When Geography 'Equals' Bigotry

Saturday, July 1. 2006

When Geography 'Equals' Bigotry

It seems one of the verities of life for 'progressives' is that if you are not one, you must be a 'bigot' of some kind.

A few weeks ago, we pointed out a ridiculous column by Garrison Keillor, where he opined that the Repubs' decision to make an issue of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in the 2006 mid-term elections was really veiled homophobia because she represents San Francisco.

Yesterday, Betsy Newmark brought our attention to a column by the San Francisco Chronicle's Jon Carroll, who Thursday wrote that President Bush's criticism of the New York Times is, in part, veiled anti-Semitism.

Carroll, who sports a description of his columns at the Chronicle's archive page reading, "Darned good columns are served up here," writes:

The Times is a good target. People who believe in the "left-wing media" believe that the New York Times is the leftiest of them all. The people who believe in the "mainstream media" believe that the Times is the mainest of them all. Hardly anyone has a good word to say about it, except that it's the best newspaper in the country. But really, how important is that?

Also, the name of the New York Times contains the word "New York." Many members of the president's base consider "New York" to be a nifty code word for "Jewish." It is very nice for the president to be able to campaign against the Jews without (a) actually saying the word "Jew" and (b) without irritating the Israelis. A number of prominent Zionist groups think the New York Times is insufficiently anti-Palestinian, so they think the New York Times isn't Jewish enough.

For those who think, "Okay then, you may have a point, reading bigotry into these things is ridiculous. But doesn't the use of Rep. Pelosi (D-CA) or the New York Times have some symbolism for 'Bush's base'?"

Well, yes, come to think of it, there is some symbolism at work here.

Nancy Pelosi = "Over-her-head, out-of-touch-millionaire, with rhetorical skills that make George Bush look like Cicero."

New York Times = "Unelected, arrogant, defeatist, liberal establishment, family-controlled newspaper, the publisher of which is at the helm because of his mother and father."

'Progressive' = "Backward-looking, stuck-for-an-answer-when-greeted, insolent depressive."

I hope that helps clear things up...

Posted by Tom Elia in Media at 15:27 | Comments (45) | Trackbacks (10)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

One time a friend of mine told me that a "bigot" was anyone who was winning an argument with a lefty.

I think he was correct about that.

#1 Steven Den Beste (Homepage) on 2006-07-01 16:47 (Reply)

SDB, thanks for clearing that up. I'd always thought a winning an arguement with a leftist made you a nazi facist, I should have realized it made you a bigot at the same time.

#1.1 Richard R on 2006-07-01 17:24 (Reply)

Mr. Den Beste -

That can't be right. I personally have encountered many more bigots than your theory would allow for.

#1.2 Ted on 2006-07-01 18:57 (Reply)

Steven, it was Thomas Sowell who said that, which makes it even funnier.

#1.3 Grayson on 2006-07-02 11:26 (Reply)

See the comments exchanged on The Political Animal (www.the-political-animal.com) for anecdotal confirmation of this observation.

#1.4 The Political Animal (Homepage) on 2006-07-03 13:34 (Reply)

It clears it up for me, but then I didn't need it to be.

#2 Scott (Homepage) on 2006-07-01 16:48 (Reply)

"It clears it up for me, but then I didn't need it to be."

Same here, Scott.

#3 Mister Snitch! (Homepage) on 2006-07-01 17:10 (Reply)

I believe it was a left-wing Democrat (Jesse Jackson) who referred to "Hymie Town". But since he is a left-wing Black, I suppose he couldn't be bigoted.

#4 Orman on 2006-07-01 17:11 (Reply)

I moved to Alabama in 1971 from Southern California. I believed in a great number of things that liberals today claim as their own, but I was never a left-wing type person. To me, civil rights was one of those self evident truths. In Alabama, I encountered many true bigots and spent enough time around many of them that I gained a fairly good understanding of how they view things. Bigots view specific groups of people as animals. Literally. Bigotry is not equivalent to hatred, although it may be hateful, especially when trying to overcome it.

