HorsesAss.Org

But there is evil in our world that will destroy souls and nations if conservatives don’t unite against it. Our response to the problem of Judaism cannot mainly be war, though it may include war. We must respond with a renewed culture. We must counter the rise of Judaism with a faith of our own.

That is not to say that conservatives must be Christians, but conservatives must understand that the only defense against Judaism is a vibrant Christian culture. Politics is a contest of opinions about how best to protect a culture; while culture has to do with ideas and relationships, politics has to do with force and order. Our politics need not be immediately religious, but our culture must be.

The cult of Judaism repudiates self-government and all we hold dear. If we are to continue to be a self-governing people, we must be a people of strong character, and strong character is founded in the Christian faith. If conservatives are to be reunited, we must first unite against Judaism. From there we can renew our determination to be a self-governing and Christian nation.

Had any general election candidate written an overtly anti-semitic statement like that, no doubt our local media would be all over the scandal, and you can be damn sure the candidate’s own party wouldn’t touch him with a ten-foot pole. But substitute “Islam” for “Judaism,” and those are all direct quotes from 25th LD Republican nominee Hans Zeiger.

Yet except for a couple bemused blog posts about Zeiger’s labeling of the Girl Scouts as a bunch of “radical feminists, lesbians, and cookie peddlers,” we’ve so far heard crickets from our local media about Zeiger’s intolerant, hateful, and dare I say fascistic political views.

Why? Well, I can only assume that our region’s journalists and editorialists are simply more accepting of anti-Islamic bigotry than they are of anti-Jewish bigotry. I mean, how else to interpret such an extraordinary double standard?

—

(Ironically, should Zeiger defeat Democratic incumbent Rep. Dawn Morrell, the media post mortem will no doubt berate her for failing to get her message out. Imagine that.)

Last week was the 100th Bird’s Eye View Contest, so instead of looking for a good view to post, I decided to do a tally of the winners. Some contests had multiple winners, so there are more than 100, but here’s the list of those who won more than once (31 people won one contest):

Wes.in.wa – 20
Milwhcky – 20
Mlc1us – 10
Don Joe – 5
YLB – 4
Dave Gibney – 3
Waguy – 3
2cents – 3
ibogaine – 2
Liberal Scientist – 2
Dan Robinson – 2
Brian – 2

I’m always open to suggestions for this contest. If you have a good idea for how to make this contest more fun, please feel free to post it in the comments. I’ve always wanted to make the views difficult but possible, and it’s been a challenge of my own to keep finding ones that strike that balance. Thanks for playing everyone, and enjoy some football this afternoon.

Deuteronomy 7
When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

Discuss.

(And there are links to 40 more media clips from the past week in politics at Hominid Views.)

Yesterday I asked whether batshit-crazy 25th LD Republican nominee Hans Zeiger agrees with me and the Seattle Times that, in their words, “loathing of Muslims … humiliates Christians and demeans their beliefs in the eyes of the world.”

Of course, it was a rhetorical question, as Zeiger’s extensive written record makes it clear that he does not.

For example, in a December 2006 column in the online wingnut mouthpiece WorldNetDaily, titled “The right must unite against Islam,” Zeiger actually makes the extraordinarily cynical and prescient suggestion that opposition to Islam should replace anti-communism as the organizing principle that unites the conservative movement:

When conservatism began its popular resurgence in politics and ideas in the 1950s, the thing that tied together the intellectual camps … and made their adherents a collective force, with time, for Ronald Reagan was the spirit of anti-communism. Conservatives, after all, are generally trying to conserve something good in the face of something bad. Conservatives need not agree about the ultimate good (the good could be liberty, or equality, or truth, or tradition). But they must agree about what is bad (communism was bad).

Today, as in 1964 and 1980 when communism was pulsing and the right was united, there are different views among conservatives about what constitutes the good. However, unlike 1964 and 1980, conservatives today are divided about what constitutes the bad. Some say that terrorism is the great enemy; others say that war is the great enemy. Some say that government is our undoing, others that the popular culture is evil. It is possible to hate terrorism and war and government and popular culture all at once, but it is not likely that a winning political movement can come together on all these themes.

