If the Right Doesn’t Like Being Suspected of Terrorism, They Should Stop Talking Like Terrorists.
I’m not sure how to start this one, but I know where I want to go with it. So let’s just jump right in.Associated Press: FBI officials said Monday they foiled a terrorist attack being planned in a small western Minnesota town, but they offered no details about the exact targets of the attack _ or the motive of the man accused of having a cache of explosives and weapons in a mobile home.
The FBI said “the lives of several local residents were potentially saved” with the arrest of Buford Rogers, 24, who made his first appearance Monday in U.S. District Court in St. Paul on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Rogers, of Montevideo, was arrested Friday after authorities searched a mobile home he’s associated with and found Molotov cocktails, suspected pipe bombs and firearms, according to a court affidavit.
ABC News’ Matthew Jaffe reports via Twitter that the FBI told him Buford is a “militia type” — meaning one of those rightwing extremist domestic terrorists we’ve all been assured are imaginary. And that’s enough to trigger a whine from the right. The wingnut blog Jammie Wearing Fool would like to inform you that the real victim here is the Tea Party:We’re just applying the mainstream media standard for reportage here. C’mon, a guy name Buford with a so-called assault rifle living in a trailer park? Why he has to be a tea party guy, right? He meets every possible stereotype. Of course we have no evidence to support that assertion, but that hasn’t stopped the left from wild speculation any time there’s a terror incident or mass shooting.
Yeah, no evidence of terrorism — other than the FBI saying they’ve stopped a terrorist attack. How completely irresponsible of the lamestream media to repeat the things they’re told by law enforcement. No one’s actually saying the guy’s Tea Party, they’re saying he’s a rightwing nutjob. Granted, those would seem to be the same thing at first glance — and most often are — but it’s possible to be one without being the other. Think vanilla and French vanilla.
But how whiny is it that JWF feels the need to jump right in immediately and proclaim media victimhood? This seems a bit like a hangover from the Boston bombing. When news of that broke, a lot of people — responsibly, if you ask me — warned not to jump to conclusions. It could’ve been an Islamic terrorist or could’ve been a rightwing extremist; we didn’t know.
And that was all it took.The rightwing blogosphere went nuts with victim cards. It turned out that acknowledging the very real possibility that the bombing was the work of a rightwinger was verboten by wingnut political correctness. And now they’re getting into niggling and pointless little distinctions; yes, the would-be mass-murderer was likely a rightwing fanatic — but don’t you dare say he was part of the Tea Party!
Because… Well, I’m not sure about the because. Just because.
Consider how silly this all is. Imagine that this was the first rightwing domestic terrorist ever. Imagine that such an animal had never been seen in the wild before. But imagine the Republican Party and the Tea Party were exactly the same. They’ve been openly hostile to the very idea of government. They’ve been obsessed with guns and the need for the ability to kill members of the police, military, and government (what do you think “fighting tyranny” would actually look like, after all?). And, while talking about the need to kill tyrants, they also accuse everything they don’t agree with of being “tyranny.” For chrissakes, curly fluorescent lightbulbs are supposedly tyranny.
So you’ve got people who hate government and want to kill tyrants. And these are the same people who see tyranny under every rock. Polling shows that nearly half of all Republican voters think armed revolution “might be necessary” in the near future. A reasonable person wouldn’t be out of line to wonder when all this tyrant-fighting was going to start and it wouldn’t be unreasonable to think it could be any second now. And when they hear about a terrorist attack with an unknown motive, it’s not unreasonable to wonder if maybe all this tyrant-killing has finally gotten under way.
In other words; if you don’t want people to assume you’re a terrorist, don’t spend most of your time talking like a goddam terrorist. If you’re spending a lot of time talking about going to war with the American government and murdering and assassinating your fellow Americans, don’t whine when people assume you’re serious. And now that some rightwing nutjob is almost certainly an honest-to-goodness, for-real terrorist, we’ve got the right whining that Buford is not being classified as the correct kind of rightwing nutjob. Maybe it might be a good time to give it a rest, OK? Maybe turn off the victim machine for a bit, because it’s finally blown a logical gasket.
But if being called a terrorist bothers the right so much, maybe using a threat to use deadly violence any second now as a mantra isn’t the best way to approach politics. Maybe the best way to avoid being accused of terrorism is to stop talking like you’re a terrorist.
[photo via HowieInSeattle]
American workers are more likely to be killed by their boss than a terrorist.
Every day, workers are forced to minimize safety in order to keep their jobs. The vast majority of American workers have no unions to defend their right to workplace safety. The U.S. Department of Labor and other federal agencies do not protect workers from being killed on the job.
