DOWNLOADS: (170)

PLAYS: (1197)

Embed

I happened to catch this on Viewpoint with Eliot Spritzer last night, and I thought it was really powerful. Zafar is right: What, exactly, do American Muslims have to do before they're American "enough"?

Harris Zafar, national spokesperson for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA, and “Viewpoint” host Eliot Spitzer discuss the possibility that the gunman behind the mass shooting at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis., actually intended to target Muslims and whether a rise in anti-Muslim sentiment is linked to political rhetoric.

“The Republican primaries were ridden with such incidents where Mr. Santorum, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann repeatedly spread this message of fear of Muslims, fear of Shariah law,” Zafar says. “It’s really given us this impression that we’re not American enough. No matter how many generations we’ve been here, we’re just not American enough.”

We've been saying for a long time that the right-wing media machine, led particularly by Fox News, has become an echo chamber for hate speech from the far right. At places like Fox, the virulent language found on the racist and extremist right has been largely toned down, but the underlying sentiments, not to mention the larger meta-narrative about politics remains intact. And this has been acutely the case in recent years regarding Latinos and Muslims.

Well, thanks to a scientific study from UCLA's Chicano Research Center, there's now some specific evidence that substantiates all this:

This study analyzes how social networks that form around the hosts of commercial talk radio shows can propagate messages targeting vulnerable groups. Working with recorded broadcasts from five shows gathered over a six-week period, involving 102 scheduled guests and covering 88 topics, researchers determined hosts’ and guests’ ideological alignment on the topics discussed most frequently—including immigration and terrorism—through a content analysis of on-air statements and website content. The findings reveal that the hosts promoted an insular discourse that focused on, for example, anti-immigration, anti-Islam, and pro-Tea Party positions and that this discourse found repetition and amplification through social media. Of the 21 guests who appeared more than once, media personalities (57 percent) and political figures (19 percent) accounted for 76 percent. Fox News accounted for nearly one-fourth (24 percent) of appearances by guests representing an organization. Political figures accounted for 27 percent of all guests, and the Republican Party and the Tea Party accounted for 93 percent and 89 percent, respectively, of all political figures appearing on the shows. Eighty-nine percent of the scheduled guests were white, and 81 percent were male.

The study's conclusions make the key point:

Continue reading »

There's a well-known truism that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Unwilling to give up his irrational hate of Muslims or the uncomfortable parallels to Senator Joe McCarthy's hearings of the 50s, Rep Peter King is holding hearings beginning Monday on the "threat" of terrorism stemming from Muslim-Americans.

Rep. Peter King of New York defended on Sunday a congressional hearing he will hold this week on the threat of homegrown Islamic terrorism that focuses on Muslim-Americans, calling it an issue "which is not being talked about publicly" and needs to be.

"People in this country are being self-radicalized, whether it's Major Hasan or whether it's Shahzad or whether it was Zazi in New York," King said on CNN's "State of the Union." "These were all people who were identifying, in one way or another, with al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. So it's an international movement with elements here in the United States."

King was referring to Army Major Nidal Malik Hassan, a military psychiatrist whose shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009 claimed 13 lives; Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan-born man living in Colorado charged in 2009 with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction; and Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-born man living in suburban Connecticut, whose attempt to blow up a bomb in Times Square last June was foiled.

I have no problem whatsoever with the notion of having a hearing on the threats of domestic terrorism, but for cryin' out loud, how intellectually dishonest of King to focus on one religious group and ignore the fact that the vast majority of domestic terrorism comes not from radicalized Muslim-Americans but from radicalized right wingnuts.

Keith Ellison does a yeoman's job trying to temper King's hate-on for Muslims, but this kind of wingnuttery requires a statement from the White House too. So Sunday, we got it:

We have a choice. We can choose to send a message to certain Americans that they are somehow “less American” because of their faith or how they look; that we see their entire community as a potential threat—as we’ve seen in several inexcusable incidents in recent weeks across the country that were captured on video. Well, those incidents do not represent America. And if we make that choice, we risk feeding the very feelings of disenchantment that may push some members of that community to violent extremism.

Or, we can make another choice. We can send the message that we’re all Americans. That’s the message that the President conveyed last summer when he was discussing Muslim Americans serving in our military and the need to honor their service. “Part of honoring their service, he said, “is making sure that they understand that we don’t differentiate between them and us. It’s just us.”

Informed by what we know, several basic principles must guide us in what we do—as individuals, as communities and as a country. We must resolve not to label someone as an extremist simply because of their opposition to the policies of the U.S. government or their strong religious beliefs. Under our Constitution, we have the freedom to speak our minds. And we have the right to practice our faiths freely knowing that the government should neither promote nor hinder any one religion over the other.