Let's see through the eyes of a bigot: You may not hate your dog. You may even love your dog. But your dog is not a human. Your dog isn't allowed to drink out of your glass and you don't drink the water in your dog's dish. When your dog gets up on the dinner table, you make it clear, perhaps even with compassion, that dogs don't eat at the table. This is honestly how bigots view people who they are bigoted against: keeping the dogs off the dinner table. They grow up with these bigoted views and they are extremely difficult to change. In the US (especially compared to many other parts of the world), I believe we've made enormous progress in changing bigoted views, even in Alabama. But they do still exist and "progressives" are definitely not immune. Some black comedian made a very good point when he said that white friends may joke about how they forget that he is even black, but the comedian said that if he was to marry their daughter, they'd suddenly stop forgetting. I think the "marry my daughter" test is a fairly good test for bigotry. Imagine the ideal son-in-law, and then change them into a particular group that you might be bigoted against and see if that changes your perspective.

I think Mahatma Ghandi had the right idea that you shouldn't hate your adversaries because we're all scoundrels in our own ways. We should aim to change their minds rather than try to punish them. That's a fairly Christian view, but Ghandi took good ideas wherever he could find them.

#5 Bruce (Homepage) on 2006-07-01 17:18 (Reply)

My fuggin dog eats anywhere he wants and anything he wants. He especially likes to chow down on whining blacks, liberal and Muslims. He'd give his left nut to get a big taste of Jesse Jackson though no doubt I'd have to take him to the vet and have him put to sleep for infection caused by eating shit.

#5.1 Felix on 2006-07-01 20:28 (Reply)

You didn't emphasize enough of Carroll's column. He points out that it's important to Bush to not offend Israel - since the Republicans base is strongly pro-Israel despite being covertly anti-Semitic.

I wonder if the pro-Israel R's vote for the drooling moron Bush while the anti-Semitic R's vote for evil genius Bush, or vice versa?

#6 BGates on 2006-07-01 17:23 (Reply)

Haven't you been paying attention? Bush's supporters are a bunch of Christian Fundamentalists who think we're in the end times.

So, even though they hate Jews, they need the Jews to be in Israel so Jesus will come back, in accordance with Biblical prophecy.

#6.1 b on 2006-07-01 17:54 (Reply)

You want to see some fine progressive bigotry in action? Send a latino male without a leaf blower or a young black man of any description walking up any street in Beverly Hills.

As to the Pro-Israel and/or anti-Semitic (R)'s, well, fortunately, since we don't get to vote for Rove, we get to keep our deep cover, heheheheh....

#7 richard mcenroe on 2006-07-01 17:52 (Reply)

odd that you chose hollywood as a bigotted bastion

#7.1 Fred W Hailar on 2006-07-01 19:43 (Reply)

First hand experience. I used to be one of the guys they called on the black or latino guy. I'm tellin' ya, you haven't lived until you've had a guy wearing a Rainbow Coalition ribbon screaming at you to "get that f*****g n****r off my street!"

#7.1.1 richard mcenroe on 2006-07-01 20:13 (Reply)

I always did like the way you think Mr. Hailar.

#7.1.2 jks on 2006-07-06 00:57 (Reply)

In Communism, the less successful were called "workers," and the more successful were called, "exploiters of workers."

Today's Liberals call the more successful, "oppressors" and "racists," and the less successful, "victims."

Libs believe that the less successful are that way only because they were oppressed by the more successful.

But, there's no basis for this view. It would be easy to do a scientific study to test for this.

I've got an blog post with further discussion of this at this link:

http://www.bigpicweblog.com/exp/index.php/weblog/comments/liberalism_and_evolution_liberalism_explained

#8 Vik Rubenfeld (Homepage) on 2006-07-01 18:30 (Reply)

Jon Carroll is on the right track here, just the wrong train. Bush's base considers New York synonamous with "liberal" or "progressive". To say that the president is on a secret crusade against the Jews is the most ridiculous item of the day.

(He needs to get out more.)

#9 dr. pepper on 2006-07-01 18:31 (Reply)

Jesus is not coming back until every one, of their own free will, decides to become Jewish.

Give me the old time religion, if it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me.

BTW if you give this story to a Rabbi you will never get converted so be careful.

#10 M. Simon (Homepage) on 2006-07-01 19:24 (Reply)

The Left calls us NeoCons, its their code for "jews controlling the WH".

As for bigotry, its the Left that thinks the "little brown people" deserve to be oppressed:

"There is some justice in one charge that is frequently leveled against the United States, and more generally against the West: Middle Easterners frequently complain that the West judges them by different and lower standards than it does Europeans and Americans, both in what is expected of them and what they may expect, in terms of their economic well-being and their political freedom. They assert that Western spokesmen repeatedly overlook or even defend actions and support rulers that they would not tolerate in their own countries.
...there is nevertheless a widespread [Western] perception that there are significant differences between the advanced Western world and the rest, notably the peoples of Islam, and that these latter are in some ways different, with the tacit assumption that they are inferior. The most flagrant violations of civil rights, political freedom, and even human decency are disregarded or glossed over, and crimes against humanity, which in a European or American country would evoke a storm of outrage, are seen as normal and even acceptable.