It’s actually a pretty cogent if simplistic reading of history. According to Zeiger, even though the various flavors of American conservatism couldn’t agree on a single agenda, they were ultimately united in their opposition to communism. That was the organizing principle on which social conservatives and neo-cons and free market libertarians et al were able to join together into a united, disciplined and effective political movement. That was the unlikely coalition at the core of a resurgent Republican Party.

Huh. It’s as good a thesis as any. I’ll give him that.

But with the Soviet Union collapsed and communism vanquished as a meaningful threat, the conservative movement and its party lost it’s way.

Indeed, there is no winning conservative movement. Even if the Republicans are still a force in politics, what passes for the conservative party today is hardly conservative, because it is more driven by special interests than a resistance to something bad.

Zeiger’s solution? Find a new bugbear… a boogeyman… a scapegoat against whom conservatives can reunify into a dominant political force. It is a strategy straight out of Mein Kampf, all the way down to the semitic origins of this new enemy and the disturbingly unselfconscious turn of phrase Zeiger chooses to describe the threat they pose:

But there is evil in our world that will destroy souls and nations if conservatives don’t unite against it. Whatever arguments are to be made for the war in Iraq, the fact is that Iraq in the equation of public opinion and practical statesmanship has distracted from the realities of Sept. 11. It has moved conservatives away from what could define their calling at the launch of the 21st century. Our response to the problem of Islam cannot mainly be war, though it may include war. We must respond with a renewed culture. We must counter the rise of Islam with a faith of our own.

Understand that Zeiger is not simply advocating that conservatives and Republicans unite in their opposition to Islamist terrorism, he is arguing that they need to unite in opposition to Islam. You know… the Islamic Problem.

And Zeiger’s Hitlerian rhetoric doesn’t end there…

That is not to say that conservatives must be Christians, but conservatives must understand that the only defense against Islam is a vibrant Christian culture. Politics is a contest of opinions about how best to protect a culture; while culture has to do with ideas and relationships, politics has to do with force and order. Our politics need not be immediately religious, but our culture must be.

I mean, I hate to drop the F-bomb… but that bit about “force and order” is a fascistic political sentiment if I ever saw one.

And there’s no reading between the lines here. Zeiger goes on to clearly demonize “the cult of Islam,” while reiterating his call for conservatives to reunite in opposition…

The cult of Islam repudiates self-government and all we hold dear. If we are to continue to be a self-governing people, we must be a people of strong character, and strong character is founded in the Christian faith.

[…] If conservatives are to be reunited, we must first unite against Islam. From there we can renew our determination to be a self-governing and Christian nation.

Perhaps Zeiger truly believes that Islam is as “evil” as he says it is. Perhaps he doesn’t. Cognitive dissonance can yield strange results. But in his call to exploit opposition to Islam as the organizing political principle of the American right, one can’t help but hear a chilling echo of the German anti-semitism of the 1930’s, and its transformation of old fashioned, church sanctioned Jew hatred into an organizing political principle that would ultimately lead to the slaughter of millions. Thus as clever or as prescient as Zeiger’s call to action may be, there is little in it to distinguish his political instincts from those of the fascists… or even al-Qaeda for that matter.

—

Unfortunately, while young Zeiger fashioned himself a reputation as a sorta right-wing prodigy, based purely on his prolific portfolio of wingnut commentary, our local media seems prepared to dismiss it all as mere youthful indiscretion… even batshit-crazy columns such as this one, written less than four years ago. So if 25th LD voters are going to learn the truth about Zeiger, they’re going to have to learn it directly from his Democratic opponent, Rep. Dawn Morrell. So you might want to throw her some change.

In an editorial today, the Seattle Times warns that “Police shootings threaten the public’s trust.” Yeah, true. But you know what else these shootings threaten? The public.

The Times goes on to caution against “armchair quarterbacking or efforts to prejudge the police,” and again, I’d agree that the we have not yet had enough time or facts to determine whether any or all of our region’s seven recent police shootings were completely justified or not. But it’s never too soon to put these events in context and attempt to discern some truth that might prevent more such tragedies from occurring in the near future.

And the obvious context is that our recent spate of police shootings comes in the wake of a string of tragedies that left six police officers dead in 2009.

Human nature being what it is, and the memory of their fallen comrades still fresh, it is perfectly understandable, if not necessarily forgivable, if when confronted with a perceived threat, local officers are a bit quicker to react with lethal force than they might have been only a a year ago. Likewise, it is also understandable if supervisors, politicians, the press and the public are more willing to justify such violent confrontations than they might have been before last year’s tragedies.

In other words, it is reasonable to ask if last year’s tragic slaying of six police officers played any role in facilitating the spate of police shootings we’ve seen this year? And it is incumbent upon our law enforcement officers to ask themselves whether the heightened sense of danger they must surely feel has in any way endangered the public they are sworn to protect?

It is not illegal to openly carry guns, knives and other weapons in Washington state, and the failure to instantly respond to police commands should not inevitably result in a barrage of bullets. Police officers are presumably trained to quickly react to perceived threats, but they should constantly remind themselves that the public is not. Deafness, inebriation, confusion, stupidity or even perhaps a misplaced trust in the restraint of the officers confronting them, need not result in tragedy.

Our police officers choose to put their lives on the line on our behalf, and for that they deserve our respect and support. But we should be wary of using last year’s tragic police slayings as any justification for the unnecessary use of lethal force.

I meant to post this last night, but have been buried up to my neck in changes to my fantasy football website. Throw out your predictions for the season in the comments below. Will the Seahawks be a .500 team? Can they win the division? Does the old man in Minnesota have another year in him like last year (didn’t look that way last night)? Will McNabb and Shanahan make the Redskins a winner? Can the Cowboys become the first team to play in their home stadium for the Super Bowl? Has the NFL milked the Saints-Katrina storyline enough, or is there still some juice in that raisin?

Former Tacoma News Tribune political reporter (and avid Philadelphia Eagles fan) Ken Vogel reports for Politico on the sudden plethora of political events scheduled for this 9/11 compared to recent years.

Some, like dueling New York City rallies over the proposed Burlington Coat Factory Mosque, are specifically timed to commemorate the day, while others, like Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s Razorbacks tailgate party just treat the date like any other Saturday. But one event in particular stands out for its willingness to cheapen the memory of the attack by expropriating it for political gain:

Washington GOP Senate nominee Dino Rossi’s speech at a Tacoma-area Republican women’s club fundraiser dubbed “Let’s Roll on to Victory” (a take on the exhortation of a passenger on a doomed flight who fought back the hijackers during the 2001 attacks)…

Diana Landahl, president of the Gig Harbor (Wash.) Republican club that is holding the “Let’s Roll on to Victory” fundraiser, said “it was kind of coincidental that we ended up on 9/11, but once we realized it, we decided to make note of this.”

Landahl told Politico that “people seem to be forgetting what happened to us on 9/11,” and of course, what better way to keep this memory fresh than to hold a closed-door, high-donor, political fundraiser at a private residence behind the closed gates of the exclusive Canterwood Golf & Country Club?

When Todd Beamer yelled “Let’s roll!” as he and his fellow passengers heroically stormed the cockpit of United Flight 93 in a suicide mission that ultimately ended in ashes in a field in Pennsylvania, I’m sure this is exactly what he had in mind. Hell, perhaps next year, Rossi should celebrate the day by making the phrase a theme of one of his real estate seminars, as in: “Let’s Roll on to Profits in the Lucrative Foreclosure Market!”

Admittedly, I’m not that sentimental a guy, and I don’t really expect candidates to forever take the day off, especially this close to such a contentious election. But let’s be honest: had it been Patty Murray who shamelessly scheduled a “Let’s roll”-themed fundraiser on 9/11, Rossi’s people would have been all over her for cheapening both a national tragedy and the personal suffering of the victims and their families. And no doubt our local media would have obliged by covering the “controversy.”

But Rossi, well, we all hold him to a lower standard, so don’t expect to see his thoughtless fit of poor taste mentioned on the 11 o’clock news.

After tense negotiations with Florida Pastor Terry Jones, I have agreed to call off my plans to shred and compost the Christian Bible in exchange for him dropping his plans to publicly burn copies of the Islamic Quran.

Call it a stunt if you will, but you can’t deny I get results.

I just got back from Nollie’s Cafe, where Sen. Patty Murray sat down this morning with a handful of local bloggers electronic journalists online-ish media types who write substantively on politics. (Are Erica Barnett of PubliCola and Eli Sanders of The Stranger “bloggers?” Am I a “journalist?” I don’t wanna go there.) In addition to me, Erica and Eli, we were joined by Joan McCarter of Daily Kos, Dave Neiwert of Crooks and Liars, and Andrew Villeneuve of the NPI Advocate.

We were promised a half an hour, and got a bit more than that from a U.S. senator who clearly knows the issues as much as she obviously cares about them. A similar coffee klatch with the nearly totally inaccessible Dino Rossi would be almost unimaginable, and it is equally hard to imagine Rossi coming off anywhere near as knowledgeable or as thoughtful as Murray on such a broad range of topics. (Nor as down-to-earth likable, either.)

So much for the GOP’s self-soothing meme of Murray as the dumbest member of the Senate. But don’t take my word for it, you can listen to all 38 minutes for yourself:

[audio:http://horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/PattyMurray.mp3]

I’ll come back with a more thorough report later, after I’ve had the opportunity to listen to the audio and parse my illegible notes, but I came away convinced that if every voter in Washington state could have the same opportunity to sit down with Sen. Murray for half an hour, she’d win reelection in a landslide.

Given that this is the year that we finally see an income tax initiative on the ballot, it’s hard for me to believe that this could be the worst initiative season ever… but this has gotta be the worst initiative season ever.

I mean, honestly, the way that corporate interests have so totally hijacked our state’s initiative process this year makes Tim Eyman look like Thomas Jefferson.

See, the Seattle Times editorial board agrees with me. Only in a lot more boring fashion. And I agree with them: Rev. Terry Jones is “an idiot.”

If Jones wants to be a beacon instead of a bozo, why doesn’t this clown organize an interfaith group to feed the poor, build housing and help sustain families of all faiths through this economic crisis?

But the question is, would 25th LD Republican nominee Hans Zeiger agree with the Times call for “interfaith” outreach, or would he find the editors to be a bunch of watered-down ecumenists?

Unitarians, mainstream Baptists, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, members of the “Military Pagan Network” and other watered-down ecumenists will hold an “Interfaith Day of Prayer and Reflection” on the steps of the Oklahoma State Capitol today to pray to the generic god.

[…] But … the significant difference between the kumbaya sessions and interfaith vigils and atheist protests of the Religious Left and the Bible studies and prayer circles of the Religious Right is that our God is real.

I dunno… sounds like Zeiger considers Jones to be one of the real Christians praying to the real God. Perhaps, if the Times wants to do its job of educating voters, it should ask Zeiger about that, along with all the other batshit-crazy stuff he wrote?

NY Times

The $83 million local taxpayers still owe on the Kingdome, ten years after it was demolished, gets a mention in today’s New York Times article on the extraordinary bad deal publicly financed stadiums turn out to be, but that’s nothing compared to the most Giant boondoggle of them all:

It’s the gift that keeps on taking. The old Giants Stadium, demolished to make way for New Meadowlands Stadium, still carries about $110 million in debt, or nearly $13 for every New Jersey resident, even though it is now a parking lot.

And that’s just the debt on Giants Stadium alone. Three and a half decades after workers first broke ground, New Jersey taxpayers still owe $266 million on the entire Meadowlands project.

So I guess we got off relatively easy with the Kingdome. How many years we taxpayers will be paying off the bonds on Safeco and Qwest fields after they’ve been abandoned or demolished, now that’s another question. And what more useful or productive purposes we might have put that money to, rather than padding the pockets of billionaires, well, we can only speculate at this time when city, county and state governments are facing unprecedented deficits.

As the NY Times article concludes:

With more than four decades of evidence to back them up, economists almost uniformly agree that publicly financed stadiums rarely pay for themselves. The notable successes like Camden Yards in Baltimore often involve dedicated taxes or large infusions of private money. Even then, using one tax to finance a stadium can often steer spending away from other, perhaps worthier, projects.

“Stadiums are sold as enormous draws for events, but the economics are clear that they aren’t helping,” said Andrew Moylan, the director of government affairs at the National Taxpayers Union. “It’s another way to add insult to injury for taxpayers.”

An interesting side note, the new $1.6 billion dollar Meadowlands Stadium both the Jets and the Giants will inaugurate this fall, was built entirely with private money, so it can be done. By comparison, taxpayers picked up the cost for 71% of Paul Allen’s Qwest Field. Go figure.