The bigger target
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
From civil rights to the environment, it's become abundantly clear since 9/11 that the conservative movement has no compunction about promoting its larger agenda under the rubric of promoting "national security" and "preventing terrorism." There has been no area of policy in which this has been more clear than immigration.
The pretext for pushing right-wing immigration policies has been the notion that the 9/11 hijackers did so by manipulating the nation's immigration system. This has led to atrocities like Michelle Malkin's book Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists Criminals & Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores, arguing that "huge waves of terrorists are floating across the border."
In Congress, Rep. James Sensenbrenner -- yes, that James Sensenbrenner -- is doggedly fighting to get his proposed immigration reforms related to the "terrorist threat" passed after they were rejected last fall:
- House Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. on Wednesday introduced a package of immigration and security measures that were dropped from the sweeping intelligence overhaul approved by Congress last month.
One of those provisions is aimed squarely at the 10 states, including Wisconsin, that grant driver's licenses to undocumented residents.
Sensenbrenner's bill would not strictly ban such licenses. But the federal government would accept as valid identification (for boarding an airplane or entering a federal building) driver's licenses issued only by states that require proof from applicants that they are in the country legally.
Sensenbrenner said the measure is needed to prevent terrorists from using driver's licenses to penetrate the country's security defenses.
According to the Washington Times report, Sensenbrenner is justifying the reforms by claiming that allowing illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses was responsible for the terrorist attacks:
- "The 9/11 hijackers could have used their passports to board the plane, but only one did. And why was that? Those murderers chose our driver's licenses and state IDs as a form of identification because these documents allowed them to blend in and not raise suspicion or concern," he said.
Mind you, the driver's licenses are not the only focus of the bill:
- Mr. Sensenbrenner's new bill includes four of the provisions that he fought for but which were dropped from the final intelligence overhaul bill last month.
The bill would fill a gap in the fence on the U.S.-Mexico border near San Diego, would extend the law so that terrorism-related grounds for excluding someone from entering the United States also become grounds for deportation for those already here and would revamp the asylum system to make it easier for judges to deny a claim for asylum.
However, as valabor's diary at Daily Kos points out, the language of that particular portion of the legislation empowers the director of Homeland Security the power to waive any existing law as he sees fit, under the rubric of national security. Nor would any such decision be reviewable by the courts. [Raw Story has more.]
Certainly, that's a remarkable expansion of federal powers all for the purpose of building a three-mile section of border fence. But then, that's par for the course for this bill: It claims to be about one thing (stopping terrorism) when it's abundantly clear there's a much bigger agenda in play here.
That's also clear in its major focus, which as the Times story explained, is "to crack down on illegal aliens' ability to obtain and use driver's licenses":
- The measure requires that any driver's license used as a form of identification to a federal official, such as a Transportation Security Administration screener at an airport, meet national standards that include a check on whether the holder is in the country legally.
The bill doesn't force states to change their laws, but makes driver's licenses from such states inadmissible for federal identification purposes.
Actually, it concretely discriminates against any regular citizens from any of those 10 states who wants to travel by air, because it will mean they won't be able to use their driver's licenses to fly. They'll need to get a passport, at least until their state changes its laws to conform to the new federal requirements.
In Washington state (one of the 10), the requirements for obtaining driver's license revolve around establishing a person's actual identity, and his ability to drive. This is a pragmatic and practical policy for a state in which illegal immigrants comprise a substantial portion of the farm labor. Requiring proof of citizenship is not only obtuse and impractical, it would guarantee that illegal immigrants would be driving without adequate exposure to basic driving standards.
As a report from the Neward (N.J.) Star Ledger points out:
- Angela Kelly of the National Immigration Forum said placing restrictions on driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants will not stop them from coming into the country or from driving. "But if they don't have a license, they won't be able to get insurance and they won't know the rules of the road," Kelly said.
More to the point, Sensenbrenner's claims are in fact largely bogus, as a report from the National Immigration Law Center explains:
- Sensenbrenner also has asserted that the 9/11 terrorists were able to carry out their attacks because, collectively, they were able to obtain 63 state driver’s licenses. His claim has been widely circulated by anti-immigration groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform and in Congress. But the claim is contradicted by both a 9/11 Commission staff report and a fact sheet recently issued by the 9/11 Public Discourse Project (9/11 PDP), a nationwide public education campaign created by the ten members of the 9/11 Commission (a description of the 9/11 PDP can be found on its website: www.9-11pdp.org).
The fact sheet makes clear that the claims Sensenbrenner has made about the number of licenses the hijackers obtained before 9/11 and the conclusions he draws from their use by the hijackers are both incorrect. The fact sheet reports that, in fact, the hijackers obtained only 13 (not 63) driver’s licenses, and that 2 of those were duplicates. According to the fact sheet, they also had 21 U.S.A.- or state-issued ID cards. However, the fact sheet itself is somewhat misleading in including so-called U.S.A. ID cards in this number. These are not government-issued ID cards; they are cards made by a private company that sells deceptively real–looking ID cards. So the number of government-issued ID cards was actually somewhat lower than the number cited by the commission and far lower than the number cited by Sensenbrenner.
... The commission concluded, as the 9/11 PDP fact sheet puts it, that "stronger immigration enforcement to catch terrorists who were exploiting weaknesses in America’s border security" and "greater attention to terrorist travel tactics and information sharing about such travel" are needed. According to the fact sheet, "[W]e did not make any recommendation about licenses for undocumented aliens. That issue did not arise in our investigation, as all hijackers entered the United States with documentation (often fraudulent) that appeared lawful to immigration inspectors. They were therefore 'legal immigrants' at the time they received their driver's licenses." The fact sheet notes that all of the hijackers could have obtained driver's licenses, even under the restrictive provisions pushed by Sensenbrenner, because they had valid visa documentation to show to state department of motor vehicle officials.
When you clear away the bullshit, the purpose of the legislation is clear. This isn't about keeping terrorists out. It's about keeping Latinos out.
11:24 PM
Outrage
The right wing pundit class, both in the mainstream media and blogosphere, is all aflame with fake outrage over Eason Jordan's remarks at Davos about journalists supposedly being targeted by American soldiers.
Rather than waiting to see (1) exactly what it was that Jordan said, and (2) whether or not he has any evidence or can otherwise back up the remarks, the rabid right wants its pound of flesh now. We allow no anti-Americanism around here! (Just ask Ward Churchill.)
What has proceeded apace is a classic right-wing blogosphere witchhunt. Some have even put together an "Easongate" blog. It's obvious that, after "Rathergate," right-wing bloggers have concluded that the way to make a name for yourself is to take down someone from the "MSM," even if it's a little-known executive for a cable network. They're calling for his dismissal, as are members of the D.C. conservative pundit class.
These people aren't outraged. They're hunting pelts.
The most interesting example of this came earlier this week on CNBC's Kudlow and Cramer show, when Ann Coulter [MSN software download req'd] had this to say about the dustup:
- Kudlow: I've got a couple of seconds before the break, when you guys are all going to come back -- Ann, I just wanted to give you first whack at this: Eason Jordan, top news executive at CNN -- I mean, to me, this is absolutely incredible, this guy says, at a big conference in Davos, that the U.S. military is deliberately targeting and assassinating American journalists? Huh?! He still has a job? Huh?! You got a take on that?
Coulter: Would that it were so.
Kudlow: That what were so?
Coulter: That the American military were targeting journalists.
Kudlow: (Laughter) Oh no! Don't go there! (More laughter.)
This, of course, follows Ann's previous remarks wishing that Tim McVeigh had targeted the New York Times Building. At some point, it should become clear to everyone that she's not really joking at all.
So, as long as we're wondering why certain figures still have jobs, what about Lawrence Kudlow? How long do you suppose any liberal pundit would last if he chortled loudly after one of his liberal guests wished "jokingly" that American soldiers had targeted journalists? Or, for that matter, that the 9/11 terrorists had crashed their plane into Fox News headquarters?
I know, I know. I just don't have a sense of humor.
I wonder why.
[Note to Kudlow: From all reports, Jordan didn't refer to American journalists being targeted. Most of his later remarks seem to suggest he had Al Jazeera and other journalists in mind. Not that facts seem to be your strong suit anyway.]
9:01 PM
Criminalizing dissent
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
This Kos post from Rakkasan caught my eye:
- Then I said "Senator you've been holding state office for 10 years, the same amount of time republicans have had control of both houses of goverment. You were term limited from the House as majority party whip and now you're a senator. During that 10 years of talking about how you're against abortion the abortion rate has not only remained legal, but has actually increased. During that 10 years you have never put forth a bill to ban abortion, ban gay marriage, or provide school vouchers on demand. These are issues important to Christian conservatives but in all this time nothing has been done. Again, Senator, why should Christian conservatives continue to support republicans since the only time they talk about these issues is when they're trying to get elected to office?"
I was expecting to be at the very least pelted with rotting vegetables but to my surprise there was dead silence in the crowd as they awaited his answer. He mumbled something about democrats creating the problems and it taking time to undo it, but while I was listening to his answer two men took me aside and asked me to leave or they would have me arrested for disturbing the peace and trying to incite a riot. I laughed saying I found out what I wanted to know and that I would leave on my own.
So, let's see now: Asking tough questions of your state senator is tantamount to "disturbing the peace and trying to incite a riot"?
I guess we should have seen this coming: First it was antiwar dissenters being threatened with arrest for wearing T-shirts saying, "Protect Our Civil Liberties." Now merely asking making a Republican officeholder squirm is enough to bring down the law.
Interesting times we live in, eh?
[Hat tip to Kitsap Pundit.]
4:06 PM
More frivolity
For a revealing sample of the Republican "common touch" when it comes to those "frivolous asbestos claims," see this excerpt from An Air That Kills: How the Asbestos Poisoning of Libby, Montana Uncovered a National Scandal:
- When he came to Libby, campaigning for reelection in the fall of 2000, the Lincoln County GOP put on a gala reception for him at the VFW. But at one table a less festive group that included Les and Norita Skramstad, Gayla and Dave Benefield and Bob and Carrie Dedrick waited quietly to talk to Burns about the issue they cared about most -- asbestos.
Finally, Burns came out of the back room at the club, where he was meeting with local Republican officials and sat down at the table. Immediately Carrie Dedrick began asking him to help the victims in Libby. At that, Burns did not respond to Carrie, but instead looked directly across the table at Gayla. He shook a big finger in her face, and said, "Little Lady, when you stop tearing me down is when I start doing something to help the people of Libby."
Gayla got her own finger -- "The pointer, honestly," she would say later -- wagging right back in the senator's face. She replied, "Sir, I have not been on your ass or on TV talking about this, for six months, and you have done nothing in those six months, so don't try to use that as an excuse."
Burns tried another tack, telling the group that he had gotten W.R. Grace & Company to provide millions for medical screening. In the same firm, polite voice, Gayla said, "You are mistaken. Grace is not paying for the screening. Our tax dollars are."
At that point, Senator Burns decided to cut his losses, and got up and walked out of the room. Les had gotten up from the table earlier, and just happened to be standing quietly nearby when Burns came through the door and growled to an aide, "I had to come all the way here to put up with this shit?"
Burns, of course, carried Lincoln County handily in 2000, as did Bush in 2004. You have to ask: What kind of moral values were these folks voting for, anyway?
Ah well. Perhaps the only thing more astonishing than the Republican mendaciousness in posing as the party of "common people" is the Democrats' incompetence at revealing their pose for the fraud that it is.
3:45 PM
It's about intent
At Bullitt Central High School in Shepherdsville, Kentucky (near Louisville), a teen and his mother decided to protest the administration's decision to allow two Muslim girls to don hijabs, traditional head scarves, ostensibly because it violates the school's rather strict dress code.
So the son wore a shirt with the words "FBI" and "Firm Believer In Christ" on it, also in violation of the dress code, and was told he couldn't wear it. So the mother withdrew him from the school and organized a protest.
Pretty soon, the protest metastasized into something else:
- School officials and students said Whiteside's protests attracted the attention of the Ku Klux Klan. She was joined outside the school by other men and women, some of whom were clad in white robes and carried Confederate flags and white-supremacist regalia.
Whiteside said she didn't organize any involvement with the KKK, adding that her concerns were being misconstrued by students and school officials as racially driven.
"That got out of hand," she said. "It wasn't a racial thing. It was about equal rights and fairness to all students."
But Farris said if anyone has made the issue a racial argument, it was Whiteside.
Bullitt Central students Charlie Johnson and Cayce Dever, both seniors and student government officers, agreed with Farris.
"I feel they were using the dress code to hit on something broader, and that's hate," Charlie said.
Cayce said that when she participated in a counterprotest last week with other students, including Charlie, she spoke with protesters standing with Whiteside and told them that federal law protected the Muslim students' cultural dress.
"They said I didn't understand because I didn't have white pride," Cayce said.
"I said, 'I have American pride.' "
Though the mother, Mrs. Whiteside, tried to distance herself from the Klan support, she went on to say that she intended to put together a petition urging "equal rights for everyone" -- suggesting, evidently, that ordinary white kids were being discriminated against. (Hmmmm ... where have we heard that before?)
As the other teens at the school point out, the hijabs are well within the spirit of the dress code, which is not intended to stop people from wearing clothes that are part of their religious beliefs -- which, in fact, would be in violation of federal codes. The dress codes are intended to enforce modesty in dress. Hijabs are nothing if not modest.
What Mrs. Whiteside's intent is, however, remains somewhat murkier.
11:38 AM
Reading around
Monday, February 07, 2005
Atrios has a follow-up to the recent post here about those "frivolous" asbestos claims. Seems W.R. Grace's culpability in the asbestos poisoning of Libby, Montana, is even more egregious than previously surmised.
Charles Taylor has an excellent and highly informative review of Deborah Lipstadt's account of her trial by trial with David Irving.
Lambert at Corrente finds a Denver Post report with signs of the apparent spread of the extremist doctrine of "jury nullification." (For more on this concept, see my previous post, or see p. 297 of In God's Country.)
Oh yes. I also have a post up at American Street on political correctness after 9/11.
8:44 PM
Ouch
Here, out of Oroville, California, is a story that brings new meaning to the phrase "self-martyrdom":
- Oroville racist has himself nailed to cross
An Oroville man attempted to have himself nailed to a cross near the state Capitol to protest the war in Iraq, Sacramento police said.
He identified himself to capital authorities as Greg S. Tremaine, 43, but he is known in Butte County as Greg Withrow.
It's the second time Withrow, a white supremacist, has had himself nailed to a cross in Sacramento.
In the most recent case, he had hoped to be carried around the Capitol on Thursday while nailed to the cross, police spokeswoman Michelle Lazark said.
Paramedics persuaded Withrow to seek medical attention after his friend, a 41-year-old Oroville man, tapped a nail 20 times through his left hand and into a wooden cross, Lazark said.
It's not the first time Withrow has used the self-crucifixion stunt to get attention. He did it in 1987, but that time he claimed he was the victim of an attack:
- In 1987, Withrow had been found nailed to a cross in Sacramento, after he had attempted to form a White Student union at a community college.
He went on the national talk show circuit afterward, claiming the attack was in retaliation for abandoning his white-power roots.
He also testified during legislative hearings that resulted in increased criminal penalties for certain hate crimes in California.
But in a lawsuit two years ago seeking to overturn the hate-statutes, Withrow asserted he set up the crucifixion to infiltrate the media and halls of government and increase flagging interest, particularly among white students, in white separatism.
Well, as they say, it takes all kinds ...
Incidentally, Withrow's opposition to the war in Iraq is likely based on positions similar to most white supremacists', that is, that this war is being waged on behalf of Jews generically and Israel specifically. More on that problem soon.
9:07 AM
Hiding the wires
Saturday, February 05, 2005
I was amused by the claims that George W. Bush wore a listening device under his jacket in the first two of his three debates with John Kerry, but recognized that, at the time, the evidence in the case was largely speculative. I was waiting to see if the press would do its job and investigate the matter thoroughly.
Turns out they did, according to a report from David Lindorff at Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting. Problem is, they didn't tell the public what they had uncovered: that Bush almost certainly did, in fact, use such a device.
The suspicions were raised primarily in a series of Salon stories, many of them by Lindorff and featuring in the last installment the testimony of a NASA scientist who, it turns out, had also been talking to reporters from the New York Times:
- At that point, Dr. Robert M. Nelson, a 30-year Jet Propulsion Laboratory veteran who works on photo imaging for NASA's various space probes and currently is part of a photo enhancement team for the Cassini Saturn space probe, entered the picture. Nelson recounts that after seeing the Salon story on the bulge, professional curiosity prompted him to apply his skills at photo enhancement to a digital image he took from a videotape of the first debate. He says that when he saw the results of his efforts, which clearly revealed a significant T-shaped object in the middle of Bush's back and a wire running up and over his shoulder, he realized it was an important story.
Eventually his discovery made its way to the attention of the Times. The story was ready to run in late October, but was reportedly killed because of its proximity to the election:
- Times science writer William Broad, as well as reporters Andrew Revkin and John Schwartz, got to work on the story, according to Nelson, and produced a story that he says they assured him was scheduled to run the week of October 25. "It got pushed back because of the explosives story," he says, first to Wednesday, and then to Thursday, October 28. That would still have been five days ahead of Election Day.
An indication of the seriousness with which the story was being pursued is provided by an email Schwartz sent to Nelson on October 26 -- one of a string of back-and-forth emails between Schwartz and Nelson. It read:
- Hey there, Dr. Nelson—this story is shaping up very nicely, but my_editors have asked me to hold off for one day while they push through a few other stories that are ahead of us in line. I might be calling you again for more information, but I hope that you'll hold tight and not tell anyone else about this until we get a chance to get our story out there.
Please call me with any concerns that you might have about this, and thanks again for letting us tell your story.
But on October 28, the article was not in the paper. After learning from the reporters working on the story that their article had been killed the night before by senior editors, Nelson eventually sent his photographic evidence of presidential cheating to Salon magazine, which ran the photos as the magazine's lead item on October 29.
Lindorff's piece has the evidence to support its claims (namely, the reporters' e-mails), which stand in direct contradiction to the Times' initial claims that the story never existed. It also produces evidence from other sources that the story existed:
- In fact, Schwartz, Revkin and Broad, using Nelson's photographic evidence as their starting point, had made a major effort to put together the story of presidential debate misconduct and deception. Among those called in the course of their reporting, in addition to Nelson, who says he received numerous calls and emails from the team, were Cornell physicist Kurt Gottfried, who was asked to vouch for Nelson's professional credentials; Bush/Cheney campaign chair Ken Mehlman (information about this call was provided by a journalist at the Times); and Jim Atkinson, an owner of a spyware and debugging company in Gloucester, Mass., called Granite Island Group.
"The Times reporters called me a number of times on this story," confirms Atkinson. "I was able to identify the object Nelson highlighted definitively as a magnetic cueing device that uses a wire yoke around the neck to communicate with a hidden earpiece -- the kind of thing that is used routinely now by music performers, actors, reporters -- and by politicians."
At first, the Times tried to slough off the FAIR report by claiming that the story had never existed:
- Referring to a FAIR press release (11/5/04) about the spiked story, Village Voice press critic Jarrett Murphy wrote (11/16/04), "A Times reporter alleged to have worked on such a piece says FAIR was totally off base: The paper never pursued the story."
Murphy told Extra! that his source at the nation's self-proclaimed paper of record -- whom he would not identify -- told him the information about the bulge seen under Bush's jacket during the debates, provided by a senior astronomer and photo imaging specialist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, had been tossed onto the "nutpile," and was never researched further.
Now, it seems, the Time "reader advocate," Daniel Okrent, is admitting on the Times Web site that the story indeed existed, and indeed was spiked because of its proximity to the election:
- I checked into Lindorff's assertion, and he's right. The story's life at the Times began with a tip from the NASA scientist, Robert Nelson, to reporter Bill Broad. Soon his colleagues on the science desk, John Schwartz and Andrew Revkin, took on the bulk of the reporting. Science editor Laura Chang presented the story at the daily news meeting but, like many other stories, it did not make the cut. According to executive editor Bill Keller, "In the end, nobody, including the scientist who brought it up, could take the story beyond speculation. In the crush of election-finale stories, it died a quiet, unlamented death."
Revkin, for one, wished it had run. Here's what he told me in an e-mail message:
- I can appreciate the broader factors weighing on the paper's top editors, particularly that close to the election. But personally, I think that Nelson's assertions did rise above the level of garden-variety speculation, mainly because of who he is. Here was a veteran government scientist, whose decades-long career revolves around interpreting imagery like features of Mars, who decided to say very publicly that, without reservation, he was convinced there was something under a president's jacket when the White House said there was nothing. He essentially put his hard-won reputation utterly on the line (not to mention his job) in doing so and certainly with little prospect that he might gain something as a result -- except, as he put it, his preserved integrity.
Revkin also told me that before Nelson called Broad, he had approached other media outlets as well. None -- until Salon -- published anything on Nelson's analysis. "I'd certainly choose [Nelson's] opinion over that of a tailor," Revkin concluded, referring to news reports that cited the man who makes the president's suits. "Hard to believe that so many in the media chose the tailor, even in coverage after the election."
The truth of the matter is that killing a story that could affect the outcome of the election simply because it could affect the outcome of the election is an abandonment of one's duties as a journalist dedicated to publishing the truth and adequately informing the public. It would be one thing if the evidence was indeed speculative; but the evidence presented by Nelson and the Times' other sources, in fact, was well past speculation. It was, in fact, highly substantive.
There's no other way of putting it: This is a gross dereliction of its Fourth Estate role as a public watchdog by the Times.
UPDATE: Following up on Times executive editor Bill Keller's explanation (someone in comments notes that he has remarked elsewhere to the effect that "lots of stories don't make the Times"), I thought it worth noting just which stories the Times deemed more newsworthy regarding its coverage of the campaign on Oct. 28, 2004:
- A fluff piece on John Kerry and the Boston Red Sox
A scintillating piece on how well campaign-finance reform has worked
A thumbsucker on the political ramifications of the intelligence overhaul
Yeah, those were much more newsworthy than highly damning evidence that the president cheated during the debates.
3:42 PM
The Final Solution
The latest poster boy for the religious right's never-ending persecution complex is a fellow named Michael Marcavage, who has been making headlines for his prosecution in Philadelphia for allegedly breaking the state's hate-crime law by protesting gay-pride events.
As the Post-Gazette story explains, the essence of the charge is that Marcavage and four cohorts broke a variety of laws, including bias-motivated intimidation (the hate crimes charge), in the process of organizing loud protests at OutFest, an event in which Philly gays are urged to come out of the closet, on Oct. 10 last year.
It's clear from the available videos that Marcavage was liable to be charged for refusing a police order to move, but the bias-crime charge seems potentially dubious to me; if prosecutors can produce evidence of actual threats or acts of intimidation, then the case may in fact be sound. (Prosecutors have issued a statement saying: "This case is about conduct, not content of speech.") Only a trial will be able to tell us for certain.
Marcavage operates an outfit called Repent America, which reportedly is closely connected to Donald Wildmon's American Family Association (one of the folks protesting SpongeBob Squarepants' participation in a tolerance campaign). The AFA, in fact, is providing Marcavage with free legal counsel, which may explain his apparent eagerness to be arrested (Marcavage says he's been in jail over a dozen times).
The "Philly Five" cause has also been picked up by other ostensibly mainstream-right outfits as Concerned Women for America, while Marcavage and his attorney have been busy making appearances on places like Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes" and "O'Reilly Factor," and "Hannity & Colmes," and MSNBC's "Abrams Report". Likewise, it is being trumpeted by outfits further toward the fringe like WorldNetDaily and Free Republic.
The Philadelphia City Paper just published an excellent story on Marcavage that covered most of the bases of the case. It also, rather strikingly, had this quote from Marcavage:
- "According to the Scriptures, it's the government's job to enforce God's law and to uphold his law, and the Bible talks about how, I don't want to really get into this -- it'll make me sound like I'm crazy -- but it does talk about how [homosexuals] are to be put to death. The wages of sin is death. But I want to make [it] clear that I'm not advocating the [independent] killing of homosexuals. ... I'm saying that the government's duty is to uphold God's law. ... I know that's harsh, but we have all broken the law, God's law, and we need to be held accountable."
I don't think it's misreading these remarks to observe that Marcavage, while eschewing individual acts of murderous retribution, is calling for creating a system under which homosexuals can be put to death by the government simply for being homosexual.
And this is the young fresh face of the persecuted Christian right?
People who have dealt with the extremist right for many years have heard Marcavage's arguments before. They were made most famously by the leading figure in the white supremacist Christian Identity movement, the Rev. Pete Peters, who preaches sermons titled, "Intolerance of, Discrimination Against and the Death Penalty for Homosexuals is prescribed in the Bible," and likewise penned a pamphlet titled Death Penalty for Homosexuals is Prescribed in the Bible (a piece that was, incidentally, the source of his falling-out with Bo Gritz.) (You can see a copy of its cover here, along with a link to Chip Berlet's slide show on the subject of Identity.)
Marcavage, perhaps not coincidentally, first made a splash on the extremist Patriot circuit back in 2001 when he was committed to a psychiatric ward for his protest of a controversial play being performed at Temple University that was a gay-themed take on the life of Christ. (Observe that the link from American Patriot Friends Network includes the following note: "Friends, This may be a preview of what happens to all Christians under the coming UN agenda. You must understand that everyone must be "tolerant" unless your views differ from the communist UN agenda which does not include God.")
This current campaign has been picked up not only by the Christian Reconstructionist Chalcedon Institute, but also by the far-right Army of God, which has been associated with abortion-clinic bombings and killings of abortion providers.
Sarah Posner at the Gadflyer has more on Marcavage.
All in all, the mainstream adoption of Marcavage's martyrdom campaign, like the SpongeBob brouhaha, can be considered both an example of the continuing spread of right-wing extremism into the mainstream, as well as evidence that, indeed, gays are the new Jews.
2:06 PM
Book burners
Friday, February 04, 2005
In Norwood, Colorado, parents have apparently taken to gathering up and burning a book -- Rudolfo Anaya's Bless Me, Ultima -- that was assigned to freshmen as part of an English assignment and then confiscated by school officials after these parents protested:
- It wasn't a band of angry students who destroyed about two dozen copies of "Bless Me, Ultima," a novel selected for a Norwood High School English class -- it was a group of parents. Norwood School Superintendent Bob Conder confiscated the books and released them to parents to be burned or otherwise purged.
Conder said that he removed the books based on complaints by parents, complaints that were made "mainly" about the language. The book, which is used in high school level curricula all over the country, contains profanity; it also deals with cultural and religious issues.
"Filthy language," said Conder of the profanity. "I'm not going to repeat the language. Our job is to protect kids from things that aren't good for kids."
According to a report from the American Library Association:
- Conder said the books, about 2 dozen in total costing $6.99 each, were pulled from the classroom, and designated to be destroyed. The parents approached the superintendent and asked that they be able to burn the books instead of the school janitor destroying them.
The ALA report also describes the book being attacked:
- Rudolfo Anaya, a professor emeritus of English at the University of New Mexico, wrote "Bless Me Ultima" in 1972. It explores the difficulty of reconciling conflicting cultural traditions. The main character, a young boy growing up in New Mexico during World War II, struggles with the complexities of his religion. He becomes increasingly frustrated by the failure of the Catholic Church to explain the most pressing questions about morality and human experience and is frustrated by his failure to find a forgiving god, and then finds an unlikely mentor in a local "healer" who comes to live with his family.
Many of the characters in the book are limited by their cultural prejudices and never learn to look beyond their own assumptions. Meanwhile the main character grows to understand that his experiences are lessons about life, and he knows that he must take life's lessons to heart, even when they are difficult, painful, or disappointing. Learning the importance of tolerance marks his growth, especially as he begins to realize that some religions may be better suited to some people than to others.
The same book was chosen by other Colorado communities, such as Fort Collins, Boulder, and most recently Grand Junction at Mesa State College as the book of choice to be read as a community. Anaya commented, "The book should be judged in its entirety. There is some strong language in strong situations, but there is no flippant use of profanity."
I think Anaya also has the situation sized up about right:
- "Parents have the right to monitor what their children read, however they do not have the right to tell others what they can read. That is un-American, un-democratic and un-educational."
Yeah, well, who cares about democracy and education when our moral values are at stake?
Though it's true that previous cultures where book burnings were encouraged by officialdom didn't exactly work out so well on the moral values thing ...
11:02 PM
It's all frivolity
The other night, when President Bush said this in the State of the Union address:
- Justice is distorted, and our economy is held back, by irresponsible class actions and frivolous asbestos claims -- and I urge Congress to pass legal reforms this year.
... I wonder if he was thinking of cases like this:
- The Halliburton Co. will pay $30 million to about 120 families of people who were exposed to deadly asbestos while working in shipyards, construction sites and industrial plants in the Pacific Northwest or serving on Navy ships that were serviced here.
The amount, announced yesterday in Seattle, is part of a recent $4.3 billion national settlement to wrap up the Houston-based oil-services giant's liabilities for people who are ailing, have died -- or will die in the coming years -- because of asbestos exposure.
... Halliburton inherited a flood of asbestos and silica claims when it acquired Dresser Industries Inc. in 1998, during Dick Cheney's tenure at the helm of Halliburton before he became vice president. Most of the claims had been filed against Harbison-Walker Refractories Co., a Pittsburgh-based subsidiary of Dresser.
"Halliburton is pleased to have the matter of asbestos and silica litigation fully and finally resolved," company spokeswoman Beverly Scippa said yesterday. "The settlement will provide a permanent resolution to a difficult and complicated problem."
Nah. I'm sure instead he was thinking of "frivolous" cases like this one in Montana:
- Asbestos from a now-closed vermiculite mine on a mountain near Libby has killed 192 people and left at least 375 with fatal diseases. Doctors say the people of Libby will keep dying for decades.
This was the case, you'll recall, that put W.R. Grace out of business:
- Saying it can't handle the flood of asbestos personal-injury lawsuits, W.R. Grace & Co. has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Because of the filing, taxpayers may get stuck with millions of dollars for cleaning up sites contaminated by the 150-year-old company.
... "This doesn't come as a surprise. We've known that Grace was going to use the legal system to get out of its responsibility to the hundreds of people their actions have sickened or killed in Libby," says Gayla Benefield, whose parents both died from exposure to asbestos contaminating the ore at Grace's nearby vermiculite mine.
"There are hundreds of people in Libby who are relying on Grace's promise to pay their medical bills for treatment of the diseases caused by the asbestos and they have no idea what (the bankruptcy) will mean to their future," Benefield said.
Yep, those lawsuits sound pretty damned frivolous to me.
10:24 PM
Creepy
I'm glad I'm not the only one who found this downright creepy: the White House assigning "handlers" to accompany journalists at the Inaugural events in Washington -- not to watch what they ask, but to keep an eye on their contacts:
- Consider that the escorts weren't there to provide security; all of us had already been through two checkpoints and one metal detector. They weren't there to keep me away from, Heaven forbid, a Democrat or a protester; those folks were kept safely behind rings of fences and concrete barriers. Nor were the escorts there to admonish me for asking a rude question of the partying faithful, or to protect the paying customers from the prying media.
Their real purpose only occurred to me after I had gone home for the night, when I remembered a brief conversation with a woman I was interviewing. During the middle of our otherwise innocuous encounter, she suddenly noticed the presence of my minder. She stopped for a moment, glanced past me, then resumed talking.
No, the minders weren't there to monitor me. They were there to let the guests, my sources on inaugural night, know that any complaint, any unguarded statement, any off-the-reservation political observation, might be noted. But maybe someday they'll be monitoring something more important than an inaugural ball, and the source could be you.
I'm not sure which this reminds me more of: the Soviets or the Nazis. Either way, the totalitarian nature of this kind of intimidation should be self-evident.
[Via Pacific Views, via Tom Tomorrow.]
10:21 AM
Asymmetry and terror
Thursday, February 03, 2005
CNN's Henry Schuster has an interesting piece about "lone wolves" -- a topic that, as regular readers (or those familiar with In God's Country) know, is a subject near and dear to my heart.
It touches on cases I've also discussed here previously, notably William Krar, the would-be cyanide bomber, as well as the anthrax killer:
- Ask Potok and the folks at the SPLC and they will tell you they believe the anthrax killer is a lone wolf -- and probably not an Islamic terrorist, despite the letters that were sent in late 2001 containing the anthrax, which seemed to signal this was an al Qaeda-style attack. Potok and company base this belief in part on how the killer has gone quiet since the flurry of letters in late 2001 -- and that there have been no claims by international terror groups.
You might be noticing the pattern by now. Lone wolves are typically Americans with an extremist agenda, usually anti-government. They are certainly not the only domestic terrorists (we'll deal with the animal rights and eco-terrorists at a later date), but they are scary nonetheless.
It's not that they are merely scary: it's that they are more effective than they're often given credit for. Think, for instance, of how for nearly a month the anthrax story was the lead on all the newscasts, because it was perceived as an act of terrorism of a piece with 9/11.
And the truth is, it was, though not in the way most people think. The anthrax killer almost certainly was not an Al Qaeda or Iraqi terrorist, but was a domestic terrorist (probably one with right-wing political beliefs, though not necessarily acting solely from those beliefs). Just as certainly, though, he was consciously piggybacking off the 9/11 attacks to enhance the effectiveness of his weapon, which was not to kill people, but to terrorize the populace.
That is to say, there is an important symbiotic relationship between foreign and domestic terrorists, as exemplified by this case: the latter creates an "echo" effect that enhances the intent of the original foreign terrorist attack, while also advancing the agenda of the former (which is to destabilize public confidence in the government so that it can present itself as an authoritarian alternative to a system unable to keep its citizens secure).
Moreover, both events represent the aspect of terrorism (as I've argued till I'm blue in the face) most absent from the popular understanding of the phenomenon which is, ostensibly, our real enemy in the War on Terror: its asymmetry as a threat.
Thanks to a combination of technology and increasingly virulent and violence-prone forms of extremism, it's now possible for just a tiny number of people -- in some cases, one or two -- to wreak major damage, killing hundreds, even thousands of innocent civilians. That was as true of Oklahoma City as it was of 9/11.
It's too bad it took an attack committed by a previously small faction of Islamic extremists -- who, as it happened, were both foreigners and brown-skinned, unlike the Oklahoma bombers -- for us to declare a "war on terror." The question I've always had is this: Why didn't we declare it after April 19, 1995, instead of September 11, 2001? Because it was the former date that actually hailed the arrival of this threat on our doorsteps.
Unfortunately, it is that same lack of perspective that allows us to pursue wars of power, invading other nations under false pretext, all in the name of the "war on terror." It's this same failure to understand the nature of the beast that leads us to blithely create a cauldron for breeding a fresh generation of terrorists in Iraq.
In the meantime, we yawn when federal authorities arrest a hard-core "Patriot" in Idaho named David Roland Hinkson for plotting to kill a federal judge, an assistant U.S. attorney, and an IRS agent:
- During pretrial proceedings, an FBI agent testified that Hinkson's anger toward Judge Lodge was long-standing, stretching back to the judge's dismissal of charges against an FBI sharpshooter who killed Vicki Weaver during a standoff with white separatists at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992. Prosecutors said Hinkson was affiliated with Idaho militia groups who shared his hatred of Lodge.
It's true that, generally speaking, domestic terrorists are neither as competent nor as likely to pose a major threat as most international terrorists, particularly Al Qaeda. And the belief systems that feed the domestic terrorists have not become pervasive in popular Western culture the way Al Qaeda and Wahhabism generally have insinuated themselves in the Islamic world (though there has been an increasing blurring of the lines between the mainstream and extremist right in recent years).
Nonetheless, given the right actors, the right weapons, and the right circumstances, they remain nearly as capable of inflicting serious harm on large numbers of citizens as their foreign counterparts. This is especially true because they are less likely to arouse suspicion and can more readily blend into the scenery.
Most of all, what they lack in smarts or skill, they make up for in numbers: Since the early 1990s, the vast majority of planned terrorist acts on American soil -- both those that were successfully perpetrated and those apprehended beforehand -- have involved white right-wing extremists. Between 1995 and 2000, over 42 such cases (some, like Eric Rudolph, involving multiple crimes) were identifiable from public records.
Some of these were potentially quite lethal, such as a planned attack on a propane facility near Sacramento that, had it been successful, would have killed several thousand people living in its vicinity. Krar's cyanide bomb could have killed hundreds. Fortunately, none of these plotters have proven to be very competent.
The rate has slowed since 2000, but the cases have continued to occur. And someday, our luck is going to run out. Certainly, if we are counting on their incompetence, the fact that the anthrax killer (whose attacks in fact were quite successful in their purpose) has not yet been caught. Likewise, if Al Qaeda attacks again, that will likely signal a fresh round of piggybacking.
That is only possible, of course, if we continue to succumb to the notion that domestic terrorists represent "isolated incidents," while foreign terrorists are the "real enemy." Let's be truthful: They are all The Enemy.
10:24 PM
She's the expert
I see Michelle Malkin has taken to calling Greg Robinson "gutlessly underhanded."
Well, Michelle is, after all, an expert on gutlessness and underhandedness.
UPDATE: Greg Robinson has responded. [Via Eric Muller.] Seems this is vintage Malkin: Twist an act of graciousness on the part of your opponents into an attack on their character. It's not as if we didn't know already, but it's worth repeating: These people see decency as a weakness to be exploited.
1:40 AM
Onward Young Christian Soldiers
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
A strange and disturbing story out of Lompoc, California, about a "summer camp" for Christian children that reveals a great deal about the direction some fundamentalists take their beliefs:
- Christians in combat boots
It's Sunday morning at Trinity Church of the Nazarene and staff member Mark "Gunny" Hestand is on his belly behind a tree, an imitation M-16 in his hands, showing six teen-age boys in fatigues how to ambush an enemy.
Hestand, 43, and a teen-age squad leader have been barking at the "soldiers" who are cranking out pushups and line sprints beside the church.
"You girls are going on a hike tomorrow," shouts squad leader Zach Smith, 15. "How are you girls going to hike tomorrow if you can't do 25 pushups?"
Thirty minutes later, the teens march into the church cafeteria in two single-file lines to the cadent commands of Smith. They gather around a table with Hestand and Bible study leader Tom Gilbert.
"Man has lost his focus on purpose," Gilbert says to the boys, in a lesson taken from the best-selling and controversial Christian book "Wild at Heart," John Eldridge's examination of masculinity.
"Life needs man to be fierce. Aggression is part of the masculine heart," Gilbert says.
The teens are part of "Boot Camp," a youth group that mixes Marine Corps values and combat techniques with Bible study. The concept is the brainchild of Hestand, who started the group in 2001 to encourage youth involvement in the church. As far as he knows, Boot Camp is unique in the Christian world.
One can only hope so. Because these folks practice a peculiarly militaristic brand of Christianity:
- Once the 90-minute service commences, the boys gather outside, usually in the church's south parking lot, where for 20 minutes they do physical training like new recruits under the barks and orders of drill sergeants.
"We really get in their face," Hestand said.
The next 20 minutes are dedicated to combat techniques, such as ambushes or guerrilla tactics. The last 45 minutes are spent on Bible study.
Marine recruiter Sgt. Thomas Bustamante swings by once a month - without compensation and on his own time - to instruct the physical training and combat portion of the service. Recruiting isn't part of Bustamante's involvement, Hestand said.
Hestand sees no contradiction in instructing military combat techniques alongside the teachings of Jesus, who often is considered a pacifist because of his doctrine of "turning the other cheek." Neither does it bother Trinity's Pastor Jim Morris, an ex-Marine.
"His turn-the-other-cheek comment was talking about confronting things in life that seem unfair: An opportunity to be gracious rather than combative," Morris said. "Having said that, we're not preparing these guys to go into the military. We're using a military model as a hook."
It would be comforting to think that this worldview is relegated to a small range of fundamentalist thought. And it's true that the camp is unique. It seems, however, that the philosophy behind it actually enjoys broad popularity with many fundamentalists:
- This aggressive and combative nature is at the heart of Boot Camp. Hestand and company say that men - particularly Christian men - have become domesticated, boring and divided from their natural instincts of adventure and drive to tackle challenges. The end result is a docile and unhappy man.
The idea that Christian men must be reshaped is straight from Eldridge's "Wild at Heart," which argues that man's wild heart is a mirror of God's and that man's three natural and worthy desires are to: fight a battle, live an adventure and rescue a beauty.
"Wild at Heart" has sold over a million copies since its 2001 release. It has sparked debate, but is used as a manual by many churches and is prominently displayed in Christian bookstores.
Other Christians consider Eldridge a demagogue who shapes God in his own "muscular Christian," outdoorsman image. They say his teachings - which favor movie icons like the character William Wallace of "Braveheart" and bash "Mr. Roger Christians," who hold office jobs and "make decisions at the kitchen table," - are dangerous and heretical concepts.
The Braveheart imagery, incidentally, is also significant. Because the Mel Gibson film (like his most recent release, The Passion), with its gory glorification of violence and self-sacrifice, represents a kind of theme that is appearing more frequently with an aggressively violent brand of Christianity that has many roots in the extremist right.
Max Blumenthal recently had an excellent post exploring this aspect of the Christian right, which he correctly identifies as a "fascist aesthetic." Notably, he cites an instance in which an official from Focus on the Family -- the same folks who have been attacking SpongeBob as a way of undermining the concept of tolerance -- referred to the Braveheart iconography in association with Eldridge's "masculine" form of Christianity:
- Jim Chase, an advertising copywriter from La Crescenta, California, has had a replica of the sword actor Mel Gibson used when he played legendary Scottish warrior William Wallace in "Braveheart" hanging above his desk since attending a Wild at Heart retreat with 350 other men last year.
"It is just a reminder that we are in a battle every day. It can be just facing boredom and routine, but it is a battle," Chase said.
"Life isn't just about going to work and sitting in front of a computer and bringing in as much money as you can. We all have a story. God has written a story and we are meant to find out what the story is and live it," Chase said.
Blumenthal correctly points out that Braveheart enjoys icon status with European far-right figures. It also enjoys (I can report from personal experience) an avid audience with the Patriot/militia crowd. See, for instance, the fellow arrested last summer in Erie, Pa., with a massive cache of illegal weapons; the name of the organization he operated locally was the "Braveheart Militia."
Moreover, attacking the "feminization of Christianity" has long been a major theme of the white-supremacist Christian Identity movement. A taped sermon with that title has long been a staple of Peter Peters' Identity catalog. It's also worth noting how Peters views the source of this "feminization":
- The Jewish leaders believe they already control America. Recently, one of them stated publicly: "We have castrated Gentile society, through fear and intimidation. It's manhood exists only in combination with a feminine outward appearance. Being so neutered, the populace has become docile and easy to rule. As all geldings are by nature, their thoughts are not concerned with the future, or their posterity, BUT ONLY WITH THE PRESENT and the next meal." What a perfect "word picture of modern American society. It is the attitude of Christians, who don't want to be involved, and allow Jews, to control the school and often the church. We MUST break these fatal bonds, if we are to remain free.
If this trend continues to manifest itself among supposedly mainstream fundamentalists as well, that should be serious cause for concern.
4:47 PM
|
|
