Stewart rally: applause, some nits to pick and one real complaint.

[Deep13]

First of all, well done. It was a huge liberal rally: 215,000 according to CBS. CBS put Glenn Beck's whitestock rally at 87,000. I enjoyed the musical guests, Colbert's antics and most of the other stuff. I watched on TV as I was unable to go to DC as I would have wanted.

Now the nits.

While I appreciate the need for greater civility and rationality in political discussion, it is a mistake to equate people like Olbermann and Ed Shultz with the professional liars at Fox. Shultz and Olbermann tell the truth from a liberal point of view. Sometimes I've seen Olbermann go a little over the top in his rhetoric, but he has never lied about anything to my knowledge. Just because both side make symmetrical arguments odes not make those arguments equally valid. Nothing on the left approaches the fear mongering, demonizing and outright lies of RW media. And as far as extremists go, when have American liberals lynched anyone, driven them to suicide or shot them for providing reproductive services? We think the teabaggers are wrong and even idiots. The far right thinks gays, atheists, Muslims and others have no right to exist. Liberals don't stomp heads, shoot doctors, assault gays or make implied (but obvious) threats of violence or even assassination.

Having said that, I appreciate the effort to restore a degree of civility to political discourse and I even understand the possible political necessity of doing it the way they did.

I would have liked to see less emphasis on religion. If it doesn't matter, why keep bringing it up? In emphasizing religious diversity, I as a nonbeliever felt a bit left out.

On that note, it is a bit disengenuous to say that the 9/11 hijackers "happened" to be Muslim as if it were a statistical fluke. Granted, saying that nearly all Muslims did not attack us on 9/11 or any other time is accurate and worth pointing out. Nevertheless, the 9/11 hijackets did not just happen to be Muslim, they were hijackets precisely because of their religion. I understand that a awful lot of Muslims were appauled by what they did, but it is still a fact that the hijackets thought themselves on a mission for Allah.

I don't think the "now you have no Koran" guy was a good recipient of a sanity medal. He basically committed an act of robbery to prevent someone from exercising a protected religious expression.

Those were the nits.

What I found truly offensive was using Yusuf Islam, fka Cat Stevens, as a symbol of acceptence, peacefulness etc. In 1989, the Ayatollah Khomeini called for the death of author Salman Rushdie for writing supposedly blasphemous things in his novel, The Satanic Verses. Yusuf Islam was among those who publicly joined Khomeini in saying Rushdie should be killed. This death sentence was no idle threat and has forced Rushdie and his family to live underground. Yusuf later claimed implausibly that he was joking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Stevens'_comments_about_Salman_Rushdie

Sorry, I liked the song and the back and forth with Ozzy Ozborne, but I take strong exception to the presence of Yusuf Islam at any event whose purported purpose was to restore sanity. Considering that one purpose of the rally was to demonstrate that Muslims as a whole are just regular, reasonable people, it is difficult to think of a worse representative of that in the Western world.

As I said, I enjoyed the rally for the most part and I congratulate the Comedy Central team for putting it together and for drawing such a huge crowd.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. ah, yes another attack on Cat.

Fact free and refusing to even acknowledge his repeated claims that he was misquoted and taken out of context.

[wtmusic]

3. Video of Yusuf agreeing that Rushdie deserved to die.

You be the judge:

http://www.archive.org/details/Hypotheticals-a-Satanic-Scenario

Most would agree that his philanthropic work has far outweighed the damage his controversial statements have done: "In 1979, he auctioned all his guitars away for charity<5> and left his music career to devote himself to educational and philanthropic causes in the Muslim community. He has been given several awards for his work in promoting peace in the world, including 2003's World Award, the 2004 Man for Peace Award, and the 2007 Mediterranean Prize for Peace."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_stevens

[Hannah Bell]

43. .

what crap.

[JackintheGreen]

8. Also the refusal to allow moderation of views over two decades

Converts are often the most devout, the least able to view their religion with any kind of dispassion. Whatever comments he made were made 12 years after his conversion, but now it is 21 years beyond even that.

It drives me crazy, this lawyerly penchant for locking one's identity to a single moment in time, a single action or comment, no matter how distant that instance might have been.

[wtmusic]

11. Yusuf would serve himself better if he swapped backpedaling

for an honest admission.

[JackintheGreen]

14. I don't disagree

and Yusef owes more precisely because he is somebody that people recognize, who was once a pretty big persona in American popular culture.

But I have said and done some pretty awful things in my past and I would hate to be judged today solely for something I did 20+ years. But if I ran for congress in Colorado, for example, I can think of some oppo research from my undergrad days that might reflect badly on me.

Again, Yusef needs to be held to a higher standard by virtue of who he is, but still...

[JackintheGreen]

15. delete. DUPE

[Deep13]

12. He can retract the remark any time he wants. nt

[Deep13]

10. Aware of the claim. I don't believe him.

If he wants simply to apologize for saying it and defend freedom of expression, that would go a long way. Of course, then he would be the one living with death threats.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Just one question for you. How do you know that the 9/11 hijackers all acted

'precisely because of their religion'? How do you know they weren't acting because of western soldiers being stationed in their home country? How do you that they weren't acting because of perceived oppression? How do you it wasn't simply a political act?

[wtmusic]

5. Good point.

Had evangelical Christians walked in their shoes, could we expect a less violent result? Probably not.

[Deep13]

16. Here's a discussion about the reason for the attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks

Seriously, your question is naive. At present, the only people in the world who carry out suicide bombings (which is what 9/11, the airplane fuel and momentum being the "bomb") are extreme Islamists. The M.O. of Al Qaeda has been well documented. The reasons given for the attack: U.S. military in Saudi Arabia, support for Israel and sanctions against Iraq are all religious reasons. S.Arabia is considered holy ground by Muslims and the presence of unbelievers--even at the invitation of the Saudi government--is seen as a desecration. Perceived or real oppression by Jews against Muslims is likewise too great of an insult to tolerate. Similarly, the sanctions by the non-Muslim world against a Muslim country was seen as an attack on Islam. These claimed reasons for the attacks are all grounded in theology.

[sinkingfeeling]

25. "Perceived or real oppression by Jews against Muslims is likewise too great of an insult

to tolerate." By who? How about the oppressed?

Your own religious bias seems to be showing.

[sabrina 1]

26. Thank you, you saved me the trouble.

We could also say that Bush's 'crusade' into the ME was 'precisely because of religion.'

But those who know better know that we are there to control the resources by building bases all over the region.

'God Bless America' being chanted as we go off to bomb a ME country into the dark ages with Bush stating he is guided by his heavenly father to start these crusades, probably caused many people to believe that our Imperial Wars are precisely because of the fact that no one can get to be leader of this country UNLESS they are a Christian and Christians have a long history of killing Muslims and other people who are not Christian.

[The Philosopher]

4. It's not the lies that are the problem

it's the over-the-top acting that's the problem, the way I see it. And Keith and Rachel are the same in this department as Beck and Limbaugh. I mean, if you tell people in a calm voice, "There's a bomb on this train," the majority, if not all, are going to look at you funny because they're thinking, "Geeze, he's very calm in relation to that announcement." But if you rip your clothes off, release your fluids, and scream over and over, "THERE'S A BOMB ON THIS TRAIN!" people are, generally, going to freak out and act according to the information provided. I like that our liberal versions act more like journalists than entertainers, but in the end, they are still entertainers. They have more in common with Beck and Limbaugh and the other assholes than not. After all, they're not selling facts, they're selling our message.

As for Yusuf and Ozzy, I'm not sure, but I thought the same "WTF?" that you did. I forget which show it was on, but one of the MSNBC shows on Sunday theorized that if these two were now thought of as examples of sanity, then maybe the world is getting better. That might be one of the reasons they were included, because they weren't like their "insane" versions anymore. Yusuf quit music when he converted, most would believe an irrational response to the change of one's religion. But after years of silence, he decided to start making music again. So I think they were representatives of a change from the lack of sanity to sanity, which was part of the rally's message: that even though we can lose our heads sometimes, it doesn't have to be all the time.

[Deep13]

17. I can't agree with that first point.

I really believe that the underlying factual veracity of a claim is what is important. I have never seen Maddow resort to the kind of fear-mongering, over-the-top rhetoric that Fox and Limbaugh use with regularity. And they do it because their basic cause is bullshit. If what she says is scary, it is because the underlying facts are scary. I have rarely seen Olbermann use hyperbole to the point of distorting the facts. But then he is more of an opinion commentator while Maddow is more of a news reporter.

[The Philosopher]

36. Well

Olbermann has a "worst person in the world" segment, so. But you're right, I believe, they aren't fear-mongers. Not in the same way as (let's just call them "the assholes"); but they do something similar, because it's the dark side of being an inspirational speaker. I like both Maddow and Olbermann, in that order, but I can't watch them every night because I can see that they're very similar to the assholes. Sure, they're doing it for our side, and "the truth." But I just can't stand it so I take them in moderation.

[Flubadubya]

29. Imagine...

for a moment that the ONLY voices out there were Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, Savage, Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, Carlson, Ingraham, Morris, Miller, Kristol, O'Bearne, Kavuto, Barnes, Hewitt, Drudge, Huckabee, Krauthammer, Frum, Malkin... (I'll stop... I could run out of room here.)

It's really not hard to imagine because that's just about the fact of the matter... except, of course for Olbermann, Maddow, Shultz, uhh... oh, that's just about it for us isn't it?

Yeah, how about let's kick the shit out of our "few voices of reason". Yep, that's what they deserve. We don't need them around anyhow, do we? Their voices aren't important, besides, they're the equivalent of Beck and Limbaugh, eh?

Look Mr. Philospher, we need to get real about this. These folks have NOTHING in common with Beck and Limbaugh. I think it's time we not only begin to appreciat what few good folk we have out there carrying our banner, but we would do well to support them... not tear them down and compare them to the scum of the earth.

This kind of talk really makes me ill. :puke:

[The Philosopher]

38. It's THE Philosopher, and

just step back for a moment and imagine them not with the same identity, but being in the same category. The category itself is the problem I refer to. And let's not get over-dramatic and not read what people actually post, because it seems a lot of people attribute their own thinking into others, which is not very nice. The kind of demonizing that's done to anyone who isn't a Democrat or a Liberal is disgusting, not because the Republicans we're faced with aren't unethical, bat-shit insane, wooden dummies: it's that we're demonizing a category of people. I think history has shown how insane such a thing is. Not only does it lead to bigotry, but it keeps us from really discussing the "facts" at hand. Because if we did that without all the demonizing, over-the-top rhetoric, etc., I believe the Democrats will win hands down. HANDS DOWN. Instead we're creating a culture where this sort of entertainment--and don't kid yourself, they're all entertainment and not real journalism--is saturated with the ideal of awesomeness and we flock to them. And right now, because of their unethical nature that keeps them from NOT stopping at sane levels, the Republicans are going to be better at it than our Democratic choices. And what's that going to do? Either the Democratic choices push to reach the same levels or they're kicked off the air for low ratings. This doesn't help us whatsoever.

[handmade34]

48. a quick point...

for many people out there in this country... the ONLY voices out there are "Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, Savage, Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, Carlson, Ingraham, Morris, Miller, Kristol, O'Bearne, Kavuto, Barnes, Hewitt, Drudge, Huckabee, Krauthammer, Frum, Malkin..." this scares the hell out of me

[nolabear]

6. While I appreciate your calm expression of your pov, I respectfully disagree with much of it.

First, I've listen to Ed and Keith and Rachel and Tom and Norm and Stephanie and Randi and, when I can stand it, Glenn and Bill and Sean and so on. Although the first set I agree with on facts and support in pov, they are in the business of generating emotion, outrage. They may be our agitators, but they're agitators, because they want you to keep coming back for more. "Get out your pitchforks and torches" is not as ironic as you might think.

Religion is, whether we believe in it or not, one of the strongest forces in the world. It binds people together, gives them an identity that transcends borders, keeps them from fear and yes, supports much of the most egregious behavior on the planet. A kind, slightly satirical approach that makes religious people feel a little embarrassed at the crazier aspects of what they do with their religion while acknowledging that it is a powerful and important force is brilliant. The idea here was to be INCLUSIVE, not to moon the other side and then feel superior.

And as stated above, Yusuf has many times stated that the statements about Rushdie were misrepresented. Note how much more of an impression the original story made on you than the retractions and you'll get a better understanding of the rally's point about the media.

Koran guy? Well, he was just funny. I remmeber funny fondly.

[Deep13]

18. I agree on that last point.

I appreciate the practical need to pander to religion. Nevertheless, speaking subjectively, I felt left out.

I don't think Yusuf's remarks were misrepresented. I'll look into it more when I have a chance. I think he regrets saying it and has claimed that it was dry humor or out of context. What he really ought to do is apologize and retract the comment. But he can't because that would put him in Rushdie's position.

[vanlassie]

7. Well, here we have, in a nutshell (no pun intended)

the problem we all claim we want to see solved, and yet the reason for the problem is fueled even here and now in the OP. It ultimately boils down to resentment. Resentment= Ill will, held over time, for what was originally a Very Good Reason." So if we are holding a grudge against Cat Stevens, who in fact has apologized, what hope is there to really create (or add to) peace on earth?'''

[Deep13]

19. When has Yusuf apologized? Cite your source.

He's claimed it was misunderstood because it was dry humor. He claimed it was quoted out of context. I am not aware of him ever saying he was wrong to say it.

[vanlassie]

32. My word.

Yusuf Islam said that his comments were "stupid and offensive jokes," made in "bad taste."

Here again, OP, as long as we split hairs we can continue to make ourselves "right" forever. That's pretty much what is happening every place where there have been multigenerational wars.
Everyone is right because they once had Very Good Reasons for their resentments. Just like you. Big deal. Do you really think Yusaf Islam is a bad guy? Or do you just really like that feeling of being right? That's the driving force for resentment- feeling a payoff and not recognizing the cost!

[Deep13]

35. Yeah, I don't believe they were jokes.

Saying he was misunderstood is not the same as saying he was wrong, ergo, not an apology.

[vanlassie]

37. You get to be right. My point, exactly.

[TZ]

9. Refusal to accept that the liberals on Cable go over the top

sometimes as well is a biased view with NO objective reality. The fact is that often times Olbermann and Shultz make statements that are blatantly wrong, often as inaccurate as anything on Fox! (at least thats what my retired georgetown political scientist relative whose PhD is in media and politics says--Kinda think after 30 years in the business, he knows his field, but he's a scientist what does he know about political science...:sarcasm:)
And as for Cat Stevens. Ask him if he believes that NOW! People say stupid shit all the time..but if you should ignore people for the rest of their lives for one stupid thing they said, then NOBODY here on DU or in Congress or in White House or in the
real world has nothing to contribute because I don't know anybody who has said nothing stupid in their entire lives.

[Deep13]

20. Dear Yusuf, do you still believe Salman Rushdie should be murdered...

...for his writings?

Well, obviously, I can't ask him. But he is free to retract the statement any time he wants.

I don't watch Shultz much, so I really can't say I am aware of any inaccuracies he has pertetrated. I've acknowledged that Olbermann sometimes goes over the top in his rhetoric. I should point out that an over-the-top sense of moral outrage is not the same as a factual inaccuracy. Nor is using some of the colorful expressions Olbermann uses to describe the objects of his outrage.

Well, I don't know the professor you are talking about, so I can't credit what he says or what he knows. He may know exactly what he is talking about and may say just what you are saying, but from here it looks like "I know it because someone told me." Perhaps the next time we are all in the area, we can discuss it over lunch with you professor friend.

[woo me with science]

13. Excellent OP. K&R nt

[Deep13]

21. Thanks. That makes one of you.

:-(

[woo me with science]

47. No, there's more than one.

You are making some excellent points here. Some people will not want to hear you, but that will always be the case when you are treading in sensitive areas.

[Deep13]

22. One point I forgot....

Sorry, but he tea party movement is racist to the core. It's not just the leadership. The whole movement is a white middle-age, middle class temper tantrum that they are not solely in charge anymore.

[AlinPA]

28. Yep. I know a lot of them and know that to be true.

[Winterblues]

23. Where did you get the idea the hijackers only did it because of their religion?

You were Lied to if that is what you heard..Nowhere did any of the nineteen hijackers ever claim religion was their cause.. Nowhere....The propagand keeps on being catapulted though...

[Deep13]

24. This is well documented by those who know better than I do.

I'm not going to explain it again.

I suppose you have some other explanation why all of the hijackers were Islamist extemist members of Al Qaeda.

[Winterblues]

30. Anyone you talk to that really knows about such things says religion has nothing to do with it

It is about the poor and how the rich steal the resources resources. Remember almost every Muslim nation is either theocratic or a monarchy. The poor have no say what-so-ever in anything and they are the very great majority of those countries. It is how the Kings let the west take all their oil and the kings and princes become ultra billionaires while the poor remain the poorest in the world...No one that understand what is at stake says it is about religion..Only Christians seem to believe that while happy that we have their oil..

[AlinPA]

27. I thought the part on religion was done well. It showed how stupid people are about it.

The piece on Muslim hatred in the U.S. where Kareem Abdul Jabbar appeared was well done. The "priest" was great, showing how absurd it is that people claim their religion is the one and only true religion.

[emilyg]

31. k/r

[La Lioness Priyanka]

33. you are right. no other religion gets brainwashed to kill others based on religious beliefs. nt

[handmade34]

49. I am not sure if your post is sarcasm

but all religions that have its origins in the Middle East (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.) have 'brainwashed' a number of its adherents to commit acts of violence... i.e. abortion doctor killers...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

50. Lol, it was sarcasm.

[TexasObserver]

34. I'll write lyrics to "Whining Has Broken" if you'll sing it.

Sung to the tune of "Morning Has Broken," by Cat Stevens, of course.



Enough with the Cat Stevens carping, already!

[Deep13]

51. I'll take your ad hominem attack as an admission...

...that you have no other argument.

[TexasObserver]

53. Whining has bro-ken, like the first mor-ning ....

Enough with the Cat Stevens carping, already!

Is there any part of that you can't understand? I think your complaining about Cat Stevens is over the top.

[Deep13]

39. What I think of Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) isn't what matters...

What matters is what the rest of the country thinks about a rally that puts him on stage as a symbol of sanity. And when anyone can go to Youtube to find a video of Yusuf telling people that someone ought to be killed because of what he wrote in a work of fiction, it really doesn't help out cause.

I wonder if part of the reason people here are so defensive of Yusuf and angry at me for bringing it up is because a lot of think Rushdie brought his problems on himself. The reason I ask is because a lot of otherwise respectable people in '87 said just that. After making some platitudes opposing violence, they said the real crime wasn't the suppression of free expression, but rather the insensitivity to religion. That's horseshit of course and it was repeated in 2005 when many in the Islamic world rioted because non-Muslims in a free-press country failed to observe Islamic rules about depicting Mohammed.

So I have to wonder, if it was Ted Nugent telling people that someone should be killed for promoting gay rights (and then later claimed he was joking), would you be so forgiving?

____


As I previously noted, all my other points are "nit-picking," just small observations that don't really detract from the whole rally.

[spanone]

40. i found cat stevens quite illuminating.....

[WildEyedLiberal]

41. I can't argue with much of that.

Although I'm not surprised you're getting flamed for your (true) statements about the hijackers, because it is a truth that does not fit with the narrative that many people here want to advance - which, ironically, is a better example of the kind of irrational thinking that permeates "both sides" of the political discourse than Keith and Ed are. That said, it is absolutely a false equivalency to equate left-wing "shouters" with the extreme right, although I do believe that the montage at the rally showed more Faux News clips than MSNBC clips.

As far as the Cat Stevens stuff, I was unaware that he'd supported the fatwa against Rushdie. That's really not okay, and it's disappointing (though predictable) to see you getting flamed for that, too. I'm willing to accept that he probably doesn't really believe that anymore, but you're right, he should publicly apologize.

I'm semi-religious, and I found the religious stuff a bit awkward too. I think they were trying to balance not mocking religious people with not offending the non-religious, and it came across a bit forced. That said, I think it was fairly inoffensive. But yes, I could've done with a bit less emphasis there, too.

[woo me with science]

44. +100

I'm not surprised you're getting flamed for your (true) statements about the hijackers, because it is a truth that does not fit with the narrative that many people here want to advance - which, ironically, is a better example of the kind of irrational thinking that permeates "both sides" of the political discourse than Keith and Ed are.



Yup.

[Deep13]

52. thanks. nt

[Deep13]

42. Also, the 9/11 hijackers...

For some reason, many of you responding are under the impression that what the 9/11 hijackers did had nothing to do with their unanimous religion. Frankly, to deny that basic fact is delusional.

Here is an interesting article on the subject.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042801315.html

"For all of them, radical Islam and jihad soon became obsessions, eclipsing everything else. Studies were abandoned, families ignored, the outer world denied as they plunged themselves into their fanatical version of faith. As a German investigator put it: "They are not talking about daily life stuff, such as buying cars -- they buy cars, but they don't talk about it, they talk about religion most of the time . . . these people are just living for their religion, meaning for them that they just live now for their life after death, the paradise. They want to live obeying their God, so they can enter paradise. Everything else doesn't matter." Talking one week of Kosovo, the next of Chechnya or Afghanistan, the 'men were agreed: they wanted to fight -- they just didn't know which war.' "

[woo me with science]

46. Thanks.

People don't want to hear, but you are exactly correct.

As they should, people here care deeply about making sure that ALL Muslims are not tarred with the same brush as the extremists. They also care deeply that the role of US foreign policy in these global problems is recognized and addressed. Those are important and worthy goals. However, to deny that the terrorism has ANYTHING to do with extremist religion is willful blindness, ridiculous on its face, and ultimately destructive to Democrats.

The electorate will never trust a party to defend this country if that party is not even capable of identifying the true nature of the threat.

[underpants]

45. Think if him as Oprah in the early 90's who decided not to go down the talkshow trash route

Do you think that Oprah has had a positive influence because of that decision?

I do.