As such, we must resolve to protect the rights and civil liberties of every American. That’s why, under President Obama, the civil rights division at the Justice Department is devoting new energy and effort to its founding mission—protecting civil rights. It’s why we are vigorously enforcing new hate crimes laws. And it’s why even as we do everything in our power to protect the American people from terrorist attacks, we’re also doing everything in our power to uphold civil liberties.

We must resolve that, in our determination to protect our nation, we will not stigmatize or demonize entire communities because of the actions of a few. In the United States of America, we don’t practice guilt by association. And let’s remember that just as violence and extremism are not unique to any one faith, the responsibility to oppose ignorance and violence rests with us all.

In the wake of terrorist attacks, instead of condemning whole communities, we need to join with those communities to help them protect themselves as well. And if one faith community faces intimidation, we need to come together across faiths, as happened several years ago here at the ADAMS Center, when Christian and Jewish leaders literally stood guard overnight to protect this center from vandalism. You showed us the true meaning of e pluribus unum—out of many, one.

Especially in light of recent events, we need to see the good things around us. This is an all-too-rare moment of common humanity, but it's a ray of hope:

Egypt’s majority Muslim population stuck to its word Thursday night. What had been a promise of solidarity to the weary Coptic community, was honoured, when thousands of Muslims showed up at Coptic Christmas eve mass services in churches around the country and at candlelight vigils held outside.

From the well-known to the unknown, Muslims had offered their bodies as “human shields” for last night’s mass, making a pledge to collectively fight the threat of Islamic militants and towards an Egypt free from sectarian strife.

“We either live together, or we die together,” was the sloganeering genius of Mohamed El-Sawy, a Muslim arts tycoon whose cultural centre distributed flyers at churches in Cairo Thursday night, and who has been credited with first floating the “human shield” idea.

Among those shields were movie stars Adel Imam and Yousra, popular preacher Amr Khaled, the two sons of President Hosni Mubarak, and thousands of citizens who have said they consider the attack one on Egypt as a whole.

“This is not about us and them,” said Dalia Mustafa, a student who attended mass at Virgin Mary Church on Maraashly. “We are one. This was an attack on Egypt as a whole, and I am standing with the Copts because the only way things will change in this country is if we come together.”

In the days following the brutal attack on Saints Church in Alexandria, which left 21 dead on New Year’ eve, solidarity between Muslims and Copts has seen an unprecedented peak. Millions of Egyptians changed their Facebook profile pictures to the image of a cross within a crescent – the symbol of an “Egypt for All”. Around the city, banners went up calling for unity, and depicting mosques and churches, crosses and crescents, together as one.

DOWNLOADS: (3432)

PLAYS: (1901)

Embed

Sarah Palin went all Pam Geller on us the other night with Greta Van Susteren on Fox:

Palin: Ya know, it sounds cliched to say the president is disconnected from the American people on this issue, but how else do you describe it? He just doesn't get it -- that this is an insensitive move on the part of those Muslims who want to build that mosque in this location, that feels like a stab in the heart of, collectively, Americans who still have that lingering pain from 9/11.

Oh please. These drama queens on the right need to explain to us just who among the survivors of the 9/11 attacks -- let alone those right-wing bedwetters traumatized by repeated viewing of the attacks -- sees someone expressing their religion freely as an attack on them.

We know, they're out there (right, Pam?), but then someone needs to explain why we need to pay any attention to -- let alone make important decisions based on their input -- these fundamentally irrational hysteria-mongers.

DOWNLOADS: (1637)

PLAYS: (2896)

Embed

John Cornyn is the gift that keeps on giving. In one day, he's managed to generate two delicious, juicy, sound bites of stupid. Beginning with his appearance on Fox News, where he tossed the First Amendment in the trash for the sound bite:

This is not about freedom of religion. I do think it's unwise to build a mosque in the site where 3,000 Americans lost their lives as the result of a terrorist attack.

My, how subtle. Carefully framed so that Muslim = terrorist to stoke up the fear. But beyond that, what happened to conservatives' deep and abiding respect for the Constitution?

I'll call this one what it is: A flip-flop. They were for the Constitution before they were against it, and they were for freedom of religion before they were against it, too -- at least, for Muslims. Christians, evidently, are a class unto themselves.

But wait! There's more.

DOWNLOADS: (1096)

PLAYS: (1360)

Embed

Cornyn is desperately trying to put lipstick on a pig with his lukewarm Tea Party endorsements. This one made me laugh out loud.

