Occupy Wall Street Anti-Semitism

There has been much discussion of Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party — relatively little of how they are relatively covered in the mainstream media.

To its credit, the New York Times covered the disgust of local residents and businesses with the protesters:

In a widely distributed pamphlet, “Welcome to Liberty Plaza: Home of Occupy Wall Street,” participants were instructed where to find relief. “After you’ve dined,” it reads, “feel free to refresh yourself in the restrooms of neighboring businesses like Burger King and McDonald’s without feeling obligated to buy anything.”

But Occupy Wall Street has been treated by the mainstream media, by and large, sympathetically, even lovingly, as some sort of authentic expression of anger (and without corresponding reference to the fact that they’re all white). And totally absent from the coverage — conspicuously unlike the coverage of the Tea Party — is any reference to its darker side. The Tea Party was instantly reviled by “objective journalists” as “racist” from the beginning — and in some cases slanderously so. The Left, in fact, abetted by the mainstream media, sought to portray the Tea Party as “racist” by resort to Saul Alinsky-style fraud tactics.

You don’t get the dark anti-Semitic side of Occupy Wall Street from the mainstream media. You have to go, so sadly, to the Israeli media. It wouldn’t do to talk about left-wing racists in the easy, breezy manner they talk about right-wing racists. Racism, don’t you know, is a right-wing pathology. And entire decent people can be tarred with the horrible epithet of “racist,” willy-nilly, simply because they’re conservative and oppose the policies of President Obama. But left-wing people can be virulently anti-Semitic — and let’s put that over here.

A YouTube video making the rounds over the weekend showed one such activist holding up a sign that read “Hitler’s Bankers – Wall St” and shouting, “The Jews control Wall Street!”

The few who dared to heckle the man were told to “go to Israel.”

When a liberal blogger in the crowd questioned if the man was planted by the hated right-wing Fox News, the man replied forcefully, “A f*cking Jew made that up,” before resuming his chant of “Freedom of speech, freedom of speech.”

And then this, as the protests spread:

In Los Angeles, California, protestor Patricia McAllister, who identified herself as an employee of the Los Angeles Unified School District (we can only hope she is not an educator), had this to say:

“I think that the Zionist Jews, who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve, which is not run by the federal government… they need to be run out of this country.”

On the American Nazi Party website, leader Rocky Suhayda voiced support for “Occupy Wall St.” and asked, “Who hold the wealth and power in this country? The Judeo-Capitalists. Who is therefore the #1 enemy who makes this filth happen? The Judeo-Capitalists.”

One of the people reportedly responsible for organizing the “Occupy Wall St.” protests, Adbusters editor Kalle Lasn, has a history of perpetuating conspiracy theories that say the Jews control America’s foreign policies.

Back in New York, another protestor insisted that “a small ethnic group constitutes almost all of the hedge fund managers and bankers on Wall St. They are all Jewish. There is a conspiracy in this country where Jews control the media, finances… They have pooled their money together in order to take control of America.”

Um, where is the outrage? I mean it with a measure of outrage myself. Why was it so easy to tar the Tea Party with “racism” (unfairly) and spare the left pissers of OWS any accountability for, well, anything, including violence, pissing on everything, and blatant and ugly anti-Semitism?

Yes, tell me that the anti-Semitic bullsh*t from the people pissing on everything in Wall Street was an unrepresentative fringe. I might even buy that, if the Left would meet me half way and acknowledge that the Tea Party is not racist, and that racists and anti-Semites in America have no credibility among conservatives or liberals. Then we’d be getting somewhere meaningful.

Advertisements

43 Responses to Occupy Wall Street Anti-Semitism

  1. Terrance H. says:

    I’m sorry, but ridiculous….

    A few crazies shouting about Jews do not represent the true spirit of the OCW-M. And for the record: I agree the Tea Party was treated somewhat unfairly. The extreme views of a minority within the movement damaged the whole thing.

    Both the Tea Party and the OCW movement are admirable expressions when properly understood.

    And the quid-pro-quo is beneath you. The Left shouldn’t have to admit the legitimacy of the Tea Party for you to admit that the anti-Semitic expressions of the OCW movement are nothing but the absurd rants of hateful fools. You are the level-headed Kendrick, far above the silly “political theater.” Right? Right, so let the media wallow in their bias while yiu claim the higher ground….Point out the pettiness, but do not take part in it…

    • I didn’t say, and wouldn’t, the Left must “admit the legitimacy of the Tea Party” — only that the Left spare the Tea Party the vile slander of racism based upon even *less* evidence (and in some cases manufactured evidence) than there manifestly is of anti-Semitism by the OCW people. It’s a process point. Exactly the kind of point I routinely make. Why call it “ridiculous” right up front?? How ridiculous.

