This pro-Israel tweeter believes "of course, to Coates, the specifics hardly matter, as he admits this is less about what you believve, and more about getting elected."
In the relevant portion (way below) of the conversation betwee Ta-Nehisi Coates and Chris Hayes of MSNOW, the two fellows agree that Barack Obama probably wouldn't have been nominated for President in 2008 had he not opposed the Iraq War. (That's another reason for hating that war- that year, Hillary Clinton otherwise would have been nominated, probably would have won, and would have been a better President than Barack Obama. Ask Ukraine.)
Ta-Nehisi Coates: "I don't know how you stay consistent by claiming an anti-apartheid legacy here in the United States of America while enforcing it abroad."
Coates is implying that Israel, a state that guarantees full rights to all citizens regardless of background, is an… pic.twitter.com/BMTpCRGiJG
So, too, was Zohran Mandami wise to oppose Israeli actions in Gaza, without which, Coates notes (and Hayes agrees), Mandami likely would not have been elected mayor of New York City. Coates believes Mandami, in taking an anti-Israel (and anti-Semitic, others of us recognize) position "has the right and correct moral view. So I think even from a practical perspective there's no choice."
From a practical perspective, it appears so. From a "moral" perspective, however, no. Fortunately, the tweeter notes that Coates took "a trip to the West Bank, which he concludes is an apartheid." That trip, "to Israel and teh Palestinian territories in the summer of 2023," formed the basis of an October, 2024 review of Coates' The Message. Helen Andrews writes of the author
The conclusion he comes to is that the Jewish state is the
equivalent of the Jim Crow South. “I don’t think I ever, in my life, felt the
glare of racism burn stranger and more intense than in Israel,” he writes.
“‘Jim Crow’ was the first thing that came to mind, if only because ‘Jim Crow’
is a phrase that connotes an injustice, a sorting of human beings, the awarding
and stripping of the rights of a population. Certainly, that was some part of
what I saw in Hebron, in Jerusalem, in Lydd.”
If his luck had been different, and he were less
self-involved, Coates could have come up with a better checkpoint anecdote than
the lame one he offers. Something like the incident in November 2009 when a
Palestinian music teacher on his way to teach a lesson was held at the Beit Iba
checkpoint and forced to take out his violin and play it while Israeli soldiers
laughed. There you have something more than inconvenience, a vivid and poetic
illustration of the dehumanization ordinary Palestinians often face. There,
too, you have a rebuttal: The 2001 Sbarro pizza shop bombing in Jerusalem,
which killed 16 Israelis including a pregnant woman, was committed by a
Palestinian who hid his bomb in a guitar case.
These are the kinds of complexities Coates has no time for.
Many supporters of Israel, especially on social media, also have no time for complexities. Their critics notice that Coates and others are consumed by a blind and ahistorical view of a democratic state while pining for a Judenfrei "Palestine".
Sometime after October 7, 2023, Ta-Nehisi Coates and his fellow ethnic-obsessed ideologues found a hill to die on. Worse judgement on the left would be nearly impossible to come by.
Here is Roger Stone in July claiming with a straight face
Donald Trump and his associates wre subjected to the greatest single dirty trick in American political history. That is nothing less than an abuse of power in which the full auhority of the United States government and the extraordinary capability of our intelligence agencies were used to utilize what they knew was fraudulent evidence.....
But now when we expose these things because that is an act of treason, we're accused of being for revenge or retribution. No, my friends, what we seek is a rebalance of the scales of justice so this country can return to one standard of justice, not thet wo-tiered justice system.
We are accused of being for “revenge” or “retribution.”
No, my friends.
What we seek is a REBALANCE of the scales of justice so this country can return to ONE standard of justice—not the two-tiered justice system. pic.twitter.com/t7FyBqpuIR
Scoff all you wish- and you should- but there may be no one who ever has known as much about dirty tricks in American politics than Roger Stone, once described as "the state of the art Washington sleazeball." as Chris Hayes suggested five years ago. (This is selling Stone short. He had time also to be a Trenton, NJ sleezeball.)
If "we" are not for revenge or retribution, Donald Trump seems not to have gotten the memo. In a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in early March of 2023, he declared
In 2016, I declared I am your voice. Today, I add, I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.
A few weeks later, at a rally in Waco, Texas, Trump reiterated his message by remarking "I am your warrior, I am your justice. For those who have been wronged and betrayed... I am your retribution." In an interview in March of 2024, he told the conservative pop psychologist Phil McGraw "sometimes revenge can be justified, Phil, I have to be honest. You know, sometimes it can."
Revenge or retribution, Donald Trump can make it happen, especially with the likely assistance of President Musk.
Was supremely moved by this speech, which was searing and compassionate. Also seems essential to include a Palestinian speaker to the convention. https://t.co/VoNi6kdQsqhttps://t.co/Bol88zLkZK
The National Committee and the presidential nominee could have chosen to allow a Palestinian speaker to address the convention. As reported by Mother Jones, there were negotiations between the DNC and representatives of Uncommitted delegates to permit Georgia State Representative Ruwa Romman, a Palestinian-American and Democrat, to deliver a (two-minute) speech to the convention. The most radical and controversial portion (really) of the statement would have been
I’ve also witnessed something profound—a beautiful,
multifaith, multiracial, and multigenerational coalition rising from despair
within our Democratic Party. For 320 days, we’ve stood together, demanding to
enforce our laws on friend and foe alike to reach a ceasefire, end the killing
of Palestinians, free all the Israeli and Palestinian hostages, and to begin
the difficult work of building a path to collective peace and safety.
