The Author....Mr Elias Dipstick
Posted on 01/10/2015 11:33:58 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
For many politicians and pundits, the Charlie Hebdo tragedy is cause to stoke the fires of terror — and worse.
Here are a few sentences I should not have to write but apparently must, all the same: Taking the life of another human being is an absolutely terrible thing for a person to do. By definition, murder is a crime — perhaps the most heinous one there is. No one should be physically threatened, much less killed, for sharing an opinion. Everyone should have the right to say, write, draw or otherwise express whatever sentiment they’d like without fear of violent reprisal. And anyone who thinks it’s not only appropriate, but righteous, to use violence or the threat of violence in order to silence those they disagree with is as profoundly wrong as they could be.
Some more things that should go without saying: The massacre of 10 journalists (and two law enforcement officers) at the offices of the Paris-based satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo that was carried out this week by Islamic extremists was an obscenity, a crime whose evil could never be adequately expressed with words. No matter how blasphemous, callous, insulting and bigoted the political cartoons produced by Charlie Hebdo over the years may have been, there is nothing — absolutely, positively and undoubtedly nothing — that could ever justify or excuse such fanatical sadism. The men who organized and perpetrated this slaughter were villains of the highest order, opponents of many of humanity’s greatest intellectual breakthroughs and moral achievements.
You can probably tell already, but I resent feeling that the above two paragraphs are necessary. But because I also happen to believe that many of the cartoons produced by Charlie Hebdo were mean-spirited, lazy, unfunny and sometimes baldly racist; because I do not believe that it is necessary for me to promote these cartoons in order to oppose their creators’ murder; and because some of the more influential members of the media and the government are trying to make lockstep support for Charlie Hebdo’s work a new litmus test of one’s belief in human freedom and dignity, they are. Indeed, for far too many people, it is seemingly impossible to hate the cartoon but love its creator. It’s a mindset that reminds me of nothing so much as McCarthyism — and as Matt Yglesias explained the other day in a thoughtful and sensitive post, it really sucks.
When I think of the people insinuating, or outright claiming, that one cannot claim to be a true opponent of radical, eliminationist Islam unless one showers Charlie Hebdo with unqualified praise, there are a few folks — mostly former supporters of the Iraq War — that most immediately come to mind. My colleague Heather Digby Parton has quite skillfully dismantled Jonathan Chait’s latest piece of preening bravado already, but he’s hardly the only person of influence who’s responded to the attack by whipping himself into a frenzy of empty bombast and portending (or is it promoting?) a coming apocalyptic struggle. The New York Times’ Roger Cohen tweeted in response to the news that the “entire free world” must avenge the killers’ victims “ruthlessly.” Ayaan Hirsi Ali predictably agreed and wrote that “the West” must respond to the massacre by ceasing to “appease leaders of Muslim organizations in our societies.”
Even some journalists who present and think of themselves as on the liberal side of the debate over radical Islam could not help but frame the killings as just one small part of a larger, epochal struggle. “The … massacre seems to be the most direct attack on Western ideals by jihadists yet,” wrote the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg. The attacks of September 11, 2001 were grand and nightmarish, he grants. But he argues that “satire and the right to blaspheme are directly responsible for modernity.” The New Yorker’s George Packer, meanwhile, described the attack as “only the latest blows delivered by an ideology that has sought to achieve power through terror for decades,” an ideology that is engaged in “a war against … everything decent in a democratic society.” (Ironically, Packer and Goldberg also both urge us not to alienate non-extremist Muslims by using the kind of clash-of-civilizations language they otherwise engage in.)
Considering this is the rhetoric coming from the folks paid to ruminate and write, you can probably imagine the stuff coming from Congress. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz — who, others have noticed, bears a striking resemblance to “Tail-Gunner Joe” — proclaimed in a press statement that the murders were “a reminder of the global threat we face.” On Facebook, he said that they should be considered “an attack on us all.” For his part, Secretary of State John Kerry tried to thread the needle, claiming that the Charlie Hebdo atrocity was an element of “a larger confrontation” that was “not between civilizations, but between civilization itself and those who are opposed to a civilized world.” And to no one’s surprise, multiple Republican senators argued that what happened in Paris was proof that the NSA not only should not be reformed, but should be granted more sweeping powers instead.
