Stu Blog

The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords was, as we all know, tragic and horrifying. We all feel for her family, along with the other victims, and denounce this idiotic violence.

Watching the coverage of the story this weekend was truly perplexing. The left immediately jumped to blame the right before we even knew he name of the shooter. The right correctly defended itself pointing out that most of his rhetoric was from the left. At moments of attempted fairness, both sides say that they have some responsibility for angry rhetoric. The media, which is forever trying to elevate itself above that which it covers, claims that one thing we can all agree on is that there is a problem with the discourse in this country.

However, the one thing that no one seems to want to talk about is that after looking at the gunman and his ramblings, I don’t see how a discussion about rhetoric applies at all.

The truth is, unless there are a lot of new facts to come that we don’t know about yet, this shooting says absolutely nothing about our political discourse. Nothing. In fact, it says absolutely nothing about society as a whole. Zero.

I know this is disappointing to politicians and the media, but sometimes the story just isn’t about you. It’s about the people who were shot, and the person who shot them.

Think about this. Jared Lee Loughner was fixated on Gabrielle Giffords since at least August 2007. You might recognize that date as occurring approximately two years before the Tea Party existed. When he had a chance to finally interact with her, he asked her a question about grammar. Grammar.

He’s just crazy.  There’s no larger story here. There’s no there there.

The media and political hacks have used this tragedy as an excuse to talk about something they want to talk about—supposed right wing violence. There is absolutely no evidence at this time that supports that the right wing had anything to do with the killers actions . It’s the ultimate “when did you stop beating your wife” storyline. Conservatives are forced to defend themselves against a charge that no one with any evidence is presenting.

The Weekly Standard lays this case out extremely well, the whole piece is worth your time.

The lead piece from Politico included this passage: “By day’s end, the argument that the political right—fueled by anti-government, and anti-immigrant passions that run especially strong in Arizona—is culpable for the Tucson massacre, even if by indirect association, seemed to be validated by the top local law enforcement official investigating the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D).”

Validated how? Did this official provide evidence that Loughner was fueled by anti-government and anti-immigrant passions that run especially strong in Arizona? The article quotes him.

When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government—the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous,” said Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, an elected Democrat, at a news conference Saturday evening. “And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.

Unsubstantiated accusations from an authority figure do not “validate” the irresponsible claims of conservative culpability; they merely echo them. Unless he has seen evidence he is not sharing with the public, Dupnik was little more than Markos Moulitsas with a badge.

I must follow up on the incredible disappearing Glenn Beck mega-controversy of the week.  To review:

1) Glenn estimates in an off-the-cuff comment about something unrelated that around 10% of Muslims around the world are terrorists

2) Liberal blogs and some others fly off the handle

3) We show that the statistic is backed up by respected pollsters frequently cited by the exact same people complaining about it

4) SILENCE

There were a couple of exceptions to the silence.  For example, Jon Bershad at Mediaite takes the high road–with a refreshingly honest response to the information we presented here.

• Stu “asks for the media ’s apology . Well, here it is: I’m sorry. You appear to be right. However…”
• Look, I know my argument is more about feelings than facts and I know it’s a little flimsy. For instance, I hate the theory, espoused by the likes of early-2000s Eminem and one of my least favorite episodes of South Park, that words like “gay” and “fag” shouldn’t offend homosexuals because, in modern connotations, they actually mean “stupid” or “lame.” However, here I am, basically arguing the same thing about the word “terrorist.” I know I have no proof as to why those two arguments are different, but I feel that they are.  And therein, basically, lies the crux of my (admittedly flimsy) argument.

The entire post is worth your time, as I said–it’s honest.  And “honest” isn’t an easy genre to connect with for many in the media.  For example, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria.  If you don’t know who Fareed Zakaria is, then you aren’t working for his show.  But, apparently he decided to rehash all of the arguments that my last post shot down, with impressive levels of denial. You have to love the summary of the opposition:

“And this guy cited some polls to support the claim that many in the Muslim world don’t like us and wish us harm. Uhh, yes, many of us have been pointing that out for over a decade now … But hating America is not the same thing as being a terrorist.