That’s
why we are here—members of this Democratic Party committed to equal rights and
dignity for all. I’ve also witnessed something profound—a beautiful, multifaith,
multiracial, and multigenerational coalition rising from despair within our
Democratic Party. For 320 days, we’ve stood together, demanding to enforce our
laws on friend and foe alike to reach a ceasefire, end the killing of
Palestinians, free all the Israeli and Palestinian hostages, and to begin the
difficult work of building a path to collective peace and safety. That’s why we
are here—members of this Democratic Party committed to equal rights and dignity
for all. What we do here echoes around the world.
Ms. Romman would have called for a ceasefire. which would have end the killing of Gazans. The most radical of the entire statement was the call for release of all Israeli and Palestinian "hostages" which of course is based on a false premise because there is a significant difference between hostages, taken by Hamas, and alleged criminal offenders, in custody in Israel.
Nonetheless, according to Romman herself, the DNC never even asked to review her proposed comments. So there probably was something else, such as ethnic attire identity as a Palestinian, which precluded approval of a speech because of its political impact.
It was not "essential to include a Palestinian speaker to the convention" when the organizers included with a speech by Jon Polin and Rachel Goldberg, parents to Harry Goldberg-Polin, And they stated
We’ve met with President Biden and Vice President Harris
numerous times at the White House. They’re both working tirelessly for a
hostage and ceasefire deal that will bring our precious children, mothers,
fathers, spouses, grandparents and grandchildren home and will stop the despair
in Gaza.
While criticizing the role of Arlington National Cemetery in permitting a photo-op for Donald Trump on the fourth anniversary of the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, Charles Pierce nonetheless wrote "if the families found a kind of peace in his presence on Monday, I respect that and I hope it brings them solace."
In the same manner, I applaud the DNC for giving a forum to family members of a hostage held by Hamas. However, notwithstanding the symbolism, the crux of their statement did not differ significantly from that which Palestinian Romman would have given. The Polins called for "a hostage and ceasefire dealt hat will bring our precious children, mothers, fathers, spouses, grandparents and grandchildren home and will stop the despair in Gaza."
Minus the equivalence of prisoners with hostages, that is very similar to what probably would have been a powerful, though misguided, speech by Romman. They both call for a ceasefire, and they're not calling for a fairly brief one- as supported by Israel- but a permanent one, as demanded by the Hamas representatives. Moreover, the chant that rang out from the floor of the Democratic Convention was not "Release the hostages" as it should have been. It was "bring them home."
Hamas cannot "bring them home." Even the relatively neutral parties- Egypt, Qatar, and the USA- can "bring them home." Only Israel can bring them home, presumably only by a negotiated surrender- permanent ceasefire, release of many if not all Palestinian prisoners of whatever citizenship, and perhaps withdrawal from all of Gaza. Further, parents of hostages can have no effect on Hamas, only upon Israel, whether directly or indirectly through pressure on the Biden Administration.
The onus was hence placed on Israel: as Romman would have, the Polins did, and the convention attendees enthusiastically did. The Democratic National Committee might have approved a Palestinian speaker. Instead, it welcomed speakers who are Jewish, have been victimized by the kidnapping of a loved one, and who inspired the message to the Netanyahu government of "bring them home."
"Bring them home" demonstrated a concern for hostages, most of them Jewish. "Stop the despair in Gaza" reflected a concern for Palestinians, most of them Muslim. And it was all done without giving the GOP and its allies fertile ground for an attack ad.. And a ceasefire was advocated, which might not be good for a steadfast American ally or for eventual peace and security for the Middle East but serves well the interests of the convention's guest of honor. From the standpoint of the nominee of the Democratic Party, who is the Vice President serving in an Administration desperate for an agreement (perhaps any agreement), it was brilliance beyond almost anyone's imagination.
If the question is posed to Mehdi Hasan, Vox, The Hollywood Reporter, or X readers who have "added context," the accurate answer is a resounding "no." Vox explains
Accepting the Academy Award for Best International Feature
Film for his harrowing Holocaust film The Zone of Interest, director Jonathan
Glazer took a stance against the state of Israel’s ongoing military bombardment
of Gaza as part of the Israel-Hamas war. Glazer, who is Jewish, made a simple
and straightforward through line from his film, which is about the literal
banality of evil, to the present day.
“All our choices we made to reflect and confront us in the
present,” Glazer said. “Not to say ‘look what they did then’ — rather, ‘look
what we do now.’ Our film shows where dehumanization leads at its worst. It
shaped all of our past and present.”
“Right now, we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness
and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for
so many innocent people. Whether the victims of October 7 in Israel or the
ongoing attack on Gaza — all the victims of this dehumanization, how do we
resist?”
First, the journalist who until recently had a show on MSNBC:
That’s not what he did. This is a lie. It’s a complete cut off/distortion of his full quote. But now this lie has gone viral & people like @MeghanMcCain & @bungarsargon are refusing to delete their disinformation tweets despite 100s of people informing/correcting them. Shameful. https://t.co/i9MpzzimGP
Glazer’s speech was initially badly misquoted by some
sources including Variety,
which led to confusion about whether he had “refuted” his Jewishness full stop.
This predictably met with conservative backlash,
as when Meghan McCain, daughter of the late Sen. John McCain, and Abe
Foxman, former head of the Anti-Defamation League, each
incorrectly cited Glazer
as “refuting his Jewishness.” Several Jewish organizations argued that
Glazer himself was actually “hijacking” the Holocaust.
What Glazer actually said is much clearer: He and his
collaborators reject that Jewishness and the Holocaust are being used to
justify the ongoing military offensive in Gaza.
Chris Hayes, snot fully familiar with the English language, remarke"it was a little awkwardly phrased but he's clearly saying he refutes his Jewishness being hijacked. Not refuting his Jewishness." "Awkwardly phrased" but "clearly saying." Gotcha.
The reaction to Glazer’s speech was swift, although much of
the early negative sentiment occurred because some news sites hadn’t fully
quoted the British filmmaker, or because his quotes were taken out of context
with the rest of his speech. Some people, incorrectly, took Glazer’s speech to
mean that he was refuting his Jewishness, rather than that he was refuting his
“Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to
conflict for so many innocent people,” as he said in his speech.
This (reading and understanding the English language) shouldn't be difficult. It wasn't for Meghan McCain. Glazer's defenders cry "context," so to be fair- and brutally honest with them- the entire statement is as following:
Thank you so much. I’m gonna read. Thank you to the Academy
for this honor and to our partners A24, Film4, Access, and Polish Film
Institute; to the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum for their trust and guidance;
to my producers, actors, collaborators. All our choices were made to reflect
and confront us in the present — not to say, “Look what they did then,” rather,
“Look what we do now.” Our film shows where dehumanization leads, at its worst.
It shaped all of our past and present. Right now we stand here as men who
refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation,
which has led to conflict for so many innocent people. Whether the victims of
October the — [Applause.] Whether the victims of October the 7th in Israel or
the ongoing attack on Gaza, all the victims of this dehumanization, how do we
resist? [Applause.] Aleksandra Bystroń-Kołodziejczyk, the girl who glows in the
film, as she did in life, chose to. I dedicate this to her memory and her
resistance. Thank you.
Glazer's words are literally "right now we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation...." He did not say "as men who refute their Jewishness because of the Holocaust being hijacked." He did not say "as men who refute their Jewishness insofar as the Holocaust has been hijacked." He did not say even "as men who refute their Jewishness while the Holocaust is being hijacked," which would have been ambiguous.
He said "we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation." It means- literally and figuratively, that they are refuting two things: their Jewishness; and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation.
The meaning is clear. Glazer is making two points: we are refuting Jewishness and the Holocaust is being hijacked. He wasn't impulsive, speaking extemporaneously, off-the-cuff. He read from prepared remarks he had an opportunity to write and edit so that his points (plural) would be evident and not twisted.
Glazer may have been thinking "the only reason we're refuting our Jewishness is because of Israel's actions." But he did not say that. And although we cannot be certain of what is in the deep recesses of Nathan Glazer's mind, we have the words of an educated, presumably literate individual to assess for their validity.
Each of us is left to consider, if he or she wishes, the motivation of someone who makes his beliefs clear and the aim of individuals who refuse to acknowledge what is directly in front of them. Possibly, they are eager for Jews themselves to slam Israel because they believe it is more powerful refutation of the nation's actions in Gaza, and perhaps elsewhere. It is a little bit of a "Nixon goes to China moment"- if a Jew himself hates what Israel is doing, what more evidence do we need? And they don't want to be seen applauding someone explicitly rejecting his "Jewishness."
Nathan Glazer is free to renounce his Judaism and to slam Israel's policy in the Gaza Strip. He has conspicuously done both without claiming one as the cause of the other.. Yet, opponents of Israeli policy ask "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes? They urge readership to believe what they want Glazer to have meant or what they suspect he meant, rather than what he said. Labeled as commentary, it is legitimate. This is deeply dishonest, advocacy journalism in a cloak of objectivity.
New York governor Kathy Hochul in the video above says
.... call out Hamas for what it is. It is a terrorist organization that must be stopped. No- no country should live with that specter over them. And for those who don't understand this dynamic, their own stake in their own country, I'll give you an example.
I'm from Buffalo.... if Canada one day were to attack, I'm sorry, my friends, the next day there would be no Canada. I love Canada. We did have the War of 1812. They did burn Buffalo, so there might be a little conflict here. But think about that. There's a natural reaction. You have a right to defend yourself and make sure it never happens again and that is Israel's right.
To give Hayes his due- and to be quite generous- the analogy is a little weird because the government of Canada never would allow, less encourage, much less be a party to, such an attack. It is not only an ally of the USA but is a civilized and peaceful state.
Nonetheless, Hochul's analogy is accurate because Canada and Buffalo are adjacent to each other, as Gaza is adjacent to Israel. Moreover, the attack of October 7 was not carried out by a bunch of rogue terrorists but by members of the ruling party, Hamas, of Gaza.
And if recent American history- or common sense- is a guide, we know that what the New York governor is saying is prima facie accurate. It is hard to exaggerate the enormity of the mass murder of Israeli citizens because
The October 7 attack is the deadliest per capita terrorist attack since the Global Terrorism Database started data collection in 1970, with a rate of slightly over one person killed per every 10,000 Israelis. This metric adds context for the national impact of the attack and sense of loss for Israel. As President Biden invoked in his reaction to the attack, it is as if 40,000 to 50,000 Americans had died on 9/11.
And even though 40,000 Americans were not killed on 9/11/01, the Watson Institute of International & Public Affairs of Brown University has explained
.... we know
that between 280,771-315,190 have died from direct war related violence caused
by the U.S., its allies, the Iraqi military and police, and opposition forces
from the time of the invasion through March 2023. The violent deaths of Iraqi
civilians have occurred through aerial bombing, shelling, gunshots, suicide
attacks, and fires started by bombing. Many civilians have also been injured.
Because not all war-related deaths have been recorded
accurately by the Iraqi government and the U.S.-led coalition, the numbers are
likely much higher. Several estimates based on randomly selected household
surveys place the total death count among Iraqis in the hundreds of thousands.
Several times as many Iraqi civilians may have died as an
indirect result of the war, due to damage to the systems that provide food,
health care and clean drinking water, and as a result, illness, infectious
diseases, and malnutrition that could otherwise have been avoided or
treated. The war has compounded the ill
effects of decades of harmful U.S. policy actions towards Iraq since the 1960s,
including economic sanctions in the 1990s that were devastating for Iraqis.
Despite more than $100 billion committed to aiding and
reconstructing Iraq, many parts of the country still suffer from lack of access
to clean drinking water and housing.
Unlike the attack of October 7, the horrific attack of September 11, 2001 was not launched by one government or state actor upon another's people. The Bush Administration and its supporters claimed a close relationship, now generally seen as widely exaggerated, between Al Qaeda and Iraq President Saddam Hussein. By contrast, Israel was attacked by the governing authority of an antagonist, Gaza. We weren't attacked by Iraq, yet (justifiably or not) started two wars; Israel was attacked by Gaza.
It has responded with ground forces and with bombing, preceded by recommending that Gazan residents in the line of fire to evacuate. These warnings are inadequate but undoubtedly have saved thousands of lives.. These are not numbers reported by the media, let alone taken at gospel truth, as are the numbers of Palestinian lives lost according to the Gaza-based Ministry of Health, an agency in the Hamas-controlled government. (The phrase "according to" or word "says" is uncommon in the centrist and liberal portion of the media.)
As the Watson Institute acknowledges, "no one knows with certainty how many people have been killed and wounded in Iraq since the 2003 United States invasion." But we are expected to swallow whatever number is next spouted by Hamas as casualties in the current war.
If agents of the Canadian government slipped across the northern border and murdered 1,000 or so Buffalonians- let alone 40,000- the governor (whomever she or he might be) would call on the federal government to retaliate. And it would, with massive force, probably beyond what the Netanyahu government has done.
So Chris Hayes should suck it up. He may- apparently won't- promote the idea that tit for tat (or tit for much more than tat) is ineffective or does not effectuate world, or regional, peace. But if Hayes wants to argue that we'd take lying down an attack such as that conducted by Hamas, he's ignoring evidence and common sense. And on this matter, exposing himself as a fool.
The MSNBC host makes a couple of good points in the end but has no solution to the carnage in Gaza wrought by Hamas. Failure to make a constructive recommendation is, however, extremely common.
Chris Hayes, with the most eloquent rebuttal to the Israel Defense Forces indiscriminate killing of civilians — including journalists, hostages and innocent Palestinian men, women and children — I have heard by any cable news host.pic.twitter.com/Qnjz1DR9iE
And an atrocity like October 7th does not, cannot justify whatever comes after it, whatever the response. There is no terrorist attack, no matter how horrific, and truly October 7 was horrific, that can wash clean what we are seeing in Gaza and what we as Americans and our government are abetting. It must end, we must stop it.
He concedes "now, I will be the first to confess- the first to confess- I have no idea what to do about Hamas or about what comes next." However, the Washington Post's David Ignatius has an idea about what might come next, perhaps the only viable solution.
One problem that hasn’t been solved — indeed, it hasn’t even
been discussed in detail — is the composition of the security force that would
maintain order in Gaza once Israeli troops begin to pull back. Israeli
commandos might stage raids back into the center of Gaza when they receive
intelligence about high-value targets. But that wouldn’t protect Palestinian
civilians from gangs and looters who are already filling the security vacuum.
The security force, initially, might be composed primarily
of Palestinians who aren’t affiliated with Hamas and are willing to cooperate
with the Israeli troops still ringing the border. Ideally, this policing force
would be bolstered by foreign troops, operating under a U.N. mandate. In the
chaos of postwar Gaza, there will be a need for disciplined, experienced troops
whose rules of engagement allow them to use military power if needed.
Israel’s initial insistence that it would eliminate Hamas
probably is at an inflection point, too. After more than 70 days of hard
fighting, Israel estimates that it has killed about 8,500 Hamas fighters.
That’s out of an initial force the CIA estimated at 20,000 to 25,000. Whatever
the precise numbers, a battered Hamas will likely survive, perhaps in hiding.
If there is eventually to be a Palestinian state,
influential Arab countries in the region must step up and assume some
responsibility for a just outcome. Ignatius continues
Over the longer term, when “the day after” finally arrives,
U.S. and Israeli officials are both hoping that Gulf countries, especially
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, can play a key role — providing
money, leadership and legitimacy for the Gaza reconstruction effort.