Look, I think, you know, these races are going to be decided based on how people feel about the economy, how they feel about spending and debt. In Nevada, for example, 14.2 percent unemployment, 70 percent of the home mortgages are under water. If you like the way things are going in Nevada, I suppose that people will vote for Harry Reid. If they don't, then I think they have a good alternative in Sharron Angle.

Because outright crazy is good for the economy? Just to reiterate, Sharron Angle thinks Social Security should be privatized like Chile's, and she bases her idea on the fear foundation that Social Security is going broke, which it's not. Her MO is to do nothing, vote No on everything, and tell us all we're a bunch of deadbeats for wanting to work for a living wage. She advocates armed insurrection, thinks abortion should be outlawed even in the case of rape or incest, and fantasizes about coked-up stimulus monkeys.

Yup, just what Nevada needs.

And then, just as a final parting gift, this little gem.

But we're going to try to get as many Republicans because we think that will force President Obama to the middle, for example, when President Clinton had a Republican Congress. And we think that would be a good thing for the country, forcing things back toward the middle instead of the extreme policies that we've seen coming out of Washington.

Forced to the middle? Really? I'm almost afraid to imagine what Cornyn's idea of the middle is.

Seeing Cornyn dance around his own party's hard turn right, divisive tactics, and takeover by the John Birch society is entertaining, but it also should unwind the constant drumbeat that Republicans are going to sweep in and win large majorities in November. The deep divides and constant shark-jumping does not inspire confidence in their policies, their candidates, or their message.

I would advise them not to count their votes before they're cast, even if they do use voting machines.

DOWNLOADS: (1587)

PLAYS: (2098)

Embed

Wingnut Extraordinaire Pam Geller of Atlas Wanks has been all over the TV networks the past couple of weeks, telling anyone who'll listen why New York City should deny a moderate Islamic group the right to build a mosque near the site of the 9/11 attacks.

Geller: This is patently untrue. I love Muslims. The Ground Zero mosque is an offensive insult, it's a stab in the eye. I have no problem with mosques across the city. But we're talking about history, and Islamic history, of building triumphal mosques on the cherished sites of conquered lands.

Sooooo ... does Geller actually think that New York City is a land conquered by Muslims?

She continues on with a rant describing the Muslims building the mosque as dangerous, conniving jihadis and "tied to terrorists" -- though of course her evidence for that is wafer-thin.

But really, does Pam Geller "love" Muslims? I suppose -- in the same way a dog loves a rag doll he's chewed to shreds, or a sadist adores the whipping boy chained up down in his dungeon.

After all, we're talking about someone who regularly describes Muslims as "the enemy" of America (particularly when President Obama refuses to go down that road). Someone who believes it's a simple truth that "moderate Islam does not exist".

The other day, another TV anchor -- this time from Russia TV -- asked Geller some far more difficult questions, directly challenging her disingenuous attempts to claim she "loves" Muslims:

DOWNLOADS: (1003)

PLAYS: (8582)

Embed

Geller's squirming was well earned ...

Corrente: The Bender of an Era: Krugman sees the oncoming train

Liberal Values: Rand Paul opposes mine safety rules

The Impolitic: GOP beats down Harry again

The Reality-Based Community: Knowledge is hard; is prejudice better?

The Root: Breitbart joins tea party rally in Philadelphia

HOLY CRAP: The Pee Pee Miracle...Catholic church joins radical Muslims...Psychoanalyzing a deity...These little town blues...Pat Robertson’s women warriors...Postcards from God...When God's busy with politics...Humanity Ebbs...Gingrich and God....Standing up for Christianity...The final apostasy...

The idea of a mosque being built at Ground Zero has the right foaming at the mouth. The very idea! How could Muslims be so insensitive as to try to put their 7th Century religion in view of the greatest American tragedy? Everyone from Newt Gingrich to Sarah Palin to Republican hopefuls are clamoring to denounce the Cordoba House. And late last week, the Anti-Defamation League added their voice too:

We regard freedom of religion as a cornerstone of the American democracy, and that freedom must include the right of all Americans – Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other faiths – to build community centers and houses of worship.

We categorically reject appeals to bigotry on the basis of religion, and condemn those whose opposition to this proposed Islamic Center is a manifestation of such bigotry.

The controversy which has emerged regarding the building of an Islamic Center at this location is counterproductive to the healing process. Therefore, under these unique circumstances, we believe the City of New York would be better served if an alternative location could be found.

But....

There are many emotions and few facts swirling around this argument.