      • Terrance H. says:

        Kendrick,

        You can’t very well blame me for the tone – that little digression at the end – you chose to use. I found it to be completely out of character, and it did seem like you were holding back the manifestly obvious fact that all movements, even those commendable at their core by any reasonable measure, have their extremes which can stain the whole thing.

        Why don’t people at least acknowledge the respectable nature of the other side (when there is one)? As you say, “political theater.”

        It just seemed like you forgot that and started staging a bit of your own…That’s all.

        • Exactly! My point in this post is not to revile the OCW protesters generally (though I have some concerns and disagreements). It is much more simply to point out the double standard applied to OCW versus the Tea Party — something you acknowledged and I appreciated. Indeed, you were the one to acknowledge, quite admirably, that the Tea Party had been treated unfairly. Again, my narrow point. I think (I think) we essentially agree on this one. Which is why I found your opening argument — “ridiculous” — a bit off-putting.

          • Terrance H. says:

            Kendrick,

            First of all, there is no “double standard,” as you claim. It’s been reported on. Whether or not it’s been reported on enough to satisfy you and LImbaugh is another matter.

            Second, the tone you used was quite different than what we’re all used to hearing from you. It seemed to me you wrote it out of pure anger and, as I said, peppered it here and there with a bit of political theater.

            Perhaps you were making the point in a Jonathan Swift manner and I missed it. (See: A Modest Proposal). I don’t know.

            But I do know I haven’t heard you defend the admirable motivations of 99% of the OCW protesters. You have remained silent in the face of absurdities slung by Cain, Romney, Perry, Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Ingraham, and even some fellow bloggers. And I wonder why.

          • Sedate Me says:

            Not reviling Occupy Wall Street protesters??? Perhaps you should read your own headline again.

            “Occupy Wall Street Anti-semitism”

            No, nothing about essentially declaring an entire movement (completely disorganized and open to anybody at this point) as Jew Haters in your title could possibly indicate that you “revile” them. Not at all.

            And as a long-time subscriber of Adbusters, the implication that it is akin to some neo-Nazi hate magazine is beyond laughable. Sure, it’s fair to say they come down fairly consistently on the Palestinian side of the idiotic Israeli-Palestine debate when it comes up (which isn’t that often in a predominantly cultural magazine). But picking a side doesn’t make them anti-Semites any more than picking the Israeli side makes one racist against Arabs. Saying they propagate conspiracy theories that Jews control America is like saying Republicans are Klansmen because Grand Wizard David Duke ran as a Republican (and wants to again, I hear.)

            If you wanted to compare the media treatment of Tea Baggers and Wall Street “pissers” (Pissers & tea baggers? This is starting to sound like a BSDM website!) in anything even plausibly resembling an objective piece, this effort certainly wouldn’t be it. Short, inflammatory and virtually no context.

            Besides, the topic of media bias is a pointless discussion anyway. As in “Biased is reporting I don’t agree with. Truth is reporting I do agree with.”

    • But your acknowledgement that the Tea Party and OCW are admirable expressions is itself admirable. That’s the spirit.

      • Terrance H. says:

        No problem…

        But I would like to see something from you condeming the vile rhetoric so many on the Right have been spewing in reference to OCW protesters like myself (my city has one Wednesday and Friday).

        I realize you were angered by those vile words and signs because they hit a little closer to home, but you must remember that those clowns DO NOT have any credibility, and I think the majority of the protesters, throughout the world now, would denounce them and their bigotry. I know I do.

        • Okay then, here it is, I condemn the vile rhetoric that some on the Right have been spewing in reference to OCW protesters. It is vile, where it is wrong, slanderous, fraudulent, or misleading. It is possible, however, to disagree strongly with the aims (or lack thereof), rhetoric, personal comportment, violence against police officers, informing ideology, tactics, sources of funding and manpower (increasingly labor unions), and many other things without being “vile.” Let there be, indeed, a more civil discussion — as I wish there had been (and might yet be) about the Tea Party by the Left. Again, I don’t believe we fundamentally disagree on this point.

          • Terrance H. says:

            Thank You. I wrote the post above before viewing this.