Both countries have reasons to help midwife a reborn Gaza:
Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, often known as MBS, has been
seeking an opportunity to show visionary leadership in the Arab world.
Normalizing relations with Israel and, at the same time, championing a
well-governed Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank would be visionary,
indeed. One official hopes MBS will add Gaza to his Vision 2030 agenda.
The UAE would bring special skills to the table, as well. As
the earliest Arab country to embrace the Abraham Accords, it’s trusted by
Israelis. UAE companies such as Emaar have experience managing vast the
construction projects that Gaza will require. And the UAE for more than 10
years has sheltered Muhammad Dahlan, a Palestinian wheeler-dealer who was the
dominant political power in Gaza until the PA was displaced by Hamas in 2006.
Or powerful nations such as the USA can throw up their hands
and leave the region to sadistic, fundamentalist Islamic terrorists such as
Islamic Jihad or Hamas. Israel probably eventually would be destroyed but
strife in the region would continue with Palestinian Arabs forever without a
homeland.
Proportionality in American politics has died. Republicans
beat into submission; the left has dealt the final blow.. Worse yet, because it comes from a real journalist and
MSNBC's most thoughtful host:
Joe Biden put white people lat in line for Covid relief
funds. Kamala Harris said disaster aid would go to non-white citizens first.
Liberal politicians block access to medicine based on skin color. Progressive
organizations, airlines, universities all openly discriminate against white
Americans.
Racism's always wrong. The left's anti-white bigotry must
stop. We are all entitled to equal treatment under law.
America First Legal paid for this ad.
Claiming "racism against white people" is
not identical to being racist. Similarly, most discrimination against, or hostility toward, blacks or
other racial minorities is not inherent racism or even impelled by racist
belief. Bias, yes; racism, no, or at least not commonly.
After the broad claim that racism against whites is a thing,
America First Legal offers six alleged examples of discrimination committed: by: President Biden for Covid relief funds; Vice President Harris in how she
believes disaster aid should be distributed; liberal politicians on access to
medicine; progressive organizations, airlines and universities for unspecified
discrimination. Perhaps all of these charges are accurate, or some of them, or
none.
We don't know because the ad maker includes no detail- also,
because the critics, such as The Tennessee Holler and Chris Hayes don't refute
it, choosing instead to smear it as identical to the racism of the Ku Klux Klan
or David Duke.
But that is the way political ads and Twitter roll. Nonetheless, this piece is not David Duke-level
bigotry, as reflected here and here:
"...our only racial salvation lies in a White
racial alliance uniting our people with the common cause of racial
idealism." (1970)
"In modern America, Jews lead the effort to
de-Christianize America. ... They share little of the heritage of the Old
Testament people called the Israelites. … Communism and Zionism were born from
the same Jewish soul. ... Jewish power is ubiquitous. ... It is not a [Jewish]
conspiracy. It is simply two nations — Jew and Gentile — in a state of ethnic
war." (1998)
"Increasingly independent black economic, cultural and
political power gave Blacks more freedom to do what came natural to them.
Divorced from White influence and culture, they reverted quickly to their
genotype -- increasingly typical of black societies around the world. Males
exhibited exaggerated sexual aggression and promiscuity that led to the
dissolution of the Black nuclear family in America. Females reverted to the
age-old African model of maternal provisioning of children." (1998)
"What I learned about them, I liked. But it also seemed
that the liberal line was not entirely correct, for it was obvious that racial
differences went far beyond skin color. It would be difficult to categorize all
the distinctions I noticed. In fact, I made no effort to catalogue them at the
time, but their differences ranged all the way from physical characteristics to
more subtle differences such as extreme aversion for work in cold weather. On
cold days, when I felt invigorated, my black co-workers seemed lethargic." (1998)
"When the American people saw the LA riots and
crowds of Blacks cheering O.J. Simpson (who was acquitted by the almost all
Black jury), they received a peek into their future." (2000)
"Jewish groups lead the effort for Europe and
America to take a catastrophic flood of non-European refugees slash terrorists
slash rapists slash criminals." (2016)
Although Duke traditionally has been arguably as energized
by contempt for Jewsas for blacks, two of the statements from his 1998
autobiography "My Awakening" are especially evocative of his racist
perspective. Duke commented "divorced from White influence and culture,
they (i.e., blacks) reverted quickly to their genotype" and "it was
obvious that racial differences went far beyond skin color."
Duke's prejudice- if his words are to be believed- derived
from the racist idea that blacks are inherently inferior to whites. That goes far beyond the belief that blacks
in American society are granted privileges or even that the culture of
African-Americans is dysfunctional in some ways. It goes to the conviction that
God or evolution made them lesser human beings (perhaps not even human beings), which is of a greater level of bigotry. Not all bigotry is alike
Yes, it is the ascendant, probably the dominant, position of
the right. Heads we win; tails, you lose. Similarly: if we're acquitted, the trial is fair; if we
lose, it's rigged.
Devin Nunes, chief executive of Donald Trump's social media
operation, claims
... that we have this other problem, that if you get tired
as a Republican in a- one of the large cities, large jurisdiction in this
country- there is a high likelihood that you're going to be on the losing side
of that argument in court. Um, and this is- this is what's developed now, this
two-tiered justice system.
