Of all the recent conservative fantasies, the idea of Joe the Plumber as the voice of conservative American media is the least surprising. That's because it is a persistent belief among many on the Right that training is unnecessary, that education is for elitists, and that wishing hard enough for something can supersede those things.
Salaam writes: Brandon Friedman reports on some of the many exhibits that the US rightwing is departing reality into fake journalism, pro-torture television plots, and fake military units - rather than face up to the failure of their movement. I'm excerpting one of his examples. Follow the link after excerpt for the whole piece.
Brandon Friedman writes: Whereas most of America sees a largely incoherent plumber from Ohio wandering cluelessly around Israel with a microphone, conservatives are witnessing the reincarnation of Ernie Pyle before their very eyes. Of course, if you've heard the guy open his mouth, you know this is, indeed, fantasy. But it had to be done. When the bad news delivered by the likes of Nic Robertson, Michael Ware, and Christiane Amanpour reached a crescendo for conservatives toward the end of October, they decided to invent their own reporter. In their own minds, they pined for one who wouldn't challenge their long-held beliefs that Arabs are Muslims and Muslims are bad, that Saddam did 9/11, and that there was no way a man named Barack Hussein Obama could ever be elected as President of the United States.
That trailblazing, fearless reporter for truth became Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher--a man who, as soon as he got there, proclaimed "the media should be abolished from reporting."
I have to say, though, that of all the recent conservative fantasies, the idea of Joe the Plumber as the voice of conservative American media is the least surprising. That's because it is a persistent belief among many on the Right that training is unnecessary, that education is for elitists, and that wishing hard enough for something can supersede those things.
And I'm okay with all this. To me, it's evolution. By retreating so deeply into this fantasy world of strike forces, pro-torture heroes, and swashbuckling, allied journalists, we're witnessing a self-induced thinning of the herd by conservatives. They're actively choosing not to participate in the reality that is present-day America, instead opting to fall back on the comforting, familiar images of handymen and handsome actors on their television sets.
So much the better for the country. We'll tackle real problems head on--with real solutions starting next Tuesday. And we will progress without them.
Salaam writes: Translation on the mosque reference: 'If only we'd been even more Islamophobic.' I've seen extreme people do this before in the face of failure - they conclude that the reason for failure is that they weren't extreme enough (!) which ignites a negative feedback loop for bad behavior getting worse.
John Derbyshire at National Review Online writes:
Just watched Wonder Boy's speech. Hmph. "Callused hands?" When did he ever have callused hands?
All right, I'm sour. The most liberal member of the U.S. Senate! And that shakedown-artist of a wife, with the permanent frown! And Joe Biden! ...
I'm sour about the GOP too. What did it all get us, those 8 years of pandering and spending? If GWB had turned his face against new entitlements, closed the borders, deported the illegals, held the line on calls to loosen mortgage-lending standards, starved the Department of Education, and declined those invitations to mosque functions, would the GOP be in any worse shape now?
What won this election was the packaging skills of David Axelrod, the swooning complicity of the media, the ruthless opportunism of Barack Obama, and the unprincipled thuggishness of his supporters.
What lost this election was the cloth-eared cluelessness of George W. Bush, the timid squeamishness of John McCain, and the deep lack of interest in conservative principles among Republican primary voters.
Sour? You bet I'm sour. Where was conservatism in this election? Where was restraint in government? Where was national sovereignty? Where was liberty? Where was self-support? And where are those things now?
From Haaretz: Attorney General Meni Mazuz on Sunday called for an incitement investigation against right wing activists, hours after rioting by settlers in the West Bank that included the desecration of headstones at a Muslim cemetery near Kiryat Arba.
During the rioting, settlers hurled abuse at security forces personnel, and called for a "revenge attack" against them in response to the evacuation of an illegal outpost built by Right-wing activist Noam Federman near Kiryat Arba.
"We hope they will be defeated by their enemies, that they will all be [kidnapped IDF soldier] Gilad Shalit, that they will all be killed and all slaughtered because this is what they deserve," they said.
Generals pine for attack on Iran and spout tropes from the 'Obsession' movie: 'people must understand the danger of radical Islam and the seriousness of global jihad... We believe it is 1938 and everyone is going on, in denial.'