    • Jeff says:

      Thank you, Terrance. Couldn’t have said it better.

  2. Terrance H. says:

    I will say that “Judeo-capitalist” is a new one to me. LOL. The hate those people operate with and the new rhetoric they come up with is so sad and ridiculous that it’s funny. That those people think any sensible person can take them seriously is hilarious, in my view.

    This is America. That stuff doesn’t play here anymore.

  3. Snoring Dog Studio says:

    Is Fox News mainstream media? Because they and Limbaugh have been spending a lot of time stirring up this conspiracy that the 99% is code for anti-Semitism. Doesn’t Ann Coulter have the ear of mainstream media? Her words: On Hannity last night, she reiterated the thesis of her latest book, Demonic, in which she called left-wing mobs violent and evil by nature.

    As long as you have YouTube and other social media sites, there’s no way to hide the ugly amidst the honorable. I didn’t have to spend more than about 5 seconds Googling some key words to find hundreds of links that focused primarily on the anti-Semitic few that make up the movement. I’m not sure anyone relies on mainstream media anymore for the full picture.

    There are racists among Tea Party members. There are anti-Semitic folks in the OWS. The crazy, the bigots, the racists can easily hijack valid viewpoints.

    • Terrance H. says:

      YEAH!

      What she said….LOL…..

    • Last line: excellent point, and essentially my thesis in this post (plus the proposition of a double-standard regarding the Tea Party and OWS).

      Very interesting point at the outset regarding Fox News. No, in fact, I’m not sure I would count Fox News as “mainstream media.” They evolved, and exploded in popularity, precisely because they were not mainstream media (or at least not mainstream media as that term had come to be understood after decades of the left-of-center television network monopoly on news. Finally, in conservatives’ view, a source of news that didn’t consistently skew liberal, favor liberals, Democrats, and secularism, and evidence manifest skepticism about the intelligence of conservatives. Early Fox monikers like “fair and balanced” and “spin-free” — while contemptuously dismissed by the left — wildly resonated with conservatives, who truly believed Fox News simply corrected what had been a massive ideological imbalance (as massive as any ideological rift gets in relatively pragmatic America), and gave them a place to watch news that didn’t routinely insult them and their beliefs. I could put it this way — if the networks, the “mainstream media,” could be considered “objective,” as they routinely claimed, to tremendous conservative groaning, then Fox News is equally “objective.” Its slant is simply right-of-center, rather than left-of-center, to the curious outrage of so many on the left.

      So many interesting questions arise. Why does the left revile Fox so much? The left has its media outlets — more in fact. Shouldn’t that content the left? Wouldn’t it make sense to live and let live peaceably? The answer, of course, is the wild popularity of Fox News, driven, in turn, by the fact (so infuriating to the left) that most Americans are basically conservative. And given the number of leftist assaults on conservative media — the rhetoric and the actual efforts to limit, or full-bore shut down, conservative talk-radio and outlets like Fox News, it would appear that the left, or vocal elements of it, don’t really want freedom of speech in America, but a return to the hegemony of the leftist narrative, when Americans all got our news — to come full-circle — from the left-leaning “mainstream media.”

      That’s why I’m not sure Fox News fits the definition of “mainstream media.” I welcome your thoughts.

      • Terrance H. says:

        Kendrick,

        You realize there have been many books written devoted to dispelling the myth that the “mainstream media” has a liberal bias. Would you enjoy a list of said books?

        • Terrance H. says:

          Of course, I think the definition of “mainstream media” should be redefined in light of the fact that so many people are getting their news from non-traditional sources these days. Talk Radio, Newsbusters, National Review, Weekly Standard, Drudge, Free Republican, American Thinker, and so on. They’ve all reported on the anti-Semitism and they are widely read (or, heard).

      • Terrance H. says:

        Oh, and here is a recent study that shows how much bad press the infamous “Left-wing media” has given Obama, as opposed to the mostly positive coverage given to the Right by the same infamous media.

        http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/cr?src=prc-headline

        • Oh come on, let’s start, shall we, with a set of presumptions about what the media should be doing vis-a-vis any sitting president or congress. This study wraps in, as it acknowledges, Obama as president and Obama as candidate. The man fares well compared to media coverage of Bush in the same time period of seeking re-election — very well. Grant me that if the media aren’t net-negative about a sitting president, they aren’t doing their job, which they did stupendously well against Bush, and are trying to do, tepidly, against Obama.