Devin Nunes says Republicans can’t get a fair trial in any major American city. pic.twitter.com/fAdqRdInxh
Actually, that's quite clever, and analogous to the famous
rants of Donald Trump about the "Deep State." There might be a deep
state somewhere in American government, but not anything alleged by Trump.
Similarly, people across the political spectrum sense there is a two-tiered
justice system. There separate tiers for the wealthy and all others, not one for Democrats and one for
Republicans.
Major trials are disproportionately conducted in major
cities and if the public views a jury with at least one black face (almost
always the case), conservatives will lap up any claim that the conviction was
biased. It's a corollary to the Party which complains about federal law
enforcement while proclaiming "Back the Blue," a slavish devotion to
local law enforcement, perceived as a bulwark against lawless young black
males.
It's a brilliant move: "if we lose an election, it's
rigged" and "if we're convicted in a court of law, it's rigged," It adds up to this:
I think it's very hard to communicate to the median voter convincingly the chaos that a GOP victory is likely to unleash, and I think a lot of professionals vastly underestimate the tail risk.
Most of the Republican street which identifies as
"pro-life" believes abortion is "murder" because it does
not understand that "murder" is unlawful killing. If abortion had
been murder and thus illegal, the practice would have been far rarer and pro-life folks would have been far less exorcised by
it.
Still, the "pro-life" contingent of GOP voters
does believe that abortion is killing. Thus, Hayes recognizes that according to
what these individuals claim, Herschel Walker paid to have his child
murdered. And the nearly unmistakable conclusion in the failure of any
prominent Republicans to criticize Walker is that they don't actually believe that abortion is the termination of human life..
For years I've been noticing the habit of GOP legislators in
Republican-dominated states to ban abortion and provide for punishment to
doctors but either omit reference to. or actually exempt from penalty, the
woman soliciting the procedure. Though rarely acknowledged, it was clear that a
major contingent of forced-birth public officials or pundits has believed
either that abortion is not killing or it's nevertheless acceptable.
Nonetheless, much (if not most) of the conservative street
believes that abortion is killing and reproductive freedom must be considerably
curtailed. So now we have the new GOP slogan:
"Abortion is murder. Let's make the guy who paid for one a Senator."
On Tuesday, Rusty Bowers, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, became another Republican to give public testimony to the select committee investigating the attempted coup of January 6, 2021.
There's a whole heartland full of people to whom Bowers truly spoke. Part of why his testimony was so powerful is BECAUSE he spoke to them in a way they might accept. Part of that come from acquiescing to ways where he is a lot like them. In this case, it's GOOD he said that.
"Duty To Warn" is an anti-Trump "association of mental health professionals." However (or therefore) DTW fails to understand that the message which can be reasonably taken form Bowers' testimony s that the President's actions were not so heinous that he wouldn't enthusiastically support him again as leader of the Free World (or as Chris Hayes unironically and inaccurately refers to him as then "the most powerful man in the world").
Bowers need not have endorsed Trump to spare himself the kind of harassment indirectly brought to him and his family by the guy to whom he was given a thumbs up. He could have reinforced the idea that he is a conservative Republican by saying that he wouldn't vote for Trump again but would happily support any other conservative Republican for President. If the ex-President were nominated for anther term, Bowers might have added, he would vote for any other conservative on the ballot. Anything but "run, Donald, run."
Noting Bowers' position on 2024 is not "a pointless hypothetical" and Chris Hayes explains why:
Rusty Bowers embodies a key part of this story because there are a few people, more than a handful, faced with a great moral test, who acted with integrity and ultimately that was what saved our democracy in the end.
But the other part of the story is that the Republican Party as a whole, as an institution, in American political life, is a continuing threat to the republic even if some of its members did the right thing when called to against great odds and great pressure. and Mr. Bowers summed that all up when after that testimony he gave, he told the Associated Press that despite everything that happened to him, his family, his community, and the assault on the capital on January 6, he would vote for Trump again. "If he is the nominee, if he was up against Biden, I'd vote for him again," Bowers said "simply because what he did the first time, before COVID, was so good for the country. In my mind it was great."
Maybe that's posturing but you know, I believe him. Mitch McConnell has said the same thing. I believe him. So has Bill Barr. I believe Bill Barr.
That's it in a nutshell, the problem that we all face. the distance between the genuine individual integrity that Rusty Bowers showed and the nature of this broader force that no one, not even Donald Trump, really fully controls. In the end, then the whole is greater nd worse the the sum of its parts. The whole really is, right now, a mortal threat to our democracy.
President Joe Biden's nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson
for a seat on the US Supreme Court was an exceptional one. That's especially
the case because Biden was fulfilling his promise to select a black woman, a
demographic group comprising in 2019 only 5% of active district and circuit court judges. Although the percentage undoubtedly has grown in the past three
years, the universe of lawyers the President could seriously consider
(selections typically come from the federal bench) would be under 10%.