...The underlying assumption in all this is that these people are incapable of running a democratic society and have neither concern nor capacity for human decency."

The Crisis of Islam, Bernard Lewis, p104

#11 Fen on 2006-07-01 19:30 (Reply)

But but but but......everyone knows that the term Neocon is DemLibProg(r) code for JOOs! and that the Republican party has been taken over by them. How can us Republicans who voted these JO....uh, Neocons into office be bigoted against them? I'd have to say that the comments that some Democrats make about Black Republican candidates (and office holders) offer a pretty clear indicator of their own bigotry.

#12 Bluce Ree on 2006-07-01 19:34 (Reply)

This is funny because in Britain, Europe and certain parts of lefty and paleo-con land the term "Neocon" actually means "Yid", or perhaps "uppity Yid who thinks he's too good to do as he's told and vote Democrat".

just sayin'

#13 holdfast on 2006-07-01 20:57 (Reply)

I find it rather interesting the narrow mindedness and bigotry on the part of the left.

It is amazing how people on the left perceive you just because of geography.

I am a native Minnesotan, I live in Texas. I still have the Minnesota long "o" accent.

Now, if I tell someone from a "blue state" I am a Minnesotan they all smile and greet me as one of "their own". If I tell them I live in Texas they act like I am going to shoot them or something. It is absolutely incredible, they are like Pavlov's dog! All that is different is my stating where I live.

It seems to me that people who think they are so intelligent, so worldly are so damn ignorant about the rest of their own countrymen. They know nothing of the people who live in vast red sea inbetween New England and the Pacific coast. It is as foreign to them as the Gobi desert is. People in the "vast red sea" hjave been to places like NYC, LA, Seattle, Boston, assorted world capitols and foreign nations more then the "blue staters" ahve been to places like Omaha, Billings, Kansas City, Houston, Biloxi, Tallahassee, etc. Their ignorance is not limitied to their own countrymen but the world as a whole. They truly do live in a gated community of the mind where it is always sunny and 1972.

I have also noted that they do tend to be the most racist of people, too. They do not mingle with or have true friends outside of their racial/ethnic makeup. Most of them only see "people of colour" when they are holding a tray full of canapes, as nannies for their kids or cleaning their houses. I find it interesting that some of the biggest backers of giving illegals drivers liscenses in California happen to be Hollywood stars, and they were not ashamed to state that it was so their servants could drive around and get the stuff needed to do their work and not have to be chauffered.

#14 Nahanni on 2006-07-01 22:13 (Reply)

I just want to say, Nahanni, that I loved the line, "They truly do live in a gated community of the mind where it is always sunny and 1972."

"Clever," said the Chicago boy living in Austin.

#14.1 Tom on 2006-07-02 00:35 (Reply)

My wife happens to be a conservative Jewish New Yorker by birth. When we got engaged and she moved to Montgomery, Alabama, several of her NY relatives / friends told her flat out that the KKK would be waiting at the airport to lynch her...... and this was in 2001.

#14.2 SDN on 2006-07-02 08:37 (Reply)

Fascinating to see how many right-wingers think they know the left-winger way, but all you can do is parrot stereotypes and idiocies the same way you accuse the left of doing.

Hail Boston. Hail Charleston. Who stinketh the most?

#15 Brenda Daverin on 2006-07-01 23:02 (Reply)

Some of us used to be leftists. Maybe we know a lot more about'em than you think.

#15.1 Purple Avenger (Homepage) on 2006-07-01 23:38 (Reply)

I disagree with what you say but I love your use of that particular literary reference to say it. One of my favorite plays. I wonder how many people will get it?

#15.2 Michael on 2006-07-02 00:03 (Reply)

Um Brenda...

I was a card carrying member of the Minnesota DFL. 3rd generation Democrat. I have a picture of my father with FDR, I met JFK & RFK and my parents were on first name basis with the Mondales and Humphreys. I was at the Chicago 1968 convention, I worked on Carter 76 and Kennedy 80 campaigns.