Salaam writes: Weirdest foreign policy initiative of retired US military personnel since Aaron Burr went to Mexico.
Jim Lobe at Lobelog.com writes: Check out a bizarre story in the current issue of The Forward about a U.S. group called "Stand Up America" led by two retired U.S. generals who have retained a U.S. attorney to represent former Israeli defense minister Gen. Shaul Mofaz in any legal effort to reverse his defeat last month in the Kadima primary election by Tzipi Livni. Mofaz, of course, represents the right wing of the centrist party, although, historically, his views are virtually indistinguishable from Netanyahu's, Mofaz' former mentor in Likud. (It was Mofaz whose threats against Iran last spring contributed substantially to the biggest daily spike in the global price of oil in its historic rise through the summer.)
The two generals are Thomas McInerney and Paul Vallely who have long advocated a military attack on Iran and have been members of the Iraq Policy Committee, a group that has lobbied hard (and so far unsuccessfully) for taking the cultish Mujahadin-e-Khalq (MeK) off the State Department's terrorism and for providing it with loads of assistance as leader of the "democratic opposition" to the theocracy. Stand Up America, according to McInerny, is to "protect America and let people understand the danger of radical Islam and the seriousness of global jihad."
"We do not want a government in Israel that will support appeasement," McInerney told The Forward. "...We believe it is 1938 and everyone is going on, in denial."
Remember when so many conservative Muslims voted for George Bush in 2000, probably partially out of contempt for the sexual exploits of Bill Clinton? In what they are calling a "hypocrisy bombshell", today SiriusXM radio host Michelangelo Signorile and DC-based LGBT activist Mike Rogers jointly revealed that Mark Buse, John McCain's chief of staff, is a gay man. Video above is from a former boyfriend of Mark Buse.
Salaam writes: I've recently posted about the Haredi here; Walid Shoebat here and here; apocalyptic thinking among Jewish extremists here; and the Obsession movie here.
Inter Press Service news agency reports:
WASHINGTON, Sep 19 (IPS) - Millions of voters in U.S. states crucial to this fall's presidential election received DVD copies of a controversial documentary film as advertising inserts in their morning newspapers over the past week, with more expected to be sent out over the upcoming weekend.
The 2006 film, "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West", which has been accused by critics of encouraging Islamophobia, was reportedly delivered, or slated for delivery this weekend, into tens of millions of households in states such as Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Colorado, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Missouri and other "swing states" that don't vote consistently for either party and usually decide elections.
....
Among the film's stable of experts are "reformed" Palestinian Liberation Organisation terrorist and convert to evangelical Christianity Walid Shoebat, self-described terrorism expert Stephen Emerson, and another evangelical convert from Islam named Noni Darwish who runs a website called Arabs for Israel.
An investigation by IPS last year revealed that the production and promotion of "Obsession" was tied to several right-wing Zionist groups in the U.S. and Israel. [The film was produced by The Clarion Fund. Head of The Clarion Fund] Raphael Shore's brother, Rabbi Ephraim Shore, heads up the Israeli group Aish Hatorah, which helped form HonestReporting, an organisation which, the IPS investigation revealed, had ties to the film despite the apparent denials of the relationship. Story here.
An organization called Jewish Socialists' Group, located in the UK, published an expose on Aish Hatorah in 2006.
Some excerpts (link beneath):
The breezy prose on Aish HaTorah's website, with its tales of personal growth and acts of kindness, suggests an organisation that is liberal and broadminded, with a dash of Californian self-help therapy. But the values that guide Aish are not those of Liberal, Reform, or even Modern Orthodox Judaism. Its credo is that of the ultra-Orthodox Haredi movement. Aish HaTorah (Fire of the Torah) insists on the inerrant truth of the Bible, which it believes was dictated by God to Moses.
However, Aish differs from traditional Haredi groups in three ways. Firstly, its outreach work, which aims to convert secular Jews to Orthodoxy, is its overriding priority, not merely a spin-off. Orthodox converts - or ba'alei teshuvah (those who have repented) - make up most of its membership, and its yeshiva programs combine traditional Talmudic studies with intensive training in outreach and leadership skills.