The explosion in West, Texas was as big as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh, yet there will be no war on this kind of terrorism. This is because the prevailing philosophy is profit before people.
American workers are more likely to be killed by their boss than a terrorist. Last year, approximately 5,000 workers were killed at work by unsafe conditions.
Kevin Harrington, New York City
Obama’s one-liners during his speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner.
THESE ARE SO FUNNY.
and oh, my god, the media industrial complex is already running their scads of “chechnya: breeding ground for terror” stories.
GOD, this makes me sO FUCKING SICK. look at this bullshit. it even has the BALLS to say: The reduced turmoil inside Chechnya has been the result of massive efforts by the Russian security forces.
WAT?????? the “turmoil” was CAUSED by russian “security” forces enforcing russian imperialism!!!!!
PLEASE. don’t even bother trying to read the “breeding ground for terror” stories—go to REAL sources, like the now dead russian journalist, Anna Politkovskaya, who many claim was murdered by russia in an effort to silence her fair reporting on russian atrocities against chechnya.
what is going on in chechnya is complex, nuanced, situational and layered—do NOT let the US media industrial complex play this off as some massive world wide muslim conspiracy.
Teju Cole’s ‘Seven Thoughts on the Banality of Sentimentality’. Magnificent.
Social conservatives, in general, believe that we were better off when sex necessarily led to babies and babies necessarily led to lifelong marriage. None of them deny believing this, they just rarely (these days) put it in such stark terms, because that’s not a very popular position. Especially among a large portion of modern women, for whom it reads suspiciously like serfdom.
The only way that belief is relevant to gay marriage is that gay marriage supposed the modern notion that marriage is a thing two people who love each other do. One assumption underlying nearly all social conservative marriage arguments is that marriage is something fertile youngsters must be coerced into for the good of society as a whole. If you strip away the anti-gay moral revulsion the movement is truly more concerned with reversing the gains of feminism than the gains of LGBT rights. That’s going to be a much harder sell, though.
This suggestion was glued to the window of a 2 train.
what is this
the perfect storm
my skin is literally tingling it’s so fucking funny
For everyone wondering about the fedora joke, here you go
HE IS THE MAN.
It is class that created and maintains the schism between the professional feminists and the women who look to unions rather than to feminism to help them at work. You can’t find a self-proclaimed feminist who doesn’t pay at least lip service to the idea of equal pay for equal work, but we don’t see a whole lot of connection between that problem and the actions that might be taken to rectify it. The Paycheck Fairness Act, which would allow workers to discuss salaries with one another in order to discover discrepancies, has been touted as a partial solution to the gender wage gap, but the idea, for instance, that workers should organize into a union whereby they’d bargain collectively for better pay and conditions seems lost.
By focusing solely on equal pay for equal work, we focus on the pay rates of individual women compared to individual men; we presume that work is taking place in the kind of white-collar workplace where one’s salary can be negotiated individually rather than collectively. Marilyn Sneiderman, a lifelong labor organizer and head of Avodah, the Jewish Service Corps, notes that it’s an individual struggle for a lawyer trying to make partner, but for a waitress, a janitor, a hotel housekeeper, the hope for a better job isn’t promotion through the ranks. Rather, it’s in pushing for paid sick days, for job security, for a raise—and those are things you get through organizing with your fellow workers. As long as there has been a labor movement, there have been women in it; from rabblerousing organizers such as Mary Harris “Mother” Jones to anarchists such as Lucy Parsons and Emma Goldman. Poo points out that the first recorded domestic workers’ strike in this country was in 1881. And those women had to fight for their place within the movement.
This piece was originally titled “On Strike from Feminism.”
I had been joking for a while that Internet Feminism (yes, with capitals) and I were “on a break” while I wrote about labor and unemployment and the economic crisis, and then one night at I introduced two friends to one another and one of them asked how I’d met the other. The answer was “feminist blogging” but in the moment I turned my joke about being “on a break” from feminism into being “on strike—because I have demands, and they’re not being met.”
Its perhaps less combative title came in the editorial process, which also saw my lines about being on strike from feminism removed, almost certainly for the better. Because it’s not a story about me, this piece, but a story about working women who fight and organize and yes, strike (thank you, Chicago Teachers Union, for inspiring the hell out of us this year) for better working conditions.
It was months of work, this piece, and now it’s out, and now I’m thinking about what to follow it with. Thinking about strikes and care work and the second shift and working time and women, gender, sexuality, desire, and more.
Page 3 of 12