Potomac Fever is the blog of the Hamilton College Semester in Washington Program.
Cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal is also a fan.
So I guess Obama is an anti-Semite because Jeremiah Wright is, and Rick Perry thinks Mormonism is a cult because Robert Jeffress does, right? I can't really fathom what else you could be implying by posting this.
I don't think the protesters support Nazis, if that's what you think I'm implying. But Nazis certainly support the protesters. I've had to sit through two and a half years of punditry claiming that a protest movement can and should be judged by the people even loosely associated with it (example). I don't generally agree with that logic, and I gather you don't either. But if that's how we're going to judge political movements, then here you go.There's been plenty of anti-Semitism at these 'Occupy' protests - one woman demanded Jews "be run out of this country," for instance. Some other examples:http://bit.ly/oJhanGhttp://bit.ly/nYFAJRhttp://bit.ly/pgXuQchttp://bit.ly/ruJpKZhttp://bit.ly/px07qlHistorically, anti-banker sentiment and anti-Semitism make a dangerous cocktail. I don't think it's unfair to point that out.But the larger issue has little to do with the crazies associating themselves with OWS. It would be refreshing to see some of the people hollering about the supposed racism undergirding opposition to the president's agenda raise some red flags re. anti-Semitism at OWS protests.
Obviously I realize you do not actually think the protesters as a whole support Nazis; my point is that it's ridiculous to judge a group by the values of its supporters when, by definition, the group doesn't have any direct control over who supports it. There are plenty of crazies to be sure, but there are plenty of crazies everywhere.
Yes, I agree. I am judging no one. I'm simply pointing out a glaring double standard.
Given the title of this post and the tone of the article I feel like feigning intent to imply is a tough sell.For example, "The White House has apparently decided to align itself with communists and nazis".It seems pretty easy to read between the lines in such a statement. We can start a whole new debate on the matter of double standards between OWS and the Tea Party. However, I fail to see how the article is focusing on that issue.For the author, I offer the following advice in Internet 101
On the other hand, the "leaders" do seem to include some wackos:http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/christopher-columbus-was-the-first-zionist.php
That's nice, but no one is comparing protesters to Nazis. Morrissey is comparing, well, Nazis to Nazis, and pondering what sort of movement could attract both the country's most respected civil rights icon and the world's most notorious genocide cheerleaders (is that not a legitimate question?). That's the extent of the "comparison" and clearly does not meet the criteria of Godwin's Law.
I will grant, though, that the line "The White House has apparently decided to align itself with communists and nazis" is over the top and off the mark.
If you cut out the line insinuating The White House's Nazi affiliation then yes, Godwin's law is not as applicable. I would take issue with a number of other lines but I'm glad we agree on the most glaring infraction.I will also say I question the notion that the purpose of this article is to bring up how interesting it is that OWS is attracting support from both MLK and the Nazis.The author does raise the question in a literal sense, but I would argue it is not the purpose of his piece.Look at the last line of the article: the questioned is begged how OWS could be supported by MLK when they are supported by the Nazis.If this article was actually interested in answering the question, additional paragraphs would follow. However, it's left at that - The Nazi endorsement as the only proven piece of evidence to the nature of OWS.
Post a Comment