          • Terrance H. says:

            Kendrick,

            I think you’ll find that candidate Obama got more bad press than candidate McCain in similar studies.

            Yes, I will grant that sitting presidents should be scrutinized by the media. Bush, as you say, certainly was.

            But I don’t rest my case on the media’s treatment of President Obama, but rather the overall percentage of good press challengers have received. In some cases, more good than bad, and sometimes much more good than bad. If the media was so liberal, you’d expect the opposite.

            I might also add that when the media fails to scrutinize a candidate for president with the same fervor they do the President, we run the risk of electing another Nixon or Agnew.

            There isn’t one scintilla of a speck of a modicum of evidence to support the claim that the mainstream media is liberal, left-of-center, or however else you wish to say they favor the Democrats. It’s not true.

      • Snoring Dog Studio says:

        Well, you and I, Kendrick, probably have the most difficulty over defining terms – spin vs. lie, for example. But Fox News has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined. Though Fox News viewers aren’t demographically diverse (not many African American viewers tuning in), it does serve as the media outlet for a huge segment of the population.

        I can’t speak for the left. I revile Fox News because it is anything but “fair and balanced” – neither are many media outlets – if any. But everyone in news reporting has a point of view and you don’t have to scratch the surface deeply to find it. I agree that Fox news resonated with conservatives because it corrected an imbalance – however, its “news reporting” then tipped the scales and created another imbalance. It slants, I slant, we all slant.

        The average American won’t take the time to seek out multiple sources for news. Most of us cherry pick. That’s life.

        • Sedate Me says:

          FOX may have more viewers, but what’s their share? Just a tiny fraction of the public watches that nonsense. Just like a fraction of the public belongs to either “side” in this. As nothing more than a glimpse at voter turnout rates will tell you, the vast majority of people just don’t give a shit. Barely half even bother to cast a ballot for President every 4 years, something that takes almost no level of commitment. Any idiot can do it.

          I don’t blame the public for avoiding news channels. News channels aren’t. There is very little in the way of news on any of them. They are in the business of entertaining the few people left who pretend to care about what’s going on in the world. FOX NOISE was the first to figure out how to market themselves to appeal to more specific sub-market. In this case, politically interested conservatives.

          Here’s how it works, they assure the audience what they already think is correct and that the “other side” is evil. They have professional hate monger after hate monger come on and spew venom at the other side. It’s nothing more than entertainment. Good guys. Bad guys. Good vs Evil and every day is another episode. Hell its even scripted to a certain degree.

          • Snoring Dog Studio says:

            I don’t know, Sedate Me (are you truly Sedate?), what the share is. Do you know? What’s a tiny fraction?

            Do you honestly believe Fox News has the market on lack of credibility in news reporting? Is it your perception that Fox News is alone overwhelmingly guilty of engaging in hate mongering? And no other news stations are scripted?

            Lots of questions here because you didn’t back up any of your statements with stats or data. You make pronouncements and deride the commenters here, yet your arguments aren’t fleshed out.

          • I debated whether to respond to Sedate Me, as that Ramones tune kept running through my head — but you’ve now said it perfectly. A combustible combination of anger and condescension there — though I understand some of Sedate Me’s points. I readily acknowledge, for example, that my original post was short and lacked much textured context. But this is the blogosphere, not Encyclopedia Britannica. We make relatively quick points, debate them vigorously for a short time, and move on. Indeed, one of the gentle complaints about my blog from some family members and friends has been that the posts tend to be too long. Guilty. I care, like Sedate Me, about context. But I’ve tried, with uneven success, to balance the nature of the medium with my predilection for fuller analysis. Thankfully, I have some readers who contribute substantial additional context to whatever I’ve written, including several of the commenters here, for which I’m grateful.

            Sedate Me, you’re truly most welcome to join our discussion, as you’re obviously intelligent and well-informed. Just ratchet down the anger a bit. We do sincere exasperation at times, but that’s as mad as we get.

          • Sedate Me says:

            Uh, “ratchet down the anger”? Dude, that WAS the ratcheted down version. It’s almost as calm as I get without a masseuse (and “herbal therapy”) being involved. You should see me when I’m not constraining myself. (Good call on The Ramones. Wanting to be sedated is exactly what I had in mind.) But, for what it’s worth, I promise to try my best to remain calm whenever here.