As Yglesias notes in the column I praised earlier, it’s depressingly easy for someone who criticizes this kind of black-and-white, saber-rattling bluster to find themselves in the awkward position of having to assure that they’re not arguing that violent jihadism is not so bad. If one person claims that a threat is all-consuming while another person claims it to be “merely” dire, it’s almost certain that some if not many in the audience will conclude — through either willful obtuseness or simple faulty logic — that their difference of opinion is due to different values. This is the very same intellectual blindspot that McCarthy exploited decades ago in order to portray anyone to the left of Robert Taft — or anyone who was ambivalent about the country’s embrace of a permanent national security state — as either sympathetic to the Soviet Union or dedicated communists themselves. And it’s the same kind of Manichean worldview that, much more recently, helped return U.S. troops to the streets of Baghdad.
Like I said at the beginning of this piece, what a small group of masked men with AK-47s did in Paris this week was a horror, an atrocity, a tragedy and a crime. The pain the victims’ loved ones must be feeling right now is beyond my comprehension. When I try to imagine how the helpless journalists who were murdered on Wednesday must have felt — or when I come across the already iconic photo taken before one of the gunmen killed Ahmed Merabet, a police officer who was himself Muslim — it’s a struggle not to retch. And when I think about how, in my country, the debate over terrorism still demands some of us, if we want a fair hearing, to prove we’re as opposed to slaughter as anyone else, I struggle further still.
Was Barry considered “off-the-charts brilliant,” a “genius,” one of the best law minds in the country, North American debating champion, etc.? I was just a tyke in 1964, so you’ll have to fill me in.
Dear Struggling with it.
McCarthy WAS RIGHT, as we now know.
At least some of us, perhaps you need to go
back to grade school, although I doubt it
would do you much good with Common Core and all.
What?
The Left's endless quest for multiculturalism has, predictably, ended up facing a culture that wants to kill homosexuals and all those who don't believe in and acknowledge their version of religion.
Even the densest among them are starting to figure out this makes no sense.
Clearly, the “new McCarthyism” is the push to tar good people like Ted Cruz with inapplicable labels in order to marginalize them for saying something that is indisputably true.
Rather than make a comment, I will quote my dad. “Consider the source.”
That isn't the only thing that's beyond your comprehension, Elias.
What we conservatives need to win the nomination is to get as many of our Conservative States together for one big primary.
People who have a reputation for brilliance often let it go to their heads and start getting off script. You might well want your opponent to think of himself as "off-the-charts" brilliant. Encouraging overconfidence could save you some trouble coming up with attacks.
For a liberal the global threats are: global climate change, patriarchy, fracking, white privilege and capitalism. There are no such things as Islamic terrorists, just victims of global climate change, patriarchy, fracking, white privilege and capitalism - so Ted must be wrong.
Yes, Joe McCarthy was right, which makes the rest of the piece pointless.
indeed, I apologize
Yes, he was...and the only thing that has approached "McCarthyism" since has been the "blacklisting" of conservatives/conservative thought by those who have controlled hollywood/media/academia for all the decades since.
Hypocrites of the first order...what else is new.
What they felt was hopeless. But I'm sure that everyone of them was thinking: "God, I wish I had a gun!"
You might want to do a search for "Estrogen in the water supply". Supposedly, we are drowning in the stuff. Women on birth control pills excrete it into the sewage system. Water treatment plants have no way to remove it.
Plus, apparently, other chemicals that make their way into the food/water supply act as synthetic estrogens.
So, I guess the answer to your questions is "yes".
And that is why Obama is going after the Washington Redskins?
The left wants to bury its head in the sand and pretend that Islam is something other than Islam, so they drag up the McCarthy boogieman to demonize enlightened people who understand that Islam is inherently evil and not to be trusted or considered compatible with the values of Western civilization. To justify their buried head position, leftists divide Muslims into categories they can deal with, like moderate, radical, fanatical, fundamental, terrorists, peaceful..., but they can’t tell us how we can know which is which, or how any given Muslim will act at a given time, because Islam makes that unknowable.
The more obvious it becomes that Islam doesn’t mix with Western civilization, the more radical the left will become in its defense of Islam, and the more fanatical they will get in their persecution of enlightened, intelligent people who point out the obvious faults of Islam.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.