That's an awfully large number of extremely well-qualified
non-black women considered off-limits, and an unusually large number of hyphens
for one sentence. Understandably if
unfortunately, there was nothing cable news, and even to a lesser extent print
media, considered as important as the nominee's race and gender. And so we had:
President Biden on Friday said he would nominate Judge
Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, elevating a well-regarded federal
appeals court judge who, if confirmed, would make history by becoming the first
Black woman to serve as a justice. (The New York Times)
President Biden on Friday announced his historic pick of
federal judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve on the Supreme Court, following
through on a campaign pledge to nominate the first Black woman to the nation’s
highest court in its 223-year history. (The Washington Post)
In Jackson, Biden delivers on a campaign promise to make the
historic appointment and to further diversify a court that was made up entirely
of white men for almost two centuries.... (PBS)
President Biden on Friday nominated Judge Ketanji Brown
Jackson to the Supreme Court in a historic choice that could make her the first
Black woman to ascend to the nation’s highest court. (Los Angeles Times)
When the news media accurately characterized the nomination
as "historic" and the President stated "for too long, our
government and our courts haven't looked like America," neither was
referring to her height or hair style. More starkly, Democratic senator Cory
Booker theatrically- at 2:06 of the video below- told Judge Jackson during the
third day of her hearing before the Judiciary Committee
It's not going to stop. They're going to accuse you of this
and that and heck, in honor of the person who shares your birthday, you might
be called a communist. But don't worry, my sister, don't worry, God has got
you. And how do I know that? Because you're here.
In the same video (beginning at 3:08), Chris Hayes had remarked
Even by those standards, the hearings for Judge Ketanji
Jackson, the first black woman ever nominated to the Supreme Court and over 200
years in this country's history, has been stomach-churning.
We knew going in that because her race and gender would be
an issue for some Republicans but I have to say, I have been taken aback by the
facially racist nature of much of the questioning that Judge Jackson faced. I
say "racist" because there is no other way to accurately describe it,
if you want to call it "racially tinged" or whatever.
Yesterday, Jackson repeatedly faced a line of questioning
that assumed she was soft on crime or sympathetic to criminals or maybe even
likes crime. And the only reason I can determine is that it plays into the
assumption that a black person is inherently associated with criminality, which
is of course, racist.
Hold on a second there, buckaroo. Hayes perceives a
"facially racist nature of much of the questioning." He did so barely more than one minute after
favorably showing Cory Booker addressing Judge Jackson as "my
sister," a designation the Senator does not appear to have applied to any
white woman.
Hayes' description of the line of questioning as
"facially racist" is not the issue, though I'd much prefer the
"racially tinged" and would undoubtedly disagree with him on specific
criticism. And Booker certainly is entitled to refer in whatever respectful
manner he wishes, even to imply that he identifies with "my
sister." Jackson was no doubt pleased.
Chis Hayes and Cory Booker are on the same team, whether the Democratic, liberal, anti-Trump, anti-racist, or whatever. However, fairness and accuracy don't allow one to
accuse the enemy of racist questioning by showing a black Senator addressing as
"my sister" a woman he would
not so address were she born of a different color.. Many people like jelly and
many people like steak; jelly with steak, not so much.
Call it hypocrisy, tone deafness, or whatever. But Democrats
or liberals aren't going to convince most of the country that Republicans or
conservatives are "racist" while they themselves are making it clear
that they believe someone can be judged (in this case, as a sister) because of
their race.
Republicans will continue to quote Martin Luther King's
admonition to judge people on the content of their character and not race if
some Democrats continue proudly to make their racial preferences clear.. If
Democrats want to alienate even further large swaths of the country, they are
doing an effective job.
I actually don't have any problem with this choice, which is about tacitly acknowledging that society has moved on from the pandemic. But what's frustrating is that Fauci has been a politician this whole time, pretending to be the Oracle of Scientific Truth. https://t.co/nZU3MoLLdc
It is- or should not- be the role of the President's Chief Medical Advisor to play the role of the politician, to take the pulse of the public and respond accordingly. He should offer the advice of an expert in the field, of a scientist. But that is where we are. Fauci, too, saw the election returns in Virginia and New Jersey and knows which way the wind blows. He always has been comfortable in the role of weathervane.
Fauci never proclaimed to be the Oracle of Scientific Truth
but did not argue when he was treated royally by MSNBC, CNN, and much of the
traditional, centrist media.
It was always fairly obvious that Fauci, talking carefully
and sensibly while occasionally lying (i.e., about masks and about the degree of infection needed for herd immunity), has been a politician during his service
in the Trump and Biden presidencies. With a Republican or a Democratic president, he has done what is necessary to survive.
It
has been a reflection of our political times that the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has been so wildly popular
with the left while reviled by the right. Demonized in some quarters, the President's Chief Medical
Advisor has gone unquestioned in others, neither group of partisans dialed into
reality. On MSNBC, the interviews
consistently have been deferential, occasionally even reverential, and rarely
clarifying.
If they look beyond the network's sexy stars- Wallace, Reid,
Maddow, and O'Donnell- viewers can catch a discerning, even probing, dialogue
with Anthony Fauci. Or at least they could on Wednesday evening:
As Mediaite notes, President Biden "was wishing Amb. Donald Blinken a happy birthday during his
Veterans Day speech, and injected one of his favorite stories: a roundabout way
of saying that you’re only as old as you feel."
He then stated
I’ve adopted the attitude of the great Negro — at the time,
pitcher in the Negro Leagues — went on to become a great pitcher in the pros —
in the Major League Baseball after Jackie Robinson. His name was Satchel Paige.
Mediaite remarks
While blue-check conservatives continued to falsely insist
that Biden was referring to Paige — despite their own video clips belying that
notion — Fox News walked a thin line between noting the outrage and not
amplifying the falsehood.