            Snoring Dog Studio, I don’t mean to say FOX is alone, just that they will go down in the Hall of Fame for their accomplishments. FOX is special because they broke new ground and invented the biased cable “news” format. MSNBC is just playing catch-up in a game FOX invented. Others would jump all the way in too, if they knew had a viable angle and/or had less of a sense of guilt.

            My real problem is that this format exists in the first place. Ted Turner’s 24 hour news idea was great, but the economic reality of for-profit news destroyed what it could have been. It could have brought America REAL news from all over the world. But real news is expensive and doesn’t generate the kind of profits that make the massive corporations that own them happy. Cable news wound up being a tape-loop of a handful of American orientated stories surrounded by low budget talking heads that got more entertaining, less newsworthy and a hell of a lot louder. Today’s “news” channels are full of missing white girl stories, court room soap operas, Washington ultimate fighting and some straight up propaganda. Albeit for a different reason, like the vast majority of people I don’t watch any of it, not even the stuff designed to confirm my pre-existing world view. The amount of bullshit you have to endure to get one gram of useful information from these things is amazing.

            And I don’t need any more evidence than the following:

            What remotely responsible news organization would ever allow a Glenn Beck into their studios to mop the floors, never mind give him a microphone every night? Like Tom Arnold, the guy screamed “substance abuse” (and mental illness) to me at first glance, long before I had any clue who he was. I didn’t have to look up whether or not he was a former morning zoo radio host, alcoholic crack-head, or failed/aspiring comic. I already knew. Yet CNN CNN hired him to “inform” the public on important issues on national TV before ever FOX did.

            That says everything you need to know about the standards of the industry. I don’t even have to mention the endless lists of professional fighting robots and hate mongers like Ann “C-word” Coulter who’ve turned throwing their dung at people into lucrative, full time, jobs.

          • As noted in my other comment responding to you, welcome back, and tickled I got the Ramones right! Let me toss in a couple of additional considerations on this whole news bias/format issue.

            First, it occurred to me — not without a measure of shame — that this very post is an ironic instance of the phenomenon you’re describing. I have a provocative headline, and I make some intemperate remarks in my concluding paragraph — and the response is robust (for this wee blog). Lots of very spirited dialogue — on the merits, on process points, on interesting tangents. Now frankly, as a blogger, I love that. In other words, controversy sells. Is it at all surprising that the folks in the corporate boardrooms of media outlets finally discovered that salaciousness, controversy, and intemperance attract more attention, and therefore advertising dollars and all the things that make shareholders happy? In fact, isn’t it a bit surprising it didn’t happen sooner? They don’t care whether we love it, hate it, or love to hate it, they’re just delighted we’re watching, commenting, and ginning up a higher profile. Back to the infinitesimal microcosm of that phenomenon that is this post. If I were cynical, I’d see some percentage in ratcheting up on provocative headlines and intemperate language. I can’t do it — but I’ll have fewer readers and fewer comments as a consequence. That’s the perverse dynamic of our modern media.

            Second, I’m still driven to distinguish between print and broadcast media (and not quite sure yet where to put the internet). I have to think about this more, but I believe we process information in a fundamentally different (and frankly more dangerous, because more delusional) way when when we consume the typical 3-minute coverage of a complex issue on television. We’re actually lured into thinking we’re getting “the essential points,” the “executive summary” that purportedly equips us to actually have an opinion. And if you’ve ever known an issue or an industry or a dispute really really well, then you know when you watch the 3-minute segment on it, it’s just wrong. Not (typically) maliciously wrong, or conspiratorially wrong, or blatantly ideologically biased — just wrong. Not really what the issue truly is. That’s the limitation of television, which so few people ever recognize as a limitation. But as one consequence of this limitation,”bias,” both deliberate and inadvertent, becomes so much more pronounced. When you’re reading a print piece, you’re better equipped to detect the more and less benign biases, and filter accordingly, and you’re given much more factual information against which to assess any conclusions (assuming no blatant manipulation or distortion of the facts). So a lot of the haranguing about ideological bias of Fox and MSNBC, for example, is a very natural reaction to the very limitations of television, as genuine presenters of news, that most people don’t even realize, or try to account for in their media consumption.

        • You’re preaching to the choir on that one. I’ve said before every liberal needs at least one conservative news/opinion source, and every conservative needs at least one liberal news/opinion source. Not gonna’ happen of course. And too often when it does, it’s with a vigilant “gotcha” search-&-destroy mission, rather than any sincere effort to see what the other side might be saying that makes a little sense. I suppose the best we can do is take some solace that the ideological polarity in America, while discomforting, is less pronounced than it is in Europe and elsewhere. And keep speaking respectfully ourselves, mindful that we’re human, and we all slant, as you say, and we all need a little help from our friends.

      • Sedate Me says:

        Oh, and here we go with the idiotic “media bias” arguments. I really hate that bullshit.

        That’s the first thought that comes to mind. I got more.

        • Terrance H. says:

          Sedate Me,

          If I backed up Kendrick by counseling you to calm down, it would be the effective equivalent of the Pot calling the Kettle black. So, on that, I’ll only say your passion is compelling.

          I will say that I don’t buy the “media bias” argument either, because no study I’ve seen indicates a left-wing slant. A distinction between news programs (e.g.,CBS Evening News, World News) and talk programs (e.g.,Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity) must be made, because one is admittedly slanted. MSNBC is decried often for having a liberal bias, and I’ll bet those who say it are thinking of the talk, rather than the news, programs. There is a difference.

          • Sedate Me says:

            Hey, you should see me when I’m worked up! But any discussion of “media bias” goes nowhere, never ends well and always diverts from the real issues (this very discussion is an example)

            There may be some bias on the basis of certain individuals, but there ain’t no conspiracy. Hell, even the most biased mainstream outfit out there, FOX NOISE, probably isn’t ruled as much by a political agenda as we think. And, yeah, news departments across the board are a lot less politically biased than their so-called “opinion” programs. However, even just 1 hour of malignant opinion can undo 23 hours of top flight journalism.

            The only bias that truly matters is the profit bias. It trumps EVERYTHING, especially quality. More than ever, American news is driven by the almighty dollar. They are all but in the entertainment biz. FOX may reflect the ideology of its owner, but (as Married With Children showed) he will air stuff that revolts him if there’s money in it. In the case of FOX NOISE, he had an open field to make money with an ideology he favours and did. If the market radically changed, look for FOX to start pimping Soviet ideology.

            Most of what goes on at “news” channels is for show. Some of these “news” folks are really straight up actors who get paid to play characters. In all likelihood, half the personalities believe half of what they say about half the time. It’s all about giving the audience what they want. When CNN is validating its audience’s every half-wit opinion by using airtime to read Tweets from Twits, you know it ain’t remotely about the news.

            And if anybody thinks the folks at GE (& Comcast now) are remotely interested in spreading socialism via MSNBC, you are higher than Cheech & Chong in their heyday. It is purely market positioning to capitalize on the demographic FOX leaves out. They might broadcast Hitler speeches if they thought there was more money in it.

          • Welcome back Sedate Me, and with such good humor! You’re almost persuasive now. 🙂 Actually, you’re preaching to the choir on the “conspiracy” issue. When I suggest a liberal bias in the mainstream media, I’m not, and would never, suggest a conspiracy, as readers of this blog will well appreciate. A consensus differs fundamentally (and legally) from a conspiracy. When the mainstream media monopolized American consumption of news, a consensus (ironically deemed “objective” journalism) titled left-of-center — not, I hasten to add, wildly extreme, but very clearly left-of-center, which miffed conservatives (and I’m gathering that liberals cannot wrap their minds around what it was like to be a conservative and limited to the mainstream media for news) — until Fox News. And what a breath of fresh air for conservatives! Definitely a new paradigm — more like the European model of straightforwardly ideological tilts in the delivery of news and opinion (with the inevitable blurring of those lines). Moreover, given some of the comments here, I’m gathering that one reason liberals don’t see the liberal bias — and I believe you and others are sincere in that conviction — is because the liberal bias was still to the right of your own orientation, and therefore must have looked “moderate” and “objective” — in much the same way many liberals now insist that Obama is not a liberal — which makes conservatives like me (never mind to the right of me) laugh out loud. There’s probably some kind of continuum analysis appropriate here, which I have to think about more. Thanks for the visit, and the astute comments.

  4. Jeff says:

    Your call to meet in the middle is, once again, ringing disingenuous to those of us to the left of Attilla the Hun. Who has more influence 5 or 6 lefty nut jobs yelling, carrying on in as obnoxious a manner as possible, or Multi-platinum selling Hank Williams Jr. on Fox News? Please. Where was your outrage then? You tend to be willing to always meet in the middle as long as the left gets on its knees first. 50+% of the people have a favorable view of OWS, only 26% have a favorable view of the Tea Party. Blame the media if you like, the truth is America knows the truth.

    • A couple of meta-points first my friend. First, “those of us to the left of Attilla the Hun”?? Really? That’s how you conceive yourself? (While I, a conservative Republican with a couple of disqualifying liberal views and a moderate voice, am to the right of Attilla the Hun?) Don’t you see how this kind of silly polarizing rhetoric is one reason it will be very difficult to “meet in the middle”? Second, you, of all my friends and readers, seem most inclined to begin an argument with an ad hominem about my failure to meet some standard of fairness that you yourself never meet. I’m still waiting for your first post in your blog or on Facebook lambasting a liberal. You don’t do it. You’re steadfastly militantly liberal — but you hammer me repeatedly for being insufficiently “fair and balanced” because, I guess, I’ve told you I try as hard as I can to see both sides. I’ve given you the ammunition to hammer me, and you use it, repeatedly, but you won’t consider applying that rigorous standard to yourself. You get to be a back-bencher, like Newt, using rhetorical IEDs from a distance and never having to man up and even think about what it might mean to be a liberal with a moderate voice.

      Now, given our textured history on debating the reliability of polls (and you were brilliant, by the way, on dissecting the poll that showed Democrats to be Mormon bigots), your response to me here is a poll (the Time Magazine poll, I presume, enough said) presuming to tell us how Americans view the Tea Party versus the OCW protesters?? Seriously? And, by the way, you really think “America knows the truth”? No you don’t. You’ve consistently slandered conservatives (the majority of Americans) for being hoodwinked by conservative media. So be consistent Jeff. Don’t use a liberal poll to talk about what “Americans really believe” when you won’t credit “what Americans really believe” based upon their express beliefs in multiple other polls, and their media consumption, which you find distasteful.

      “Where was your outrage then?” Come on Jeff. What do you want? Honestly. You want to destroy the possibility of dwelling in the treacherous middle, with attack-dogs like you from the right and the left hurling bombs? Do you hate it that much? Do you want me to be a relentlessly conservative attack dog, so that you more comfortably know your foe and can attack accordingly? That would, to be sure, be easier for both of us. But it wouldn’t be me. I keep wanting mutual respect. I tend to attack double standards; you tend to attack people with beliefs like mine. And where was your “outrage” anywhere, anytime, concerning any liberal?

      I’ve never, ever, called you “disingenuous” Jeff. Yes, I once called you an “ass,” because you were. But never “disingenuous.” Why do you do that to me? Why is that your standard ad hominem when you know how important it is to me to be sincere?

      • Jeff says:

        We lawyers are absolutely weakest among our species in at least one regard: Our inability to gauge the height and depth of our own condescension and our hyper-sensitivity to it in others.

        Attilla the Hun was a joke, an exaggeration. By “disingenuous” I simply meant in the balance between politics and policy you often give far more weight to politics than you may realize. You profess moderation, and yes, I see you as a moderate conservative who writes passionately from the conservative conscience. I see you as a true, traditional conservative who occasionally stoops beneath you to defend the lunatic fringe. I see you as a conservative who is not as moderate as you think you are, quick to condemn in the strongest words possible in the use of Hitler references from the left, while ignoring them from the right. We’re simply human. I ignore far more than I protest.

        My affection for you as a human is untouched by my feeling that your writing is often read as far less moderate than you suppose. Instead of a poll of readers political alignment, how about a poll of how the reader sees the writer? It was an awakening to me when you called me an ass. Apparently, it was time for another calling out.

        As soon as a liberal makes a mistake I’ll let you know. Okay, that was another joke. However, I think you over-stated my unwillingness to call out liberals. I have on several occasions publicly noted my agreement with you on unacceptable rhetoric and I have respectfully disagreed with my President. Of course, he isn’t even a liberal, so perhaps your point stands. “Slandered Conservatives”? Are you calling me a liar? I was just spinning. I rarely attack real conservatives. I don’t attack McCain for babbling on about Obama’s Canadian built bus, even though President Bush used a bus from the same Canadian company, because McCain is a war hero and because McCain, once, scolded those who spoke disrespectfully about our present President. Funny, how respect begets respect. Further, I have openly praised, Ad Nauseum, conservatives when I think they are right. Here is what we know today:

        1. Conservatives and Liberals appear incapable of governing, which requires compromise.
        2. No one has any ideas on any major issue that is actually workable due complexity of the issues and see #1 above.

