Follow Me" to work reliably. And most people will "Hate" more than they "Follow".
No... let them work out the kinks in this system before moving on.
With their track record, I expect the next software update to be Nov 3, 2008.
October 22, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah ☠enghis, just respond fuck you to one of my posts and I'll write you off as not interested or worth civil dialog as well.
October 22, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck you. Now can we be enemies?
October 22, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not so fast Genghy-boy. You're MY enemy this month.
My God man, you get distracted so easy. FOCUS, willya? Is that too much to ask?
Now. Where were we? Quibbling, right. I believe it was your turn. Please. Proceed. Enemy.
October 22, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get in line dude. There's a quota for Canadians.
October 23, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure that I should tell you this, mostly because I don't want to be responsible for inducing an aneurysm, but there is a guy on television who issues a set of "New Rules" every week. Every week! As if by fiat!
October 22, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see if I can think of an intelligent rational response. Something you would feel is a reasonable counter argument. Oh, yeah, I've got it.
Fuck you
October 22, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
For reference, this is the moment I was referring to. It's my answer to anyone who wants to say who's "real" America and who isn't. If you're say that I'm "anti american", or that the views I've expressed here are, then that's my answer to you, too.
October 22, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, you know what I like?
You are no longer allowed to use the word "hyperbole." Or "irony."
October 22, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you shout "fire" in a crowded theater? There are limits to "free speech".
October 22, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The only limitation to that march, protest, publication is if there is a reasonable expectation that it would incite a riot or violence."
Words have more than one definition.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/riot?o=0
3. violent or wild disorder or confusion.
October 22, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are also libel laws and slander laws.
You're sounding very angry and unpleasant Oceankat. Perhaps a break would help your humor and your rhetoric. I'm allowed to say that, aren't I?
October 22, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better check with DF. He's the one who's making those decisions.
October 22, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about calling an African-American the n-word or a homosexual a faggot. Is that free speech?
October 22, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah actually it is. Protected free speech. Do you think that should be changed? What would you propose, a law with some fine or jail time? I don't have to want to use a word to support freedom of speech. I have never even called Obama supporters obamabots or anything other than Obama supporters here. I don't have to like something or agree with it to protect it under the first amendment right of free speech. If someone posts you are not allowed to say this or that whether he truly means it or its a joke or whatever DF meant it as I am going to register my vehement disagreement. As Molly Ivins has said many times in many different ways:
"I do not like pornography. In fact, I think it probably does harm to people...Probably all those ugly pictures do encourage violence against women. What should be done about it? Well, my answer is: not a god damn thing. The cure for every excess of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech ... I need the First Amendment so that I'll be able to say to people who say things I do not agree with, 'Look, you yellow-bellied son of a bitch, you walk on all fours...you have the mind of an adolescent tyrant"
October 22, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
DF:
As you know many here have thrown around terms like fascism and the like. Not to mention repugs, rethgus, etc. It all contributes to the general din.
While I applaud the general notion of your post, I am a bit reticent to let many here off the hook for doing similar name-calling.
I've been told multiple times here at TPM that people just tend not to think rationally about the issues. Well, they better start. Because there are only two ways of persuading someone to change their mind: logic... and the gun.
And I'm not sure about the gun.
Rec'ed.
October 22, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. I haven't (to my recollection) engaged in that, nor do I condone it. It isn't accurate or helpful. However, I see those that have a nationwide platform as far more damaging than those who comment here. Truly, more than are visible read what is written here and that's to be taken in into account, but it's a far cry from having the laser-focused attention of every major newspaper, radio and television station in the country.
I also think there's a huge difference between the use of "socialist" and the use of "anti-American." It may quite accurate to describe certain aspects of our government as trending towards socialism. It may be quite accurate to describe certain aspects as trending toward fascism. However, using the words to label people, or whole groups of people, is essentially meaningless.
Since 9/11/01, we've heard people use the term "un-American." I find this word to be stupid and meaningless. You never hear anyone say, "That's un-French." "Anti-American" seems quite different to me. I won't accept anyone terming what represents at least half of American mainstream opinion as "anti-American." It's beyond stupid and meaningless. It has a very specific meaning, with a very insidious intent.
October 22, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you're using gun as a metaphor for human emotion then I agree; otherwise, I don't.
October 22, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, hell, no! You are one of my faves here (just look at your "following" list -- and where I am on it ;-)).
But if your post is really an analysis of Palin and McCain specifically -- well, why not come out and say it. ;-)
As far as the term un-American: I heard it in Washington DC in the last month during a meeting. I couldn't help myself and I said:
Kinda took the wind out of everyone's sails.
Just to add some perspective, look here. This used to be comedy 30 years ago. Now you can see it on FNC as a Bill OReilly review.
October 22, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a great rejoinder. It's exactly what I was referring to with "un-American." It's also a great clip. I remember when you posted it back during the primary. Somehow, it seems even more relevant now.
October 22, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
The irony is that despite being in a room full of partisans of both stripes, my comment had more of an effect than similar ones I have made here. And here I am anonymous with nothing to lose. In that room, there were real judgements being made about various folks. As it turned out, both sides respected the comment.