“Believe me, if we had one hundred and fifty seven million Muslim terrorists active across the world, we would be hearing more about it.”

As “this guy” I feel uniquely qualified to comment.

1) The polls don’t describe a “wish” of any sort.  They don’t just describe people hating America.  They show support for violent attacks against civilians on US soil.  They show support for the actions of Osama Bin Laden.  They show support–aka advocacy–for those attacks.  Why is advocacy important? Well…

2) Dictionary.com.  Terrorist. Definition number one.  ”a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.” Look, Fareed -you’re either wrong, or you need to start attacking the dictionary, not Glenn. Just admit it.  Fareed’s defense on this point is that other organizations don’t define it this way, so “never mind.”  Never mind what?  The dictionary?  Never mind the dictionary?  When your defense can be summarized as “well, I think the dictionary is wrong”, you’ve lost.

3) Fareed claims that by my definition of terrorist, Glenn is a terrorist because Glenn says things that make people angry at the government.  I apologize for acting like I’m talking to someone with the IQ of eight, but apparently, I am.

a) Not my definition of terrorist.  It’s the dictionary definition of terrorist.

b) Here’s where your previous mistakes create issues for you, Fareed.  Saying things that make you angry at the United States does not make you a terrorist.  Advocating terrorism does.  If Glenn starts advocating attacks against civilians in the United States, he would be a terrorist.  He hasn’t done this, and never would.  But, let me ask you this-if Glenn DID start advocating attacks against innocent American civilians—would you do a segment of your show defending him?  Would ya?

4) He says if all of this were true “we would be hearing more about it.”  But, then also says he has been pointing out what he considers similar things for a decade.  Nice admission of your irrelevance.

Snark aside, let’s boil both sides down for a second.

–Zakaria’s (incorrect) point is that Glenn Beck is crazy for saying that 157 million Muslims are GOING to blow Americans up, because the truth is just that157 million Muslims WANT Americans to blow up.  Even if that were correct, is it really a point you are proud to argue?

–Glenn’s larger point was that a small percentage of Muslims are causing a major problem for the far, far larger non-psychotic part of it. Is that really a point that you find that objectionable, even if it was worded incorrectly? (It was not.)

The larger thing to observe here is –why is Mediaite doing a far better job than CNN?  Isn’t CNN supposed to be the one who is the level-headed-we’re-better-than-the-other-cable-networks-because-we’re-journalists-network?  Why is Mediaite able to completely destroy them in the credibility department?

Before I go, allow me to end with an acknowledgement of tactics from the left blogs that are in perpetual attack mode on Glenn.  Please, please, please notice how all of this started.  It’s one of the most common tactics in the failing war on Glenn…the sniper method.

Look, the number Glenn used was correct.  But, has he communicated that point in a more clear way at other times?  Sure.  For example, he usually says something like he did in The Real America—ten percent “want you dead” or a similar variation.  But what these blogs (Think Progress, Media Matters, Media Progress, Think Matters, DailyHuffPOlberschultz) constantly do is take a statistic or comment that Glenn says 50 times with all of the appropriate qualifiers–and wait for the one time he does not.  No one bothers to try and understand what he meant or try to understand the context.

A perfect example is the O’Reilly/View walkout.  How many times has O’Reilly said something similar to “Muslim extremists” on his show?  25,000?  Anyone who has ever heard him speak about terrorism at all knows that Bill O’Reilly does not think that every Muslim on earth is flying a plane into a building.  But, the one time he leaves off extremists, he suddenly is anti-Muslim.   It’s an absurd standard utilized by cowards who know how pathetic it is, but use it anyway because they believe the ends justify the means.

Let’s lay this out as quickly as possible. Glenn says this on the radio:

BECK: What is the number of Islamic terrorists? One percent? I think it’s closer to 10 percent, but the rest of the PC world will tell you ‘oh no, it’s minuscule.’ Okay, well, let’s take you at your one percent. Look at the havoc of one percent of Muslims causing on the rest of the world!

The typical idiotic left wing blogs go nuts. Then some not-so-typically-idiotic sources go nuts too. Eventually they figure out that this isn’t even the first time Glenn has said this!!! PANIC!!

To show how ridiculously pathetic the hype on this manufactured nonsense is—let’s start with definitions. What is a terrorist? From dictionary.com, definition number one:

a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

Okay, now what is terrorism? Would you say that “attacks on civilians in the US” is an acceptable definition? Seems reasonable in this context, doesn’t it?

Okey dokey—here are the facts. All of this is according to a scientific poll of people in Muslim nations done by the respected group World Public Opinion.

The lowest amount of support in the polled nations is in Azerbaijan where ONLY 4% of people approve of violence against civilians on our territory, with another 10% having “mixed feelings” about it. That number rises to 9% approval in Pakistan, with another 15% having “mixed feelings”. Do you want me to mention the Palestinian territories? Do you? 24% approval, 15% mixed feelings.

To put it another way—someone in the Palestinian territories who is open to violence on civilians in the United States is about as easy to find as an American citizen who approves of the job performance of President Obama.

But these numbers, ranging from 10% to 39%, are just the beginning.

• Specific support for Al Qaeda’s attacks on civilians range from “only” 9% in Morocco to 21% in Egypt.

• Support for attacking civilians who just happen to work in Islamic countries range from 6%-30%.

• Specific support for Osama Bin Laden? That ranges from 4% in Azerbaijan to 56% in the Palestinian territories. Include those who have mixed feelings towards the largest terrorist in American history—and you get a range of 10%-78%.

• Let’s remove the Al Qaeda brand name, and look for support for groups in general that attack Americans.  Support ranges from 25%-30%.

• If you think killing troops that just happened to be stationed in the Gulf is terrorism—then it gets much, much worse. Support for violence ranges from 13% in Azerbaijan to a ridiculous 78% in Egypt and 87% in the Palestinian territories. That doesn’t include those who have mixed feelings about killing troops.

Alright, now that we have the facts…let me articulate the lefts last ditch argument:

“But those are only people who advocate terrorism! Not people who are terrorists!!”

First, allow me to point out that your argument has now boiled down to:

“Glenn Beck lied! He said that 10% of Muslims want to kill innocent civilians when the truth is that 10% of Muslims SUPPORT killing innocent civilians!”

Secondly, even that point is wrong. Read the definition of terrorist again:

a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

“But, that’s not what Glenn meant! You’re only saying that to cover after the fact!”

Am I? Here is the 10% statistic as laid out in 2003, in Glenn’s first New York Times bestselling book “The Real America.” (Emphasis mine.)

–Ninety percent of Islam is peaceful.

–Ten percent of Islam wants us dead.

–That ten percent of the faith is composed of extreme radicals who have taken Islam through a time tunnel and twisted it into something that is ugly and barbaric.

What is truly amazing is how completely shocking this is to most of the media. This is very basic information about the war on terror. Anyone who has ever covered a terrorism story should be intimately acquainted with these polls. To be shocked by a statement like Glenn’s, shows either a willful disregard for the information*, or a complete lack of perspective about what we’re fighting. I’m actually stunned.  (*The usual suspects like the Center for American Progress are very familiar with this information and are willfully ignoring it.  They act as if they’re horrified, even while using this organization and it’s polling as a source dozens of times.)

The sad truth is that there are a lot of Muslims around the world who really don’t like us.  That’s not a right wing tactic to get people riled up, it’s the truth.  It’s a small percentage of a large group.  Thankfully, the numbers are much, much better among American Muslims.  That’s encouraging.  And eventually, I believe the truth will win out among Muslims worldwide, and they will realize that we have absolutely no interest in destroying their religion.

But, beyond all of that—say this with me. Glenn was right. You were wrong. Now, go to Twitter and apologize.