Quote of the Day

June 11th, 2009 By: Michael Merritt | Tags: , ,

Jeffrey Goldberg responds to an article by Ta-Nehisi:

Perhaps this means nothing but I feel that I should acknowledge that a black man was killed on guard duty at the Holocaust museum. That may mean nothing. But I think it should be said.

No, it means something. More than something, in fact.  The great tragedy of the rift between blacks and Jews is that while we waste time arguing with each other, our common enemy — racialist fascism — goes unfought. Add Stephen Tyrone Johns to the group that includes Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman. All were victims of the same sick ideology.

Isn’t that what it’s all about?  Not some petty arguments between people of different religions or races, but a unified front against radicalism in all its forms, whether political or religious.  Whether it’s committed by a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, environmentalist, pro-lifer, or anybody else, doesn’t matter.  Whether the victim is Christian, Jew, Muslim, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or anybody else, the same principle applies.

Everybody needs to get with the program, because too often when attacks like the murder of Stephen Tyrone Jones, the murder of Pvt. William Long and injuring of Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula, or the murder of Dr. George Tiller happen, they’re swept aside by somebody under the “this isn’t representative, move along now” canard.  While I believe that’s true no matter what kind of person is committing these acts of terrorism – and that is what they are, all of them – too often the discussion ends up being not how to combat radicalism in all its forms, but the pettiness of those trying to sweep the act under the carpet and redirect the talk somewhere else.  This is a distraction, and provides nothing of substance to the debate.

Time to wise up, I think.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.