Those clips are scary not only for how relevant they still are today (see the other one below) but that we couldn't have such an "edgy" show on the networks today! (And you can see that "un-American has had a long, rich history.)
October 22, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, here's an effective way of shutting down the opposition.
I might argue that many on TPM practice a similar technique as well. ;-)
October 22, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think I might opt for this ditty.
October 22, 2008 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome. I saw Ray Charles do this live. He, of course, swapped the verses -- something so simple, that made the song his own.
I find it ironic that, given his treatment as a black in America, it was he who could infuse the real promise of the song and make it something far more patriotic than the National Anthem.
Still and all, this is my favorite American song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaI5IRuS2aE&feature=related
which is so good it doesn't even need a Ray Charles to reveal it's greatness. And it was written in response to "Milton Berlin's" song.
My favorite verse:
October 22, 2008 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hell yeah! Woody forever.
October 22, 2008 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
yes... even the moronic can get this. if you can't say 'jew' in the sentence, you can't use 'muslim'.
October 22, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
DF:
Found this gem at Daily Kos. The beauty of knowing history is that you can show people quite clearly what is happening the second time around. If one sees how closely the campaign rhetoric is to McCarthy's (a generally discredited rhetoric now), more and more people will begin to discredit the campaign rhetoric.
As always, I believe that more TPMers should dig into some simple history rather than 1000 headlines from today's media. Perspective is everything.
Here's some additional perspective.
Is it surprising that she could be so eloquent? What a blogger she would have made!
October 22, 2008 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, she would have been labeled a "liberal Hollywood elitist" and relegated to the pages of the Huffington Post. ;)
October 22, 2008 3:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
One last example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_Order_(film)
I highly recommend this documentary, POINT OF ORDER, which can be found on Amazon.
I apologize for the multiple posts but TPM won't let more than 2 links/comment.
October 22, 2008 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, this is also relevant to your blog, too.
October 22, 2008 3:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
DF, I am your fan FOREVER!
You hit all the right notes here. I simply can't add a word. Except:
THANKS. Thanks a million!
October 22, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's be clear here.
Yes, the McCain campaign has stoked unwarranted fear of Obama and intolerable racism.
And it's unfortunate that John McCain hasn't called a major press conference in a "I'm going to suspend my campaign" kind of way and denounced bigotry completely and unequivocally and said that there would be no tolerance for that at his rallies, in his campaign or in his party.
He didn't and that's derelict.
Having said that, when that woman at McCain's rally said that Obama was an Arab, I don't believe John McCain intentionally tried to draw a distinction between an Arab and a decent family man.
I'm pretty sure his thought process was to correct her about Obama not being an Arab. "No mam, no he isn't."
And then proceeded to respond more to the entirety of the woman's statement, which included her fear of Obama "Look he's a decent family man who I happen to have fundamental disagreements with."
That is my analysis of that particular situation--but his overall "who is Obama really" eluding to terrorism, Muslim, anti-American is outright despicable.
October 22, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's true that McCain himself has made certain efforts, the one you highlight in particular, to correct some of this. However, I think that Colin Powell has described a more proper approach.
October 22, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your screed is a creed. Been around in our country since shortly after formation, and not likely to go away any time soon.
http://ashesofourfathers.wordpress.com
October 22, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The comment that this piece is an anti-American rant is such an illogical and circular one that it surprises me you bothered to reply to it at all.
October 22, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
In hindsight, it was completely pointless.
October 22, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
A dialogue between DF and Clearthinker who both seem to have way too much time on their hands is just so interesting.
October 22, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you like to participate too? I'm sure I speak for DF when I say, we'd be happy to make a 3-some.
PS: I see a bunch of other avatars on this site. Including yours.
October 22, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm more interested in having a dialogue with people who want change in this country rather than pissing my time away in ivory tower BS.
October 22, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are a new poster here, so your ignorant remark is forgiven.
October 22, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you God. I am now redeemed.
October 22, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now go in peace.
October 22, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh snap. A Billy Glad clone.
October 22, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi, you must be new here.
October 22, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or just very VERY perceptive.
;-)
October 22, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you suggesting CT is a BG pseud?
October 23, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis, everyone here knows that it is quinn who is the BG pseud. Even you. Remember?
October 23, 2008 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know CT. You are looking awfully.....blue.
October 23, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
;-)
October 23, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
My. I think this went well.
On the bright side, it inspired me to change the planned title of my next post:
"I'm Waaaaaaay More Anti-American Than DF... And Fuck You All If You're So Clueless You Can't See That - An Essay On Free Speech. (Oh Yeah. Chelsea Dissed Michelle. What's THAT About?"
October 22, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno, I kind of like it. Don't change it too much. You've got something here.
October 22, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, it's all about power and access
October 22, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
DF, that urgently needed saying. You said it cleanly, simply and beautifully. I feel clean now.
I could kiss you.
October 22, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's gotta take off that hat first....
October 22, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hat?
October 22, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooooooooooooooooh!
October 22, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink