Archive for

Who to Blame for Extremists? The Greatest Battle Ever Twittered

Yesterday’s assault on two guards at the Holocaust Museum has, unfortunately, incited both sides of the political spectrum into an unseemly blame game (“bomb the internet” indeed), with some on the left attempting to tar the entire conservative community with Brunn’s crimes, and some on the right straining to tie him instead to some definition of “leftism” (who knew Nazis were left-wing?).

Both are wrong. Von Brunn was a veritable grab-bag of hate, with some positions evincing a nexus with the far-right, and a few with the far-left. Given this evidence, there’s nothing wrong with categorizing him as a “right-wing extremist,” nor is it inaccurate to note that DHS’ earlier report on the dangers of right-wing extremism might, now, look a little more reasonable than it already was. Indeed, the far-far-right has even started to scare Fox News:

Taking note of these facts is a matter of national security, not grandstanding. The only fault lies in imputing extremism to the conservative community at large. To the extent that anyone is doing that (and “Kos” founder @markosm kinda sorta is), they’re flat-out wrong. All ideologies have their extremists, and most have some sort of sordid past. But just as we on the left flatly reject our extremists and would give our lives to defeat them (communists/violent anarchists), so would the vast, vast majority on the right devote their lives to opposing fascism. No ideology is defined by its extreme, and superficial similarity between criminals and legitimate, responsible conservatives (OMG, Roeder was “pro-life,” and so is Sarah Palin!!) does not allow us to tar the latter with the former’s crimes.

This is the correct response to anyone attempting to impute terrorist acts to entire groups.  But it’s not been the response, from either side, to the shameless blame-gaming that admittedly has occurred. RedState, outraged by the perception that Daily Kos would try to schluff Von Brunn off on the right, responded by schluffing him off on the left, and insisting, in a fact-immune rage, that “leftists celebrate each and every death of each and every American solider because they view the loss of life as a vindication of their belief that they are right.” Claims like these don’t really deserve the dignity of a reply: if Erick Erickson can’t parse the difference between opposing a war and opposing the soldiers who fight the war, that’s his own problem.

These reactions to the perception of liberal blame-gaming evince a shocking logical disconnect. If Daily Kos was wrong to engage in tasteless grandstanding, the proper response is to condemn grandstanding – not take it as an excuse to engage in the same, from the opposite perspective.

Both sides should own up to their demons, and find common ground in opposing them. Such tragedies can even be a chance to bridge divides – as Tony Blair attempted to do in the wake of the ’05 Tube bombings – and in today’s hyperpartisan society, we can’t afford to squander such opportunities. It doesn’t matter if a terrorist belongs to the right, belongs to the left, belongs to Islam, or belongs to Christianity – these are definitional questions that do not speak to the merits of whatever ideology the terrorist decides to pervert. What matters is that we recognize the dangers of extremism, period. Too bad the only other blogger noting this point doesn’t have a job anymore.

BREAKING!!! Senate Approves H.R. 1256: FDA Will Have Oversight Over Big Tobacco Once and For All

After two decades of arguing that nicotine is neither a drug nor addictive … that cigarettes didn’t cause cancer … that hooking kids wasn’t part of their long-term marketing plans, Big Tobacco finally had to take it and like it, literally, moments ago when the Senate voted 79-17, approving H.R. 1256, which provides the FDA with the authority to regulate the production, marketing, distribution, and sale of cigarettes in this country.

Of course, how the law is actually implemented is another thing, but the fact that once and for all the federal government has regulatory control over cigarettes is a huge watershed for advancing public health.

The Objective “Case” Against Gay Marriage

Yes – it’s really this ridiculous.

As I’ve said before, I understand caution. Sea changes in society are scary, even if there’s no real reason for them to be. But the notion that gay marriages are somehow in a zero sum relationship with heterosexual (ahem – “opposite”) marriages is just as ridiculous as Toles makes it sound.

Miss California Loses Her Crown: Be Happy, for the Right Reasons

In a non-political ouster, Miss California was stripped of her title for failing to fulfill her role: essentially, not going to meetings. Good riddance. I won’t miss her, and I suspect you won’t either. We should be careful, however, about how that comes out. For one, we should avoid both the actuality and the appearance of sexism. And, more importantly, we should avoid suggesting that a belief in gay equality is somehow a prerequisite for membership in civil society (which is how NOM is reading the termination). It isn’t.

To be sure, there aren’t a lot of principled grounds on which to oppose gay marriage. If homosexuality is not a choice – and really, the evidence is in on this one – the conclusion follows logically and directly that, barring some hitherto unarticulated objective harm, gay men and women deserve our respect, and full equality before the law. That includes marriage. Reasonable people can disagree with elements of this argument, and although legitimate bases for disagreement continue to decrease, and I have no problem with those who find them compelling. I do object, though, to those whose only arguments flow from some subjective, personal morality, or an attempt to cling thoughtlessly to tradition.

Carrie Prejean falls into the latter category, and this alone is my problem with her. I welcome debate with reasonable spokespersons who oppose gay marriage, but because she manages only to recycle meaningless definitional quibbles, I cannot respect Ms. Prejean, and will be glad to see her fade as an opinion maker.

No, support for gay marriage is not a prerequisite to membership in elite society. Being able to defend controversial positions, though, should indeed be such a qualification. Consequentially, I’m not much of a fan of Perez Hilton either.