Posts Tagged ‘Attackerman’

American hatred

Thursday, August 19th, 2010

Another mikeyhemlok article from the “Attackerman” blog: “Getting Ugly Out There“:

I’m getting increasingly uncomfortable with where we find ourselves going. It’s moving quickly past mere reprehensible politics, fueling itself with more vitriol, more lies, more fear and more hatred, taking us all too fast to a place that, as an American, I believed was behind us for good …

So I look around, at all the racial and ethnic hatred spewing forth from every corner, and I wonder where we can go from here. Is there a path back from all this, or have we passed some kind of tipping point from which there is no return? Will it all fade away after November, or have we lit the fuse and now stand helpless, perhaps even regretful, as we await the inevitable explosion? This all seems like such a very, very bad idea. As the rhetoric gets uglier, the hatred more explicit, it can only be a matter of time before somebody feels threatened enough to push back, and then somebody is going to die. And at that moment, when, shocked into silence, we all hesitate and draw a collective breath and wonder if we should just stop and think, talk to each other, LISTEN to each other, will we have it within ourselves as Americans to back away? Or will we, the most heavily armed nation in the world, reach for our weapons and go to war against ourselves?

Cordoba House

Thursday, August 19th, 2010

I could go on-and-on about the Cordoba House Mosque and Islamic Center controversy all day. But most of my thoughts are being said elsewhere on the internet tubes, so why not link to them instead?

One of the blogs I regularly read is Spencer Ackerman’s “Attackerman”. Lately he’s had guest posts, and one gentleman (at least, I think he’s a he) “mikeyhemlok” and I agree on many topics. His post on the Cordoba House is pretty fantastic: “It’s Not About THEM, It’s About Us.”

It’s a short article, I almost pasted the whole thing here but this is the key:

No matter how you personally feel about Muslims and mosques, you have to recognize that this is a one-way trip, a simple, irreversible binary choice. As there can be no real doubt that the Imam and his congregation have every right to build their mosque where they wish, it comes down to something more nuanced, and much more pernicious. Do you want people, either by dint of their popular majority or their frantic shrieking and hand-waving to have the power to over-rule the basic rights and freedoms granted to all Americans? Do you understand that if it’s just Muslims today, it will be Jews tomorrow and atheists after that and in the end, the battle for the smouldering rubble of the American experiment will be fought between Catholics and Protestants, with the victors laying claim to just another totalitarian theocracy?

It truly makes me wonder. Can even the likes of Gingrich and Palin actually be proud of an America so willing to run away from her core values? In the name of political expediency and tribal nativism, balanced against all the history and sacrifice that has come before? If they actually got their way, and Cordoba House project was blocked, would they see it as a bright and shining moment for America? Or would it be a Pyrrhic victory, with the taste of ashes, as they wondered if it could be a Mosque in New York today, might it be a Church in Kansas or a book in Georgia or a political party in South Carolina tomorrow.

Plead the Fifth

Tuesday, March 9th, 2010

Punk-rock journalist Spencer Ackerman had a post yesterday that linked to the text of bill McCain and Lieberman introduced regarding the closure of Guantanamo Bay, specifically regarding detention. Here’s a chunk (emphasis mine):

An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article 15 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent with the law of war and any authorization for the use of military force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities.

Um, don’t we have a Bill of Rights that includes, oh, I don’t know, the polar opposite of this? Something about not being deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law?


Lookout Palin, Here Comes Mitt

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

Spencer Ackerman’s is a blog I read daily. He writes mostly about the Iraq War, but also about comic books and punk rock. He was also a consultant on the film In the Loop.

Much of his post today can be summed up by just the title – “Sarah Palin Is No Longer The Stupidest Republican Presidential Hopeful.” But I do want to quote more than half of the article anyway:

I have just read the foreign policy sections of Mitt Romney’s brand-new book No Apology: The Case For American Greatness and filed a piece about them for the Washington Independent. (Hence today’s slow posting.) It’s currently being edited. My biggest concern for the piece is that I simply lack the narrative and argumentative skill to convey to you, sufficiently, how deeply and thoroughly stupid the political persona known as Mitt Romney is. It’s causing a bit of an internal journalistic crisis in my brain.

UPDATE: Here’s the article: “Romney’s ‘No Apology’ Outlines Foreign Policy for Fantasy World.”

Key quote:

But a glance through the remarkable conflation of conservative shibboleths, paranoid global fantasies and deterministic myopia in “No Apology” makes it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the perennial GOP candidate might have been better off saying nothing at all.

Damn. And damning.

Iran Nukes

Friday, February 19th, 2010

We were talking about “what if Iran finished a nuclear bomb” at work the other day, and I was all over the map with what I was saying. Then yesterday I read this quote from a blog by Scott Thomas that sums up my point better than I:

That being said, the results of a Nuclear Iran would probably be a lot less spectacular than people making both pro and con arguments realize. Israel will always have its second-strike submarine based arsenal, and attacking Israel wouldn’t further the Iranian agenda in any way. And as North Korea has found out, having a nuclear strike capability isn’t a golden ticket into the First World or make you the baddest kid on the block. Of course, all this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t keep trying to dissuade them diplomatically and economically from arming themselves.