On Thursday night’s edition of Hannity, host Sean Hannity
expressed outrage, called the comments “one of [Biden’s] most disturbing,
troubling moments to date,” and even displayed Mediaite’s headline as an
example of the “media mob” giving Biden a “pass,” but when it came to the
remarks themselves, Hannity let the video do all the talking.
He then played video of some of Biden’s past remarks, some
of which have generated genuine controversy, and held a panel segment in which
guests accused Biden of racism, but Hannity never made the specific charge, and
guest Leo Terrell did so only obliquely.
And on Friday morning, the comments were part of headline
roundups on Fox & Friends First. Again, the news copy included references
to backlash online and a clip of the comments that included the full reference,
with no claim that Biden was referring to Paige rather than the league that was
formed in the face of segregation.
Mediaite concludes "Although Fox did not elaborate
on the true context of Biden’s remarks, there do appear to have been factual
guardrails in place that prevented them from running with a false claim."
But it shouldn't have gotten this far. If Biden was
referring to Satchel Paige as a "Negro," he was not using a racial
epithet, insulting the late pitcher, or saying anything derogatory. At the time
of Paige's baseball career, blacks were referred to as "Negroes" or
with the n-word. The word "Negroes" was never, ever considered as the
"n-word," not by whites, blacks, or anyone. It was the term preferred
by people who recognized that the pejorative terms and offensive terms
at the time were the n-word- and, to a lesser extent, "colored
people."
(Contrast that with today's "people of color."
Can't? Your junior high grammar teacher would be proud.)
It was not showing a lack of respect for Satchel Paige to
call him at the time a "Negro." Now, it would make no
more sense to call him a "Negro" than to call some of us
"Caucasian," part of a generally discredited typology. Were he alive now- which he most assuredly is
not- Paige would be "black" or "African-American."
Moreover, Satchel Paige did not participate in the "Colored
league," the "Black league," or the "African-American
league." He participated in the
Negro league, which would have made him- well, now, the answer is fairly
obvious.
Chris Hayes has posted a series of tweets prompted by the
trial of Kyle Rittenhouse and the segment (beginning at 5:29 of the video
below) from his All In of the previous night.
The point of the monologue is to detch the specific question of his guilt or innocence in regards to this self-defense claim, from the broader social vision in which is an affirmative good to have more people with more guns in the midst of conlict.
Credit Hayes not only for his support of
gun safety but also for recognizing and emphasizing the role of the NRA in
promoting the culture in which Rittenhouse's behavior can be considered
acceptable.
After a mass shooting at a school, there is attention paid
for a few days to the ease with which firearms can be obtained in much of the
country. When the mass shooting occurs elsewhere, there is concern for a news
cycle or two. The right is beholden to firearm lobbyists and to the companies that benefit from the proliferation of firearms and the focus of the left and center is elsewhere. So credit Hayes not only for his support of gun safety but also for recognizing and emphasizing the role of the NRA in promoting the culture in which Rittenhouse's behavior can be considered acceptable.
As this Washington Post article explained in detail, in
June, 2017 Officer Geronimo Yanez stopped a vehicle driven in Falcon Heights,
Minnesota because the driver, Philandro Castile, allegedly appeared to resemble
the suspect in a recent robbery. . Castile, accompanied by his girlfriend and
the latter's toddler, told the Officer that he had a firearm in the automobile,
then reached for what his girlfriend would later maintain was his
identification. However, Yanez, who stated he had smelled marijuana in the
car, evidently feared that Castile was reaching for the gun and shot him dead.
A .40 caliber semiautomatic handgun, with a loaded magazine
but no round chambered, and a permit to carry later were found in Castile's
pocket. The officer, the Post noted,
"was acquitted of two counts of endangering Reynolds and her 4-year-old
daughter. The same day, St. Anthony officials said Yanez would not return to
their police force."
The victim was black, as subjects of over-policing
disproportionately are, and the narrative in the mainstream media at the time
was: yet another black man shot by police.
Typical of the response, and typically for the man, then-President
Barack Obama wrote in Facebook
What’s clear is that these fatal shootings are not isolated
incidents. They are symptomatic of the broader challenges within our criminal
justice system […], and the resulting lack of trust that exists between law
enforcement and too many of the communities they serve.
Notwithstanding helpfully noting the "lack of trust
that exists between law enforcement and too many of the communities they
serve" (translation: black communities), Obama's remark was symptomatic of
the broader problem of ignoring the proliferation of firearms in
American society.
A police officer panicked and unjustifiably shot and killed Philandro Castile. But the unwillingness of the left to
question- even if in passing- why the victim was possessing a firearm while he was traveling with his girlfriend and a child was telling. Officer Yanez would maintain that, according
to the Post, "he didn’t know whether Castile had the gun 'for protection'
from a drug dealer or people trying to rob him."
It was an issue left unaddressed. . Enamored of the merchants of death, conservatives were silent. The NRA was silent, presumably because it was conflicted between condemning the killing and realizing that the innocent man was not a typical firearm owner. But no one on the left (as far as I could tell) would ask, either
It may be irrelevant whether that was because the deceased
was black or because there is in actuality a dearth of interest in measures
intended to protect the public against people who should not possess a firearm. (But I repeat myself.) The slaughter in American streets will continue long after
Kyle Rittenhouse is convicted or acquitted.
We must not forget the guns and, at least in this case, Chris Hayes has not.