First and foremost, the Cordoba House is not a mosque as Muslims generally use the term. There will be no minarets, no calls to prayer. It is a cultural center, which will include a prayer room. From their website:

This proposed project is about promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture. Cordoba House will provide a place where individuals, regardless of their backgrounds, will find a center of learning, art and culture; and most importantly, a center guided by Islamic values in their truest form - compassion, generosity, and respect for all.

The site will contain tremendous amounts of resources that otherwise would not exist in Lower Manhattan; a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores, restaurants - all these services would form a cultural nexus for a region of New York City that, as it continues to grow, requires the sort of hub that Cordoba House will provide.

That sounds really insensitive, doesn't it? The Cordoba House is planned along the same lines as the nearby 92nd St Y, which offers Jewish cultural events through out the year.

Secondly, it's not at Ground Zero. It's two blocks away and the thirteen story building will be dwarfed by the 105 story Freedom Tower and 9/11 Memorial and Museum that are actually being built at Ground Zero.

Thirdly, and it's embarrassing to see Americans once again championing ignorance, but Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the chairman of the Cordoba House, is a Sufi. Al Qaeda is Sunni (actually, more accurately Wahabi) and consider Sufis apostates. Al Qaeda has less tolerance for Imam Rauf than Sarah Palin, as frightening as that is to consider.

And finally, as much as it pains me to have to point out something so obvious, it was not just Christians and Jews who died on 9/11, any more than it was not just Americans. And the Muslims who live and wish to gather in New York at the Cordoba House are more than likely Americans. You know, with their Constitutionally-protected right to practice the faith of their choice. Do they not deserve a chance to heal from this tragedy as well? They must face the irrational bigotry of people like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich appealing to the lizard brains of their neighbors. The scars they have carried and the burden and suspicion they must face daily because of some fringe extremists in a faith 1.5 billion strong is a little like holding every American Christian as suspect because of the acts of Fred Phelps.

Would that these Republicans remember that.

DOWNLOADS: (1191)

PLAYS: (1278)

Embed

Bill O'Reilly's been on a tear lately in pushing the notion that Islam itself is the Enemy of America. Last night -- while sneering that "the media" gave Muslims a break by not blaming Islam for the failed Times Square bombing attempt -- he declared that there are "millions of jihadists" out there

"Millions of them!" he shouted.

Well, no doubt there are large numbers of radical Islamic jihadists -- and more every time O'Reilly opens his mouth on the subject. But millions? I don't know of any expert on the subject who would put the numbers that high.

This continues a recent theme for O'Reilly of demonizing Islam generally. The night before, he had this segment with Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes:

DOWNLOADS: (927)

PLAYS: (1286)

Embed

O'Reilly: Why is it important? The goal of the United States should be to protect its citizens, No. 1, and to defeat the enemy, No. 2. Why is it important to pinpoint that it's Islam? Why is that?

Crowley: Because when you have this inability to call the enemy what it is, then there's no hope of defeating that enemy.

O'Reilly added that "I wanna name Islam", but wasn't sure it would do any good.

Alan Colmes brought some sanity to the discussion by pointing out that Islamic fundamentalist radicals are no more representative of Islam than the Hutaree Christian Militia are representative of Christianity.

Of course, this blew the minds of O'Reilly and Crowley, who promptly short-circuited and dismissed Colmes as "babbling".

What O'Reilly and Crowley can't seem to understand is that it's not only a crude, bigoted smear to declare "Islam" the Enemy, it flies in the face of our many Islamic allies who play critical roles in the "war on terror" (e.g., Turkey and Pakistan).

Oddly enough, a visibly angry Crowley wraps up by explaining: "We're not in a war against a religion, but we are in a war against terrorists who are acting in the name of Islam."

Um, yeah. And that would differ from what Obama has said exactly how?

We are at war. We are at war against al Qaeda, a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, and that is plotting to strike us again. And we will do whatever it takes to defeat them.

And we've made progress. Al Qaeda's leadership is hunkered down. We have worked closely with partners, including Yemen, to inflict major blows against al Qaeda leaders. And we have disrupted plots at home and abroad, and saved American lives.

And we know that the vast majority of Muslims reject al Qaeda. But it is clear that al Qaeda increasingly seeks to recruit individuals without known terrorist affiliations not just in the Middle East, but in Africa and other places, to do their bidding. That's why I've directed my national security team to develop a strategy that addresses the unique challenges posed by lone recruits. And that's why we must communicate clearly to Muslims around the world that al Qaeda offers nothing except a bankrupt vision of misery and death –- including the murder of fellow Muslims –- while the United States stands with those who seek justice and progress.