        • There’s my extremely thoughtful friend! Well done Jeff. I can’t find anything to disagree with — except maybe to shade your observations with the proposition that political orientation is often in the eye of the beholder (to wit, your conviction that Obama isn’t a liberal). All I know for sure is that I don’t get invited to any true believer parties.

  5. Horrible sign. Ugh.

    Anyway, I couldn’t have said it any better than Jean did.

  6. Larry Beck says:

    All I can say Kendrick is to quote Donald Rumsfeld – “Democracy is messy”.

    It seems too that you are doing what you railed against on how all of the Tea Party was being lambasted for what a few of their more outrageous members were doing and saying.

    It seems a little over the top too to declare that “Occupy Wall Street has been treated by the mainstream media, by and large, sympathetically, even lovingly” when in fact it was nearly a month before the MSM gave them any routine consideration and what few early pieces were written about the movement were pretty dismissive.

  7. Pingback: Occupy Wall Street, Mainstream Media, Anti-Semitism « Sibboleth

  8. Snoring Dog Studio says:

    Have faith, Kendrick – you might be surprised that a large portion of people on both sides have become weary of the bickering and “gotcha.” The turmoil and living on the edge have worn many of us out and we just want to see much of this pain and troubled economy lift. Changes to the dialogue have been happening in small increments, I believe. We’re changed when we have conversations, like the ones on your blog and Spinny’s, and we stop long enough to analyze the discussion and hear other viewpoints. Terrance is a fine example of a young man who stopped, took a breath and began to hear other viewpoints. I’ve been changed, too by remembering your words to take a breath and debate the issues and not the person.

    • You’re a breath of fresh air as always. Part (but only part) of the reason I slowed down so much during the summer is a kind of weariness with always having to debate the process points in addition to the merits. That, and the fact that my fellow conservatives rarely comment on my blog, and it’s mostly liberals, nearly all of whom I adore, but who constantly challenge me (healthily) in ways I’m not sure most liberals get challenged. Somehow, I’ve stepped into this odd space of being a conservative blogger who attracts 90% liberal comment. Does anyone know a liberal blogger who attracts 90% conservative comment? I’m actually asking that sincerely. I’d genuinely love to see how that dialogue would play out, just to maybe get a pointer or two. I’m deeply grateful to our community for engaging me, and I’m resolved to keep doing it. Thank you, really thank you, for the steadfastness, sincerity and intelligence of your engagement. And you’re right about Terrance — but do you see how I felt a bit of a blog-body-blow when the one conservative who commented frequently flipped and became a liberal commenter, with all his intelligence and passion? Anyway, I’m starting to sound whiny, and you know I hate whiny. Thanks Cool Breeze.

      • Snoring Dog Studio says:

        I wondered about your long absence. I’m sorry that you found the need to quit for a while, but I certainly understand.

        Yes, it’s interesting that most liberals hang out at your blog – but this is something you should find some comfort in, for many reasons. Personally, I feel safe speaking up on your blog. You never insult. You don’t call people or politicians snarky names. You focus on issues and history.

        We liberals here are all using you, Kendrick! We’re learning how to converse with someone of an opposite viewpoint. We can learn that skill here because we know you have a generous spirit and you’ll allow us to express ourselves without feeling attacked.

        I wish I could think of a liberal blog that gets mostly conservative readers, but I can’t yet.

        You need to embrace being the cool, level-headed kid on the blog block. Don’t fight it, man.

  9. Snoring Dog Studio says:

    I’m glad you returned, Sedate Me. I can’t argue with anything you’ve said about Fox News. I’ll absolutely not defend that station’s news entertainment segments. I watch no news on TV anymore – for a few reasons, one being that I just don’t care to, another being that I almost exclusively listen to NPR news radio. It’s a relief to get a way from the happy talk, the glib chatter and the beautiful people. But, of course, most people think that public radio is liberal – but if my other choices are Limbaugh, Hannity and the others – what else can I do? I get a lot of my news online but I do even then avoid news that comes from Fox. Anything else, I’ll check out – although, I’ve gotten a bit nauseated over WSJ’s reporting in the last few years.

    • Sedate Me says:

      Yeah, there’s just something really soothing about NPR. I could be stuck in rush hour traffic and they could be talking about people 3 blocks behind me getting raped and eaten alive by demons escaping from the underworld, yet they’d still make me feel like I’m sitting back and drinking a nice cup of tea in my pyjamas.

      That’s why I listen to NPR whenever I’m in America…especially Detroit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: