New Republic Calls For Anti-Bush Lefties To Be Killed

[dbeach]

Walks like a thug,talks like a thug,writes likea thug..probably is a thug or bushevek . Same! Same!

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2005/030205tobekilled.htm

"New Republic Writer Calls For Anti-Bush Left-Wingers To Be Killed

Dave Zirin | February 3 2005

The words "libelous" and 'the New Republic" have a proud history of walking arm-in-arm. Now, in the esteemed tradition of Stephen Glass, The New Republic has stooped to a new low, publishing a piece that calls for violence, torture, and even death for leading leftists who dare oppose Bush's war on terror and the slaughter in Iraq."

[whistle]

1. There we go, that's living in unity, kill the opposition...

...toads, they don't know what vengeance really is!

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Hitler and Goebbels would be so proud.

[Pallas180]

3. You should have added this last paragraph which is most important:

"Therefore, this is a call for people to e-mail The New Republic and let them know what you think about humorous musings on killing Arundhati Roy or torturing Stan Goff. Let them know that a disgraced magazine will not intimidate us, especially one with the credibility of The National Enquirer. Let them know that we will publicly debate Tom Frank or any of their 20 something post-graduate hacks on the merits of this war anytime and any place. This is the only way to deal with darkness: shine as bright a light as possible -- right in it's face."

"E-mail [e-mail] to let them know what you think. We are also considering a picket of the New Republic Offices, for those interested."

[SmartBomb]

4. Let 'em come

Their fat corpses will litter my lawn.

[LiviaOlivia]

5. The TNR article.....

Note: I always read both sides so here you go.

By the way another DU poster stated last week that:

"Republicans don't deserve tact. They deserve to have their heads beaten in."

I posted a complaint in ATA. ATA replied:

"We do not permit members to actually advocate violence against anyone. But this appears borderline to me. It looks like hyperbole."

T. Frank calls TNR "liberal" in one of the omitted paragraghs. The article is shit. This article is also published under the title "Left Out" in the 02-07-2005 edition.



Ball Fake
by Tom Frank
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 01.21.05

~snip~

.....last night I was sitting in a low-budget church on G Street in downtown Washington listening to speakers at an International Socialist Organization-sponsored gathering by the name of "Town Hall: Empire and Resistance."

~snip~

Then there was the pooh-poohing of elections--any elections. Former soldier Stan Goff (supposedly of the Delta Force, Rangers, and Special Forces) spoke at length about the evils of capitalism and declared, "We ain't never resolved nothing through an election." This drew loud, sustained applause. Nothing to get worked up about, I thought; just a leftist speaker spouting lunacy. But today it seemed particularly bad. It wasn't just that I was missing what might be lovely canapés (or perhaps spring rolls being brought about on trays with delectable dipping sauce); rather, it was the thought that the speaker was dismissing something that Afghanis of all ages had recently risked their lives to participate in, something Iraq's insurgents view as so transformative that they are murdering scores of Iraqis to prevent it. No, what I needed to counter this speaker was not a Democrat like me who might argue that elections were, in fact, important. What I needed was a Republican like Arnold who would walk up to him and punch him in the face.

But the worst came with the final speaker, a woman by the name of Sherry Wolf, who is supposedly on the "editorial board of International Socialist Review." She talked, and talked, and talked; terms like "architects of the slaughter," "war criminal," and "Noam Chomsky" wafted about the room; and my eyes grew so bleary that I ceased taking notes. But then she brought up the insurgents in Iraq. Sure they were bad, she admitted: "No one cheers the beheading of journalists." But, she continued, they had a "right" to rebel against occupation. Then she read from a speech by the activist Arundhati Roy: "Of course, is riddled with opportunism, local rivalry, demagoguery, and criminality. But if we were to only support pristine movements, then no resistance will be worthy of our purity." In sum, Wolf said, the choice boiled down to supporting occupation or resistance, and we had to support resistance.

So there it was. I even forgot about the Constitution Ball for a minute. Apparently, we were to view the people who set off bombs killing over 150 peaceful Shia worshippers in Baghdad and Karbala as "resistance" fighters. And the audience seemed entirely fine with this. These weren't harmless lefties. I didn't want Nancy Pelosi talking sense to them; I wanted John Ashcroft to come busting through the wall with a submachine gun to round everyone up for an immediate trip to Gitmo, with Charles Graner on hand for interrogation. I left early (I couldn't stomach the question-answer session) and made my way to the Metro. In the station were people wearing fur coats and tuxedos and lovely gowns and shiny shoes. I assumed they were in town to celebrate Bush's reelection, and, for a moment, I wanted to join in. After my session with the ISO, they suddenly looked--well, so appealing. Having attended college in New York City, I know what it's like to be confronted with some of the more irritating forms of campus leftism. Yet I never quite understood why, ultimately, such leftism should drive sensible people away from liberalism. But yesterday's display made it a little more understandable: Maybe sometimes you just want to be on the side of whoever is more likely to take a bunker buster to Arundhati Roy.



T.A. Frank is a reporter-researcher at TNR.
subsription req'd
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=frank012105

[American Tragedy]

15. The borderline you describe is between opinion and intent

There is a difference between stating that someone deserves to suffer or perish, versus threatening or advocating that such action actually be taken.

There are people that I feel probably deserve to die, but I would not under any circumstances wish for that to really happen. In Agamemnon, it was definitely wrong of Clytemnestra to kill her husband, but any modern reader would agree that he had it coming big time.

[Jack Rabbit]

18. Horrors! She called Bush a war criminal!!

Next thing you know, somebody will say Woody Allen wears glasses!!

[RoyGBiv]

6. Has anyone read the article....

<putting on flame suit>

I'm just curious. This critique is obviously in no way straight journalism and contains more overblown phrases and flirtations with libel than anything in Frank's article. I would think its tone at least would lead others to seek out the source.

For those interested, the article is called "Ball Fake" and was published 01/21/05.

In any case, here's the thing: the critic missed the point entirely.

I won't defend Frank exactly. I thought the article itself was rather too self-absorbed and full of really bad attempts at wit. (He seemed more concerned about the fact he was too lazy to get around to getting his press credentials for an inaugural ball and as a result had to cover counter-inaugural events where there were no crab cakes.) Also, the manner in which he tried to make his point was more than a little stupid, imo. In short, he opened himself up to this kind of criticism needlessly.

However, the article itself was not in any way a call for "For Anti-Bush Lefties To Be Killed." In essense, he was exploring how seemingly reasonable people could find Republicans appealing. Near the end of his article, he writes: "Having attended college in New York City, I know what it's like to be confronted with some of the more irritating forms of campus leftism. Yet I never quite understood why, ultimately, such leftism should drive sensible people away from liberalism."

It is after this that he makes the comment, "But yesterday's display made it a little more understandable: Maybe sometimes you just want to be on the side of whoever is more likely to take a bunker buster to Arundhati Roy."

Arundhati Roy is, in my view, no one to be admired in any way, and he was obliquely being admired at the rally Frank attended. Intellectually, I don't advocate the kinds of actions against him and those who do openly support him that Frank mentions with his obvious hyperbole. On the other hand, Frank has a perfectly reasonable point. Many sensible people do see this degree of radical leftism as the problem, and they associate it with Democrats generally. The latter is also a problem.

[Old and In the Way]

7. For every 1 Arundhati Roy on the Left, we have 10 Grover Norquists

on the Right. And they get primetime, brodcast media exposure for their views. And they are the ones that are driving the war without end.

So while your point is taken, until we see a fairer balancing/nuetralizing of both extremes in our society, I won't partake in taking out those few on the Left that are willing to stand up to the RW extremists who are in control of our government today.

[RoyGBiv]

21. Agreed ...

As mentioned in a different post, I had a brain fart about the specific individual under discussion in that part of the article and have retracted my comments about her.

It's not productive or wise to slam people like her the way T. Frank did in his article. I've read the thing a few times now, and from the standpoint of a critical analysis of the text, I simply think the Frank writes badly and is a bit too full of himself and in love with what he thinks is his wit. He started out with a point worth making because I think one of the problems he observed is based on people using Roy's writings in ways she did not necessarily intend them to be used. But, Frank didn't make the point well and, as I said, opened himself up to the kind of criticism he took.

[DavidFL]

8. Arundhati Roy is a she, not a he.

And curious of the reasons why you think she is no one to be admired in any way, and why her writings are radical in your opinion.

[IrateCitizen]

12. Well, her writings ARE radical in the current sociological climate...

And I say that as someone who admires her greatly.

However, without radicals who were willing to dream of hopeful futures and then fight tirelessly for those futures, humankind would not progress.

I guess some, deep down inside, wish that the radicals would all go away so that we can only be led by "sensible" men who advocate incremental change without upsetting the boat from the safety of their lofty perches of privilege and celebrity. :shrug:

[Strelnikov_]

17. "They Would Lay Jesus Christ In His Grave"

"The poor workin' people, they followed Him around,
They sung and they shouted gay,
The cops and the soldiers, they nailed Him in the air,
And they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

Well, the people held their breath when they heard about His death,
And everybody wondered why,
It was the landlord and the soldiers that he hired,
To nail Jesus Christ in the sky.

This song was written in New York City,
Of rich man, preacher and slave,
But if Jesus was to preach like He preached in Galilee,
They would lay Jesus Christ in His grave."

"Jesus Christ"
Woody Guthrie

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. But the article had other calls for torture and violence

"No, what I needed to counter this speaker was not a Democrat like me who might argue that elections were, in fact, important. What I needed was a Republican like Arnold who would walk up to him and punch him in the face."

"I didn't want Nancy Pelosi talking sense to them; I wanted John Ashcroft to come busting through the wall with a submachine gun to round everyone up for an immediate trip to Gitmo, with Charles Graner on hand for interrogation."

It is a strange piece - the author seems to be saying "violence is the best solution". His fantasies are part of the problem of the Bush regime - "forget the talk - let's kill!". It is, ironically, an attitude that goes against democracy and the idea of elections.

For your information, here's the original Arundhati Roy piece:

Iraq today is a tragic illustration of this process. An illegal invasion. A brutal occupation in the name of liberation. The rewriting of laws that allow the shameless appropriation of the country’s wealth and resources by corporations allied to the occupation, and now the charade of a local “Iraqi government.”

For these reasons, it is absurd to condemn the resistance to the US occupation in Iraq as being masterminded by terrorists or insurgents or supporters of Saddam Hussein. After all, if the United States were invaded and occupied, would everybody who fought to liberate it be a terrorist or an insurgent or a Bushite?

The Iraqi resistance is fighting on the frontlines of the battle against Empire. And therefore that battle is our battle.

Like most resistance movements it combines a motley range of assorted factions. Former Ba’athists, liberals, Islamists, fed-up collaborationists, Communists, etc. Of course it is riddled with opportunism, local rivalry, demagoguery and criminality. But if we are only going to support pristine movements then no resistance will be worthy of our purity.

Public Power in the Age of Empire

I don't regard those planting bombs in Iraq as worthy of support; but we have to remember that the USA prevented elections being held in 2003 and 2004. The idea of ushering in democracy only grew when the WMD weren't found, and the chaos in Iraq developed. Bush's policies like Abu Ghraib aggravated Iraqis, and turned more people against the American troops. The US occupation isn't worthy of support either.

13. It depends...

"I don't regard those planting bombs in Iraq as worthy of support"

I think it depends, the French Resistance used sabotage, assasination, and "terrorism" in its fight against the Nazis. Were they not worthy of support. I think particular actions should be seen as wrong, specifically beheading of journalists and the bombing of mosques, mainly because these actions are not directed at the occupation and its collaborators.

But on the other hand in many of these cases we don't know who was responsible and it is not always safe to assume that it was Iraqi resistance forces, who aren't centralized and homogenous anyway. In the end imperialism and colonialism generally rely upon an ability by the dominant outside force to exacerbate divisions in an occupied country thereby creating a situation where one segment of the society does the dirty work of the imperialists for them.

In fact this is explicitly the U.S. plan otherwise known as Iraqification. Understanding this, one could see where some healthy distrust and animosity between sunnis, shiites and kurds is in the interest of the U.S. I don't think the U.S. is above creating this animosity where it doesn't exist. Remember only a couple months ago when Sadr was fighting, reports were flooding in of new cooperation between shiites and sunnis against the occupation. Certainly this could not be allowed to continue.

So what I'm saying is there is just as much reason to believe the CIA was responsible for some of these particular actions as it is to believe that resistance forces are. The only thing that suggests otherwise is the pattern of the Al-Qaeda group in Iraq claiming responsibility for every anti-coalition attack in Iraq, including the kinds of actions we're talking about.

[IrateCitizen]

11. Could you please tell WHY Arundhati Roy is not to be admired?

I'd really like to know, as someone who has followed her writings, her interviews, and finds her simply to be one of the most steadfast, compassionate, and beautiful people on the face of the earth. You may disagree with specifics in her politics, but I fail to see how you can not admire someone who has made it her life's calling to stand against imperialism and exploitation in the name of peace and justice -- even at the threat to her own health and safety.

I guess it's better to admire those who don't rock the boat too much while living their lives in comfort....

[RoyGBiv]

20. My sincere apologies ...

This is as good a place as any to say this. Consider this a response to all the responses to me that took me to task for this comment about Arundhati Roy.

I had an *extreme* brain fart. I don't quite know what my brain was doing at the time, just that I shouldn't post when I've been up as long as I'd been up at midnight last night. I thoroughly confused in my mind who Arundhati Roy is, thus the problem with the pronouns and the comment made in error about her not being worthy of admiration. What's worse is I can't actually remember who I thought I was talking about.

I have no other excuse. Again, my apologies.

As for the article itself, I stand by my original comments on it, which as I said were not meant as a defense of Frank. I do feel the message was different than what the critic claimed in the article originally posted and that calling his comments a call to kill leftists was incorrect at best. Other than that, it was pretty much self-indulgent whining that lacked perspective.

[IrateCitizen]

23. No, your last sentence sums up the article just fine...

... it was pretty much self-indulgent whining that lacked perspective.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. My only regret is that this guy didn't have the balls to confront someone like Stan Goff to his face.

Having read a lot of Stan's writings and coming to know a little bit about him in the process (he was in some of the most elite military units out there for years) -- I think he could have actually killed the whining pussy posing as a journalist who wrote this article in less than 1.5 seconds.

[RoyGBiv]

25. Yeah ...

I found the fact he left the event in the middle of it particularly irritating. This doesn't strike me as something a journalist with integrity would do if he or she intended to write an article such as this about that event.

PS: Thank you for your gracious response. I truly have egg on my face and feel bad about the error. It has eaten at me all day as I've waited to have the opportunity to reply. (Read the responses this morning from work, but never had time to respond.)

[Elidor]

16. Jesus H. Christ

Most people at least have some passing acquaintance with the facts before they go talking out of their asses. If you don't know that Roy is a SHE, it's a pretty safe bet you don't know much about her or anything she's written.

Enlighten us as to why she's such a reprehensible person.

[gottaB]

10. Somehow I suspect you're genuinely capable of understanding satire

[TexasLawyer]

14. Seriously bone-headed article

So the author is dumb AND murderous... a bad combo!

[librechik]

26. I agree, but the author is not dumb

it is Thomas Frank, the brilliant author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?"

This current essay is just very bizarre. Also, the tone is ambiguoous. Is he kidding? Deranged? Drunk? Very poor behavior on the part of both TNR and TF. Inexplicable, almost.

[Hard_Work]

19. Too funny

<snip>
Frank writes, "What I needed was a Republican like Arnold who would walk up to and punch him in the face."
</snip>

Haha, says the guy was ex Delta forces. Likely Ahhhnuld would find himself in traction...

[MasonJar]

22. Arundhati Roy is not as radical as the idiots who run our country.

The times I have seen her speak she has been very eloquent in support of the everyday people throughout this planet. She has a plan to oppose the ruination of our planet, its environment and its people (all of whom count with her.) She says countries and their citizens will begin to boycott American companies, etc. She is a very distinguihed and thought-provoking woman.

[LibertyorDeath]

24. This is social engineering for the True Believers

There will be more & more of this kind of talk as conditions in the US get worse under **ush and now his hench man Gonzales.

It ain't looking good...

[sarcasmo]

27. Shouldn't the FBI investigate these people like they did the Green Party?

I mean fair is fair. They are calling for us to be killed. I am taking this seriously maybe I should call a lawyer?