Secondly, it has hitched its social conservatism to an aggressively neoconservative stance on the Middle East. Its donors and well-wishers may include liberals and conservatives, but the political voices on its website extend from the right to the far right: Benjamin Netanyahu, Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, Alan Dershowitz, Dore Gold, Natan Sharansky, Melanie Phillips and Charles Krauthammer.
....
Like the evangelical Protestant Alpha Course and Catholic Opus Dei, Aish has a particular penchant for the young and affluent, and restricts many of its activities to 'YJPs' - Young Jewish Professionals. New Yorkers can join the Aish MBA Community, a 'group of Jewish business leaders and students who are exploring their heritage while advancing their business acumen,' while London professionals can attend Aish in the City lunchtime meetings, hosted by media and telecoms corporation IDT.
Jewish Aish Hatorah 'survivors' and their family members call it a cult
Another parent wrote: 'Despite Aish's modern marketing methods, and what Rabbi Schiff claims... in reality Aish has no regard for the 21st century. It takes people born Jewish and turns them into extreme Jews, with no thought for their families. Aish would argue that its mission is to stop assimilation, but the reality is that it creates fanatical Jews, with little regard for the fallout effect.'
Similar views are expressed by a mother on Rick Ross's cult-watch website: 'Although I am resigned to my son choosing a very different lifestyle than mine, I feel it is a loss. My child can never travel with me, eat in my home - or really be a part of the rest of our family and friends. The hardest part is now I know that this is not what my son actually planned for himself, but rather the direct result of how he was influenced through what began as a vacation trip to Israel.'
In his 2002 paper for the Jewish Journal of Sociology, Aaron Tapper concluded that Aish exhibited each of the characteristics of a new religious movement (a term he preferred to 'cult'). He defined these characteristics as:
a charismatic leader; submission to authority; a rigid ideology, including a fundamentalist approach to theology; a promotion of apocalyptic beliefs; a communal lifestyle; isolation from one's family; hate and/or fear of outsiders; active missionary work, including attempts to convert outsiders to its way of religious life; and an excessive focus on fundraising.
Noting the contrast between the organisation's public and private face he added:
Aish HaTorah is much more open and candid about its ultra-Orthodox perspective in the environment of its yeshiva, whereas in other venues - such as in its outreach centers and the programmes offered there - Aish HaTorah advertises itself as a pluralistic, all-inclusive environment.
Aish warms to US Christianist political objectives:
Aish is less reticent about sharing ground with the Christian fringes in its enthusiasm for intelligent design - the concept that evolution is not a natural process but is directed by a supernatural 'designer'. Most other Jewish organisations, left and right, religious and secular, see it for what it is: an attempt by a Christian fundamentalist organisation, the Discovery Institute (not linked to Aish's Discovery seminars), to impose a creationist agenda on US schools and institutions - an agenda that is spreading to Britain and other countries.
But Aish is a keen proponent. An article on its website, 'Rationality vs Randomness', by nuclear physicist and Discovery lecturer Gerald Schroeder, concludes: 'randomness cannot have been the driving force behind the success of life. Our understanding of statistics and molecular biology clearly supports the notion that there must have been a direction and a Director behind the success of life.'
When a judge ruled against forcing high school science teachers to teach intelligent design in Dover, Pennsylvania, the Anti-Defamation League, showing uncharacteristic insight, stated: 'For Jews and other religious minorities, it's an important issue because the religious freedom we have through the separation of church and state has allowed us to flourish as communities and has enabled us to be equal partners in this country.'
Aish takes a different view. One website contributor writes: 'Jewish leaders should stop worshipping at the wall separating church and state, and stop trying to be more pious about that separation than the US Supreme Court. Let them focus their energies instead on the preservation of a 3,500-year tradition.'
Aish enthusiastic about neoconservatism/Israeli rightwing nationalism
Aish shows no such vacillation in its stance on the Middle East. Despite traditional Haredi antipathy towards Zionism, Aish has adopted a right-wing brand of Israeli nationalism that mostly manages to avoid the Z-word. Many articles on its website are reproduced from American conservative journals such as The Weekly Standard and National Review, and the themes are depressingly familiar: the Palestinians are solely to blame for their predicament; the territories are 'disputed', not occupied; the Gaza pullout is a reward for terror; the illegal settlers are heroes and patriots.
According to its statement of policy, 'Aish is an apolitical organization, takes no political positions, and endorses no parties or candidates.' Some of its articles carry additional disclaimers such as 'Aish.com is non-political, and the ideas expressed here are those of the author alone.' Yet web visitors will search in vain for counterbalancing views.
A section of Aish HaTorah's website is devoted to Jerusalem's spiritual and historical importance for Jews - and why it is of less significance for Muslims. Aish's Old City yeshiva remains the focus of its activities, and it is currently building a spectacular outreach centre opposite the Western Wall, on land sold to it by the Israeli government for the token price of one shekel. Aish supporters are invited to donate to a $40 million fund to help build and equip the high-tech centre. Its highlight will be the 'state-of-the-art Kirk Douglas Presentation Theater' which features a '15-minute multi-media extravaganza that will put Aish HaTorah on every tourist itinerary'.
In 2001 Aish set up two pro-Israel lobbying groups. Hasbara Fellowships, launched jointly with Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, trains university students to be 'effective pro-Israel activists on their campuses', and supplies them with speakers and resources. But it has stepped beyond mere 'advocacy' to defend Israel's expansion of West Bank settlements, even arguing that such 'activity may be a stimulus to peace because it forced the Palestinians and other Arabs to reconsider the view that time is on their side'. Like Aish, it plays host to the controversial right-wing polemicist Daniel Pipes, who argues that Israel 'must achieve a comprehensive military victory over the Palestinians'.
New movement afoot to launch investigations into extent of US domestic surveillance:
A prime area of inquiry for a sweeping new investigation would be the Bush administration's alleged use of a top-secret database to guide its domestic surveillance. Dating back to the 1980s and known to government insiders as "Main Core," the database reportedly collects and stores -- without warrants or court orders -- the names and detailed data of Americans considered to be threats to national security.
According to several former U.S. government officials with extensive knowledge of intelligence operations, Main Core in its current incarnation apparently contains a vast amount of personal data on Americans, including NSA intercepts of bank and credit card transactions and the results of surveillance efforts by the FBI, the CIA and other agencies. One former intelligence official described Main Core as "an emergency internal security database system" designed for use by the military in the event of a national catastrophe, a suspension of the Constitution or the imposition of martial law. Its name, he says, is derived from the fact that it contains "copies of the 'main core' or essence of each item of intelligence information on Americans produced by the FBI and the other agencies of the U.S. intelligence community."
....
Main Core may be the contemporary incarnation of a government watch list system that was part of a highly classified "Continuity of Government" program created by the Reagan administration to keep the U.S. government functioning in the event of a nuclear attack. Under a 1982 presidential directive, the outbreak of war could trigger the proclamation of martial law nationwide, giving the military the authority to use its domestic database to round up citizens and residents considered to be threats to national security. The emergency measures for domestic security were to be carried out by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Army.
In the late 1980s, reports about a domestic database linked to FEMA and the Continuity of Government program began to appear in the press. For example, in 1986 the Austin American-Statesman uncovered evidence of a large database that authorities were proposing to use to intern Latino dissidents and refugees during a national emergency that might follow a potential U.S. invasion of Nicaragua.
Somehow I get the feeling that alot of people who believe in the need for a legitimate opposition party, or better yet true progressive leadership, have probably wound up on that list. If you're not on the list, you aren't trying hard enough to throw out the destructive radicals of the Republican party.
The Democratic Party is no panacea, but it is a good vehicle for the purpose of true progressive reform in the US if we can throw over the Republican-enabling "moderate" Democrats.
Here's a good website to support Democrats who will be more reliable opponents of the criminal Republican state than many that are in office now.
"Government is not the solution to our problem," President Reagan famously declared in his inaugural address in 1981. "Government is the problem."
Many conservatives have gone far beyond that. Their traditional embrace of small government has been replaced with outright disdain for it. Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, doesn't just want to shrink government. To use his words, he wants government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."
Once in power, E. coli conservatives shrink government by hamstringing it. They weaken rules that protect people, slash the budgets of consumer agencies and appoint industry friends to oversight commissions. The result: Some government regulatory agencies that we trust to protect us have shrunk to insignificance or serve private industry rather than consumers. [Emphasis added]
