Jonah Goldberg, whose columns are apparently published in grown-up newspapers for consumption by literate adults, uses today's to expand on a theme that he first toyed with at The Corner last week: Liberals are the real intolerant ones because they make up "Islamophobia" and accuse Real Americans of it.
Here's the lede:Ahh, the old "If you point out bigotry, you're the bigot!" excuse. Gosh, it's been a whole couple of hours since I've seen that one dragged out.
Here's a thought: The 70% of Americans who oppose what amounts to an Islamic Niketown two blocks from ground zero are the real victims of a climate of hate, and anti-Muslim backlash is mostly a myth.First: "an Islamic Niketown"? What ... what does that mean? Will there be shoes for sale? Are Americans objecting to the commercialization of the sacred ground near but not adjacent or particularly related to the former site of the World Trade Center, where a complex of commercial office building are currently being constructed? Couldn't Goldberg, who is Jewish and from New York, have come up with an analogy that actually helped explain to his readers what he is talking about?
The data backing up Goldberg's thesis? FBI hate crime statistics. That's it. There were only 481 hate crimes against Muslims in 2001, "the year a bunch of Muslim terrorists murdered 3,000 Americans in the name of Islam on Sept. 11," Jonah helpfully reminds us. ("Now, that was a hate crime," he adds, because he is a truly execrable columnist.)
If more than half of Americans want to deny American Muslims their constitutional rights, and somehow that isn't Islamophobia, then what is it, exactly? A misunderstanding of the Constitution? A hidden clause in the text in really, really tiny print? A mulligan? What?
I just don't get it. I really don't. I understand the human capacity for self-delusion and justification is nearly infinite, but really? Goldberg is this stupid?
Posts
9 comments:
Well from what I'm reading there are very few who want to deny them the right (in before you post a link TPM told you about, I admit there are those out there who do want to deny). Most of what I'm reading is people saying "They have the right but should they?"
Harry Reid of all people is talking along those lines. If this Mosque is truly about what they say it is and is for educating those who have a misconception of Muslims, etc, then why take such a spiteful stance when asked to move?
I'm for their right to build, its America, I may question their motives but hey it's their right if they choose to. I am however permitted to look at the bigger picture and wonder why things don't add up either. That doesn't make me a bigot to question. I'm also not in favor of the US State Dept paying for this Imam to fly around the world on the tax payers dime when his mouth runs like a sick birds ass spewing out garbage that he cannot statistically or factually back up. I just want a level fair playing field. If there is truly a separation of Church and State then why is the State involved? Why is the State assisting? Is it separation of church and state unless your religion is in the minority?
Special treatment needs to go the way of the do-do. Treat everyone equal and you will eliminate a lot of this BS controversy and then really be able to identify those that are bigots vs those that are just fed up.
"They have a right but should they" is a false dichotomy.
When you say they should not, you are saying that you should deny them the right, period.
It is not "special treatment" to apply the Constitution to everyone, either...but you're trying to turn this into a "end affirmative action" attack for some oddball reason, and the two have nothing to do with either other.
When you say they should not, you are saying that you should deny them the right, period.
Incorrect. There are some people who you may think "They should not reproduce" but am I trying to deny them that right?
How is it not special treatment to only be involved with certain religions and fund reps of those religions to fly around?
Being a proponent of keeping Church and State separated is no where near saying "end affirmative action".
Now are you wanting to discuss ending affirmative action?
What the hell are you talking about? You can think they should not but you then can't say they you support their right in the Constitution to build there.
It's one or the other. Either you can build the place of worship there or you can't. Millions of Americans are trying to hide under the cover of "but should they?"
You can "Not like something" but fully support their right to do it
IE: I do not like what you are saying most of the time, but I am willing to fight to the death for your right TO say it.
I think part of the problem is the assumption that Jonah Goldberg actually believes anything that he writes. I'm sure he does believe in a good deal of it, but even more so than Jonah the Whale is a conservative, he's a pure-bred professional propagandist who knows what side his bread is buttered on. His job is to provide intellectual (*snicker*) cover for his more monosyllabic brethren, and that job doesn't have anything to do with reality. He's in the feel-good business, writing articles that help assuage the occasional pangs of guilt that come with acting like an complete prick, and make his readers feel like true patriots while they shit all over someone else's rights. His job is to justify their basest impulses, not to us, but to themselves. It's just business, baby, and business is good.
The discussion has gone beyond just one jackoff writing something for entertainment to an ignorant assumption that all Americans are bigots and are hiding behind a phrase.
"I do not like what you are saying most of the time, but I am willing to fight to the death for your right TO say it."
i'd imagine so! what the fuck would you do with yourself all day without Z here? maybe a little work? sheesh.
Look Z, I have my own person trolling me about work! Now he just needs to start threatening my job.
Post a Comment