So I read Jonah Goldberg's column here and I'm left wondering, does he really think that American nationalism is insufficiently present in American television news? Like, sincerely believe that in a way that would make this a subject worth arguing about?
« Threats | Main | Iraq's Refugees »
Question of the Day
02 Oct 2007 06:28 pm
Comments (26)
Maybe Matthew has some counterargument, but I couldn't even begin to think of what it may be.
I agree with this statement 100%.
Goldberg nails it. The problem with the Chinese media is that it isn't nationalist enough and doesn't willingly submit itself to censorship enough.
Wait, he was talking about the Chinese media, right?
It would be nice if Democrats wouldn't simply cede the ground of patriotism to Southern Conservatives.
It would be nice if cheap and lazy nationalist burbling weren't always portrayed as patriotism in order to continually back up dumb ass moronic right wing talking points.
Isn't this -
The dirty, embarrassing secret is that this sort of multiculturalism has made Europe a wellspring of Islamic radicalism and terrorism, but America's Muslim community has remained overwhelmingly peaceful. Why? Well, if the answer doesn't lay in President Bush's "outreach" -- and few think it does -- or in Euro-style multicultural condescension, maybe it has something to do with the American "we" that Couric and so many others seem so embarrassed by.
- almost completely wrong? Hasn't the U.S. been able to assimilate Muslim immigrants because it has a long tradition of accepting and ignoring cultural differences; that is, because it *doesn't* have the overpowering sense of ethnicity-based national culture that European countries tend to have? Note that multicultural Canada hasn't exactly become a hotbed Islamic fundamentalism.
There is an American culture and it is deeply routed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What the media has failed to do is to report the extent to which American culture is being subverted by politicians who are increasingly weakening those protections. Our culture is not based upon a race or religion. It is based on the idea that as human beings we are all created equal and all have rights. It is based firmly that power comes from the people and not from the state. The biggest threat to our culture comes from within, not from a bunch blood thirsty crazies. The threat comes from religious groups who cannot compromise in a pluralistic society. It comes from a political philosophy that assumes might makes right and that there is no need to listen to other ideas and points of view. It comes from an atmosphere of fear that deliberately encourage by government and used to suppress legitimate dissent with government policy. It come from a media that has forgotten that its role is not to be a champion of government, but a champion of the truth.
For such globalists, it just seems obvious that the U.S. Supreme Court should consult polls of Africans or the laws of France to glean the real meaning of the American Constitution. And, of course, John Kerry was right to say that there's a "global test" for what America can do in the name of its national interest.Really, what purpose is served by sending us over to read this sort of drivel?
Isn't this -...- almost completely wrong?
Pretty much, yeah. But imagine how shocked you'd be if Jonah made sense!
The counterargument: displays of patriotism have changed since Walter Cronkite, there's still plenty of it to go around, even the kind that can be perceived as 'simply flag waving' or 'rhetorical hubris.' These are the forms of flag waving that elicit blow back as opposed to respect. I think that's what Couric was getting at and it would have been much more productive for Goldberg to actually attempt to analyze this distinction.
No.
I'm dying for Jonah (or, frankly, anyone else) to define that singular American culture thing he keeps talking about.
Gabriel is exactly right.
"smoking has been banned pretty much everywhere, except in Muslim-run hookah parlors"
Those scary Muslims. Seems Goldberg couldn't think of any other reasons for such an exemption, such as that many people like to smoke hookahs in Vancouver, the main purpose of a Hookah bar is to smoke (unlike a drinking bar) and...common sense?
well, apparently I was wrong about Vancouver's reasoning:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=e8396556-5079-4cb5-bfe6-648e95d565d3
Still, the exemption makes sense for the reasons I outlined above. This sounds like a case of an anti-smoking law going too far, rather than a crazed religious group demanding an outrageous exception.
Ironically, Goldberg has probably argued against these sorts of smoking bans in other areas.
It's always difficult to tell if Jonah is being either disingenuous, ideological, or ignorant, or some combination of the three.
Either you're wearing a [U.S.A.!] flag lapel pin at all times or you're with the terrorists. How fuckin' hard is that to comprehend?
Why do liberals hate America?
"Honor killings among Muslims have gone ignored by police in progressive European countries out of some twisted sense of respect for Muslim culture."
As far as I can tell, this isn't merely right-wing propaganda of dubious validity. This is an actual, honest-to-God, bald-faced, spiteful, utterly disgusting lie currently being spread by warbloggers. And, naturally, Jonah parrots the lie unquestioningly.
Yes, there have been honor killings in Europe, and yes, in some cases the local authorities have been somewhat clueless about how to deal with the problem. But to suggest that police deliberately "ignore" honor killings out of some sort of commitment to multiculti moral relativism is straight-up pants-on-fire demagoguery of the lowest sort.
Here is some reading for anyone who may be interested.
Seriously, Jonah, fuck you.
does he really think that American nationalism is insufficiently present in American television news?
Goldberg:
To be clear, I have no interest in "questioning" Couric's patriotism. Rather, I'm interested in questioning her definition of it.
That's EXACTLY what you're doing, Mr. Whalefood! You've strung together in an entire craptastic column out of bits of string and aluminum foil instead of simply pointing out that Katie Couric is kind of a clueless dipshit, and then going on to discuss how much dorkiness you have in common with here!
max
['Much ado over lapels.']
LaFollette Progressive:
"Honor killings among Muslims have gone ignored by police in progressive European countries out of some twisted sense of respect for Muslim culture."
As far as I can tell, this isn't merely right-wing propaganda of dubious validity. This is an actual, honest-to-God, bald-faced, spiteful, utterly disgusting lie currently being spread by warbloggers. And, naturally, Jonah parrots the lie unquestioningly....
-- Degenerate racist lying, but Jonah is a degenerate racist liar.
Questioning anti-American policies, like James Spader's character on "Boston Legal" has done, in Jonah's book is against American nationalism, whatever that means (as opposed to American patriotism). If a major TV character kept a cum-stained dress, that would probably seem nationalistic to him.
smoking has been banned pretty much everywhere, except in Muslim-run hookah bars
Here we have the perfect storm of Jonah's lazy ignorance and social lameness rolled into one. As anyone who goes out enough to actually be concerned about the effects of anti-smoking laws, I am well aware that establishments whose revenue depends mostly on the sale of tobacco products for smoking get an exemption. That includes tacky yuppie cigar bars as much as hookah bars.
But it's worth recalling that during World War II, civilian correspondent Walter Cronkite -- whose anchor job Couric now holds -- gladly wore a uniform, not just a pin, and subjected himself to military censors. He also used, I'm sure, the word "we" when referring to the United States.
"I'm sure," because I can't bother looking it up, much like the "honor killings" coverage that he's sure doesn't happen in Europe-- again, 'cause he can't bother looking it up.
Not just a vicious, nasty, degenerate, racist liar, but a lazy one too.
(And it's interesting that Katie Couric is suddenly the voice of The News, when her ratings are in the basement.)
Why does Jonah think it is the job of the news media to reinforce his version of nationalism, including being censored? I mean, besides the onset of mental degeneration from syphilis. If you're committed to the truth as a member of the media, whether or not you throw someone like Jonah red meat is immaterial.
"For such globalists, it just seems obvious that the U.S. Supreme Court should consult polls of Africans or the laws of France to glean the real meaning of the American Constitution. And, of course, John Kerry was right to say that there's a "global test" for what America can do in the name of its national interest. "
Globalists? Was Goldberg rioting in Seattle back in 1999?
I love when rightwingers complain about an "elite" when ALL of their economic policies are designed precisely to ensure the existence of an elite which exploits a non-elite.
Kerry's "Global test" can mean many things, it can mean treating other nations with respect and listening to their opinions, but it doesn't have to mean doing what they want us to do. Personally I think undemocratic, serial human rights abusers like the Chinese government shouldn't be listened to much at all.
In those cases, you talk to the people rather than the unrepresentative regime.
But I believe the International Criminal Court is a good idea. Goldberg no doubt doesn't. Maybe this makes me a "cosmopolitian."
As a proud cosmopolitan, I find this piece disgusting. Goldberg, in explicitly elevating the American "we" over the global "we" suggests that our highest identity and moral callings ought to be tribal in nature. That's downright sinful.
When I lived in Korea, I could not help but marvel at how different the concept of national identity was, and how tightly tied it was to blood and language. As an adoptee, I have always been suspicious of these identifiers as the defining principles of membership in a community. The great beauty of the American conception of nationhood comes in transcending them.
As to saying "we" when referring to the actions of the United States-- it is totally inappropriate for journalists representing themselves as objective observes. It's also not something a lot of people want to say when "we" are torturing people, "we" are desecrating the constitution, and "we" are waging bloody, unjust wars.
WE have been alienated by people who forget or willfully deny that America the nation is defined by adhesion to America the ideal-- and will readily desecrate the latter to promote the supposed interests of the former.
Comments closed October 16, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
After reading the column, I'm left wondering, why would Matthew doubt it? Seems like Goldberg is exactly right. Maybe Matthew has some counterargument, but I couldn't even begin to think of what it may be.
Posted by Al | October 2, 2007 6:50 PM