"Ownership of History"

For MLK Day, Charles Pierce on history as portrayed by "Selma." He finds the film's greatest strength is in being "a war movie." Weaknesses and poor choices fade, he feels, because—

... this truly is the first film that shows the reality of the war waged against the Movement by the forces of organized American apartheid that does not have a white hero at its dramatic center. ... Those movies -- from the egregious Mississippi Burning to the mushheaded The Help -- were far and away more false to the actual history than this one is. Given that long history, Selma's portrayal of LBJ seems less of an offense than what actually happened.

And what actually happened, and how it has never really ended, is what matters most—

... Selma presents an even deeper challenge to us, and one that is completely apropos to the celebration of Dr. King's birth today. To whom does the history of the Civil Rights Movement belong? Some terrible things have been done to it, surely. It has been turned into an anesthetic balm for white America, and Dr. King has been made into a plaster saint who never said (or did) anything that ever got anyone upset. It has been turned into a weapon against issues on which Dr. King surely would have come down on the progressive side. In one of his last interviews that he gave, he came out strongly in favor of affirmative action, which gives the lie to all those people, white and black, who like to throw up one clause from his 1963 speech on the National Mall to make him the ventriloquist's dummy for decades of clever and protean racism. If you can't see the line between the scene on the bridge, and the decision to gut the Voting Rights Law, then you don't want to do so and there is nothing to be done with you at all. Leaving the history of the civil rights movement in the hands of white people has not worked out well at all.

Words

Many were said, seemly or not.

Along with photo ops.

Charles Pierce, on who should be heard and who might better shut up. Of the first, Pierce quotes The Guardian's report on the funeral of Parisian policeman Ahmed Merabet, and the eulogy by his brother Malek—

"My brother was Muslim and he was killed by two terrorists, by two false Muslims ... Islam is a religion of peace and love. As far as my brother's death is concerned it was a waste. He was very proud of the name Ahmed Merabet, proud to represent the police and of defending the values of the Republic – liberty, equality, fraternity."

Malek reminded France that the country faced a battle against extremism, not against its Muslim citizens. "I address myself now to all the racists, Islamophobes and antisemites. One must not confuse extremists with Muslims. Mad people have neither colour or religion," he said.

In contrast to that display of sanity from an actual victim, the usual inflammatory words were produced for U.S. consumption, words acceptable when coming from Republicans.

On the other hand, cartoonists around the world had their own things to say.

Pens, Swords

Attendance was too high to count, said city officials in Paris. Perhaps as many as three million people; the NYT reports over a million.

After much US media consensus that Charlie Hebdo's staff had been irresponsible, Celia Farber thought of interviewing someone who knows the French cartooning scene: ex-pat R. Crumb.

Farber opened the conversation with these observations—

We don't have a context for this tradition here, merciless, political satire. One thing I keep noticing is commentators here are pointing out that the cartoons were very offensive and insulting. It's as if we don’t understand that was by design. Very intentionally offensive, and very clear about why that couldn’t be compromised. That’s the part we don't get, as Americans. It's like, "Why did they have to be so mean?"

These guys were not trying not to offend, and that’s what an American media-conditioned mind cannot understand. The idea that yes, you offend those who abuse power.

American underground comics of the 1970s, said Crumb, took that sort of stance—

... But today, I don't think there’s anything like that now in the US. The thing about Charlie Hebdo is that it started in 1969. The gang of guys that worked for that magazine, they just kept at that for decades. ...The cartoonists are mostly older guys. There is lots of critique of the left also. They say the left is hypocritical, bullshitters and opportunists, and all that. But generally I would say there's a leftish sympathy in Charlie Hebdo. But they just came out with that every week. Every week. And people would just look at it and laugh, "Oh, you know those guys, those crazy guys. They’re outrageous."

Writing from London, Olivier Tonneau posted a long but interesting piece on the French context that British and American media overlook— .

.. the attack becomes all the more tragic and absurd: two young French Muslims of Arab descent have not assaulted the numerous extreme-right wing newspapers that exist in France (Minute, Valeurs Actuelles) who ceaselessly amalgamate Arabs, Muslims and fundamentalists, but the very newspaper that did the most to fight racism. And to me, the one question that this specific event raises is: how could these youth ever come to this level of confusion and madness? What feeds into fundamentalist fury? How can we fight it?
...

...France is home today to many Arabs, some of them Muslims, who were chased away from their home country by fundamentalists as early as the 1960s. They were exposed to racism of course, especially in the workplace – it’s the story that goes back to the Middle Ages of workers who fear the threat of outsiders – and also bullied by the police and treated like second-class citizens. They fought for equality and justice, with the support of many on the left of the political spectrum, for instance during the 1983 Marche des beurs. Believe it or not, none of the protagonists of the march were making religious claims; they were not walking as Muslims but as French citizens who demanded that France truly provides them with Liberté, Egalité and Fraternité.

Tonneau makes this case—

Let us be clear: fundamentalism is not caused by immigration from Muslim countries. It is very easy to demonstrate this: Muslims migrated in France as early as the 1950s and the issue of fundamentalism only arose in the last fifteen years. Moreover, among the young men who enlist to fight for Daesh, many are actually disenfranchised white youth with no familial links to Islam. Fundamentalism is something new, that exercises a fascination on disenfranchised French youth in general – not on Muslims in general. In fact, the older generation of French Muslims is terrified by the phenomenon. After the killing of Charlie Hebdo, Imams demanded that the government take action against websites and networks propagating fanaticism.

Harry Shearer noted how satire and hate speech were conflated by the many Americans convinced that mockery of powerful institutions and people equals stereotyping groups of people. Yet people seem so "confused" as to need reminding that, "When you make fun of religious figures who have sway over millions of people," it's satire, not hate speech.
But considering the unqualified political support received by another recent target of intimidation, Shearer says that instead of being "Charlie," a better bet is to say, "Je suis Sony."

Contradictions

First thing Wednesday morning of a long day's news: report of a massacre in Paris, at the office of the comic magazine firebombed in 2011, after publishing "Prophet Mohammed" cartoons.

Juan Cole sees those responsible as aiming to "'sharpen the contradictions'" between Muslims and the rest of French society—

Al-Qaeda wants to mentally colonize French Muslims, but faces a wall of disinterest. But if it can get non-Muslim French to be beastly to ethnic Muslims on the grounds that they are Muslims, it can start creating a common political identity around grievance against discrimination.
...
The operatives who carried out this attack exhibit signs of professional training. …they certainly know that they are playing into the hands of Marine LePen and the Islamophobic French Right wing. They may have been French, but they appear to have been battle hardened. This horrific murder was not a pious protest against the defamation of a religious icon. It was an attempt to provoke European society into pogroms against French Muslims, at which point al-Qaeda recruitment would suddenly exhibit some successes instead of faltering in the face of lively Beur youth culture (French Arabs playfully call themselves by this … term deriving from wordplay involving scrambling of letters). Ironically, there are reports that one of the two policemen they killed was a Muslim.
...
...an insular and hateful minority will take advantage of this deliberately polarizing atrocity to push their own agenda. Europe’s future depends on whether the Marine LePens are allowed to become mainstream. Extremism thrives on other people’s extremism, and is inexorably defeated by tolerance.

Digby noted this little maneuver—

Unfortunately, I made the mistake of tuning in to Fox News a few minutes ago to watch them all eating croissants and marching around the table singing "La Marseillaise". Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating. But they do seem to have rather suddenly become Francophiles which is ironic to say the least. I couldn't help but recall this National Review article by neocon Michael Ledeen...

Fox felt more sudden love for the French, as hostages were taken in a kosher market.

Same day as the Chalie Hebdo attack in Paris, the attempted bombing of the Colorado Springs NAACP office seems to be a national non-story; Charles Pierce—

Somehow, another attempted terrorist attack has gone largely unnoticed. It is very strange how this happens sometimes.

Agents from the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives went to the scene after the blast to gather evidence and place markers. The FBI said that a gasoline can was placed next to the device but the contents did not ignite. According to the the FBI, officials are seeking a "potential person of interest," described as a balding white male, about 40 years old. "He may be driving a 2000 or older model dirty, white pick-up truck with paneling, a dark colored bed liner, open tailgate, and a missing or covered license plate," the FBI said in a statement said.

I think local and federal law enforcement immediately should begin profiling every man in Colorado matching this description.

When the carnage in Paris finally ended [date 9th?} Pierce observed—

One encouraging part of the French response to this incident is the fact that it was conducted primarily as a police action. A vigorous one, granted. A militarized one, certainly. But, at least from my vantage point, the murderers were treated as criminals. They were identified as criminals, hunted as criminals, and ultimately discovered through the basic techniques of criminal investigation. Except over here, they weren't treated as super-villains with dark magical powers. They were gunmen -- and one gunwoman -- who shot up places and killed people. Their crimes were their only cause. Now they are dead. Their crime spree is over. It ended the same way crime sprees ended for Bonnie and Clyde, and John Dillinger. And it's time for people to calm down again. But I suspect that won't happen, at least not here.

Take That!

Digby, on police threats of retaliation, as nailed by Matt Bors—

A Year, A Nutshell

The Jon Swift Memorial Roundup for 2014.

On Majority Report, Sam and guest Digby sum up the year-end theme: no consequences to those who abuse authority, whether they ordered torture or fixed a grand jury.

Digby sees release of the torture report as a turning point: "Where it's a debate at all... it's just another issue to be haggled about, like capital gains tax." No matter what happened in practice, the government had never before admitted to torture, and now it's simply accepted policy. Of the White House's refusal to take a position on the report, Sam says, "It was basically a McCulloch: 'we let the grand jury take a look, and there's no point in us weighing in.'"

Digby kept returning to the idea that something very substantial has shifted. That it's no accident Cheney's goal was to restore executive branch power, or that he had the Justice Department issue orders, creating "a new world of 'get out of jail free cards': as long as some lawyer in some department signs a memo that it's legal... There's now a legitimate excuse for anything a member of government does, and there's no end to it." And the sheer incompetence at exercising the power they've seized only earns them promotions and Medals of Freedom. After all, says Digby, "They are patriots doing their best to protect us. If they make us less safe, well we need to thank them for that and move along."

With the new public attention to out of control police behavior, says Digby, the outrageously inappropriate reactions of some spokespeople is also like McCulloch: "Police have a tough job. I put every liar on the stand; let the people decide." Same for CIA threats: "don't criticize us or you'll make us afraid to do our jobs. Nice little country here; be a shame if anything happened to it." Police threatening to withhold protection if criticized use the same tactic. are the same. Digby thinks this is a broad cultural change in acceptance of this authoritarian "we're above criticism; if you criticize us, we'll make you pay."

And so the discussion continued, as we are about to move into the new year with GOP domination of Congress and an Establishment egging on "Bipartisanship" around issues like TPP. As Digby and Sam said, there are good reasons why TPP details are secret; "fast track" is purely a strategy for the Senate to avoid having to defend the indefensible. Sam: "It's another McCulloch moment: 'it's not our business to vote on this.'"

Sadly, "McCulloch moment" has got to be the most apt new usage of 2014.

Opportunity Knocks

The bodies were barely cold before right-wing pundits joined New York's police union head in blaming Mayor de Blasio for the murders of two policemen.

The killer was unbalanced, obsessed with media, and readily violent—he had in fact shot his girlfriend before driving to New York to make a name for himself. It goes without saying that the murderer would be turned into a left-winger spurred on by demonstrations against police violence. Also goes without saying: this is regardless of how non-violent demonstrators have been.

How likely is it that a deranged person in Baltimore would so much as even heard of Bill de Blasio? Silly question: logic is no obstacle to destroying a politician who's dared suggest he's had to have "The Talk" with his own son. Certainly, New York's mayor is Enemy #1 to a segment of the city's police force; for national punditry, blame for the murders also falls on Obama, Eric Holder, and any other useful name.

No one but a handful of New Yorkers might remember that previous mayors have been political targets of police unions. From the New York Observer—

This is a recurring theme," said Kenneth Sherrill, a longtime professor of political science at Hunter College. "Police respond with anger when mayors try to exercise authority over how they relate to the civilian population."

Police in 1992 police actually rioted against David Dinkins, abetted by Rudolph Giuliani's incitement. The Observer again—

On September 16, 1992, thousands of police officers stormed City Hall and stopped traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge to protest Mr. Dinkins' eventually successful attempt to create an all-civilian Civilian Complaint Review Board, as well as express their general frustration toward his administration. Just as police union leaders and their backers view Mr. de Blasio's desire to address the grievances of minorities who feel unfairly targeted by police as a thinly-disguised pretext to undermine law enforcement, they blamed Mr. Dinkins for undercutting police in an environment plagued with far more crime and unrest.

On the other hand, police reaction is downright soothing when it's demented white avowed right-wingers who kill cops. Digby brings up the murder in June of this year of two off-duty Las Vegas policemen. The killers were a couple drawn to the area to join the Bundy Ranch militia. The authorities verdict then: "Police believe the shootings were an isolated act, not part of a broader conspiracy to target law enforcement..." As in similar events, media reaction was mainly a yawn.

Roy Edroso remembers Team Con's reaction to the shooting of Gabby Giffords As he wrote then—

...once a connection had been suggested between the sainted Palin and an actual, horrific act of violence -- worse, a connection that such Americans as can remember back a few news cycles might actually grasp -- the necessity of severing that connection became stronger for rightbloggers than any faint impulses they might have had toward decorum, logic, or common sense.

Now, it's the usual drill—

...some of these same conservatives who defended themselves after the Giffords shooting are scapegoating like crazy after the murder of two cops in Brooklyn last weekend, claiming that protesters and officials who disputed the handling of the Eric Garner case are to blame for it.

Charles Pierce, on our recurring national theme: out-of-control authority demanding immunity from so much as criticism—

... If the CIA is insubordinate to the president, whom the country elected, then it is insubordinate to all of us. If the NYPD runs a slow-motion coup against the freely elected mayor of New York, then it is running a slow-motion coup against all the people of New York. There is no exemption from this fundamental truth about the way this country and its system is supposed to work. The military -- and its civilian analogues in Langley and in the precinct houses -- always is subordinate to the civil power which, no matter how much it may chafe them, means that they always are subordinate to politicians. If we render our torturers superior to the political institutions of the government, and if we render the police superior to the civil power of elected officials, then we essentially have empowered independent standing armies to conduct our wars and enforce our laws, and self-government descends into bloody farce.

But, alas,in the past few weeks, we have shown ourselves to be relatively at peace with that very thing -- as long as the torture is done in the prisons overseas and the judicial killing is done in the streets of the ghetto, and as long as our fear of some omnipotent Other is what drives our politics. In turn, and in its mind, the country has now turned peaceful mass protest into some sort of violent revolution, and it has converted the murderous rage of a criminal lunatic into the ultimate expression of the cries for justice that have been heard in the last month in Ferguson, and Cleveland, and on Staten Island. It is a deeply noxious perversion of reality, and it has been working like a charm. Very soon, the names of Michael Brown and Tamir Rice and Eric Garner will be as unknown to our national dialogue again as are the names of those faceless, bartered souls who languished in shackles in Poland and in Thailand. The last thing to go to the waterboard is the tattered remnant of what we thought ourselves to be.