But you know what, hun. My mind is not as rigid as yours, and I saw some things that really disgusted me in 2000. And the behaviour of the party after 9/11 has been disgusting. The party of FDR/JFK is no more-if both those men were alive today you would be treating them about the same way Joe Lieberman is getting treated now. The lunatic left has taken over the asylum and the only ones left are the true marxists and the ones who are so locked into 1968-1972 their minds have calcified.

Sorry hun, but your snarky, arrogant comments don't wash with me. Go back to your gated community of the mind where you will find your fellow, calcified marxist anti American friends.

#15.3 Nahanni on 2006-07-02 00:24 (Reply)

Dang! That's gonna leave a mark!

#15.3.1 Clyde (Homepage) on 2006-07-02 04:43 (Reply)

The pathetic earthling Brenda's appeal to equivalence was right on schedule. Prepare brainwashing stage two! Bwahaahaahaaa!

#16 Kang on 2006-07-01 23:29 (Reply)

They do not mingle with or have true friends outside of their racial/ethnic makeup.

True. Just last week I was defending Bush's decision to liberate Iraq. They were very cold until I mentioned that I'm unhappy with Bush's domestic policy - gay marriage ban, flag burning ban, etc. The change in their demeanor was startlng - all of a sudden I had "earned their respect" and "made new friends"...

Like I need or want friends like that.

Jerks.

#17 Fen on 2006-07-02 00:38 (Reply)

"Fascinating to see how many right-wingers think they know the left-winger way, but all you can do is parrot stereotypes and idiocies the same way you accuse the left of doing."

No Brenda. To paraphrase Bernard Lewis as quoted above - you ARE a selfish bigot. You want your cheap oil and decaf lattes and MTV, and if 50 million Arabs must suffer tyranny and oppression, so be it.

What's happened to the Democrats? You used to care about the helpless. I know because I used to be a Dem.

#18 Fen on 2006-07-02 00:47 (Reply)

The NYT is seen as Jewish? By whom? The Sulzbergers were Episcopalian, last I heard, and the NYT deliberately kept quiet about the Holocaust.

#19 Milhouse (Homepage) on 2006-07-02 03:09 (Reply)

#18 Fen,

I used to be a Dem of the more radical persuasion. The motto of the time was "by any means necessasary" with respect to defeating tyranny. I'd say Bush counts as "by any means necessasary". The Dems are certainly not going to do it.

I didn't leave the party. The party left me.

#20 M. Simon (Homepage) on 2006-07-02 06:29 (Reply)

How eloquently put. An economy of verbiage, as these "people" aren't worthy of the expenditure of any more.

#21 Edward Lunny on 2006-07-02 09:24 (Reply)

So homoPHOBIA is bad but homoPHILIA is good?

Pelosi and her San Francisco district are a reasonable stand-in for political policies of homophilia and other progessive agenda items.

Being a Bay Area straight white male American-born taxpayer, I've watched the Gay Pride movement develop over the years. While tolerance of other people's natures is a noble thing, gays have never understood nor acknowledged why "gay awareness" and such represent a valid biological threat to we breeders. We want out children to grow up to become breeders too! Our children are our investment in our future.

"Live and let leave" is a good policy but push something against my self-interest on me and society, and I have a right to resist.

#22 Whitehall on 2006-07-02 11:03 (Reply)

"New York Times = "Unelected, arrogant, defeatist, liberal establishment, family-controlled newspaper, the publisher of which is at the helm because of his mother and father."

were you elected? how can one be both arrogant and defeatist at the same time? as for the final attempt at insult, that's an awfully funny criticism coming from a Bush-supporter.

#23 ad on 2006-07-02 12:18 (Reply)

> how can one be both arrogant and
> defeatist at the same time?

Come on, that's easy. "We're going to lose the war, make everyone hate us and starve to death! It's inevitable! Why? Because those stupid rednecks voted for the wrong candidate!

#23.1 Fatmouse on 2006-07-02 13:17 (Reply)

1) Being arrogant and defeatist at the same time is easy; do you actually read the Times?

2)The New York Times has two classes of stock, including only one with voting rights.

That class is controlled by "Pinch" Sulzberger's family.

George Bush received over 110 million votes in 2000 and 2004 combined.

How many votes do you think "Pinch" got?

#23.2 Tom on 2006-07-02 13:47 (Reply)

Wow, Tom:

Everybody's outa the closet on this one, including you. Lookit all the responses. However, Mr. Punch 10, daz right, it's the right topic for the Right: bigotry. It's been their M.O. all along. Best, Don

#24 don on 2006-07-02 12:32 (Reply)

Yes, Don. Once again, you've 'nailed it.'

We're all bigots, and you and your fellow travellers are the ones with a hammerlock on the 'truth.'

How could I have forgotten?

#24.1 Tom on 2006-07-02 13:50 (Reply)

Hey, Tom:

Good work on this one! Nice not to be almost alone anymore. Enjoyed the thread!
Still, reading steelheader, a Presbyterian (we are all predestined to be good or bad), one is drawn to the consideration of evangelicals (salvation by faith) and secular humanism ( it's up to us) to look at our options, and then act. That's a Progressive. Best, Don

#24.1.1 don on 2006-07-03 12:26 (Reply)

A progressive at work once asked me who my heros are. When I told him MLK Jr., he looked me sqaure in the eye and said "how can that be, your Republican, and everyone knows Republicans are racist." He completely ignoring the fact that the only person I hang out with from work, is a black that the progressive fellow and I work side by side with.

#25 wilky on 2006-07-02 19:57 (Reply)

25 COMMENTS!!!

Tom you have outdone yerself! And Steve Da Bestest to boot. I am truly treading in rarified circles.

The double standard is and always will be alive and well when dealing with "progressives". I honestly have lost touch with how to communicate with my leftist friends. Too much honesty (or realism) can be hazardous to their mental health.

For myself, I will have one more mojito and try not to think about the status of my fellow blue dog democrats. Joe L. should be a beacon to our party, not a pariah.

As for Israel, this Presbyterian says: Never forget. Never Again.

#26 steelheader on 2006-07-02 22:36 (Reply)

Clearly San Francisco and New York are, were and will be used as generic anti-LEFT branding icons by the right. I remember Jerry Falwell hauling out images of the Gay Pride parade to demonize gays, and, recently, Bill O'Reilly savaging some poor fool who supported a local SF city initiative to ban military recruiters from high schools.

The subtlest criticism of all is that most stereotyping, including political stereotyping of any kind, is a form of bigotry. The more obvious criticism is that not all forms of bigotry are equivalently evil. A somewhat insightful criticism is that everyone is a bigot in one way or another, so, yes, the left is also bigotted, what is interesting is how wounded the right is on this issue that they seem to think its newsworthy or blogworthy.

One of the reasons the left is so out of fashion these days derives from how totally successful the civil rights agenda has been-- to the point that the right has been completely ideologically assimilated.

It might be time for the left to drop or at least de-emphasize this agenda and move onto something else.

But make no mistake about it, the mouth frothing political-icon hating is good old fashioned hate, but quite low grade as far as its intensity. Its a psychological phenomena in which the mouth frothing observer is trying to distance his identity with the subject rather than associate his identity with the subject. The truth is we generally have more in common than apart, even with (*sigh*) Nancy Pelosi and New York.

Remember the wonderful line about breathing the same air, cherishing our children's future, and being mortal?

I think Nancy Pelosi and New Yorkers do this, so why dont we cut them some slack and get on with more important things?

#27 Panu on 2006-07-03 13:26 (Reply)

Even for the MSM this is an unbelievable new low in hypocrisy. Carroll has been unremittingly hostile to Israel for decades. Once, after apparently getting some angry mail about it, he wrote a whining, self-pitying column about how Jews made him "feel bad" (never mind that Jewish columnists of all political stripes routinely get truckloads of antisemitic hate mail). Then, during the O. J. Simpsonn trial, after helpfully identifying the lawyers Sheck and Neufeld as "shameless[ly] arrogant" he bemoaned the fact that enough attention wasn't paid to the fact that several lawyers in the case were Jewish.

But let someone use the term "antisemitism" in regard to a criticism of Israel and Carroll will be the first one out there screaming bloody murder, how unfair! I mean, you can't possibly be antisemitic if you criticize Israel, right?

#28 Gary Rosen on 2006-07-04 10:13 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Research Tools

Blogs

Regional Newspapers

Features

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites

Business News

Archives

Libertarian Ad Network

Categories

Old Archives

Saturday, July 1. 2006

When Geography 'Equals' Bigotry

Search

Supporter

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,Magazines,and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,Magazines, andOther Journals

Research Tools

Blogs

Regional Newspapers

Features

Economics, Science, & Technology RelatedBlogs and Web Sites

Business News

Archives

Libertarian Ad Network

Categories

Old Archives

Saturday, July 1. 2006

When Geography 'Equals' Bigotry

Search

Supporter

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites