Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

December 11, 2010

A GAMBLE REPUBLICANS WERE WILLING TO TAKE.... Political parties are traditionally motivated by fear of public revulsion. To take steps that make the party's members look like monsters is rarely a good idea.

So it was interesting this week to see congressional Republicans overwhelmingly reject the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, which would pay health care costs for 9/11 rescue workers, sickened after exposure to the toxic smoke and debris. In the House, more than 90% of GOP lawmakers opposed the bill. In the Senate, a unanimous Republican caucus found the bill so offensive, they wouldn't even give it an up-or-down vote.

Fear of appearing sociopathic probably should have led to a few more Republican votes. After all, it's not exactly a compelling message to take to the electorate: we'll fight tooth and nail for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, but we'll also reject health care costs for 9/11 rescue workers.

And why would Republicans take a risk like this, especially over legislation that was both affordable and paid for? Because they're probably confident most Americans won't hear a word about this.

The fact that the 9/-11-related legislation was defeated was news. Period. The fact that it was defeated as part of the larger Republican strategy to tie the Senate in knots made yesterday's vote even more newsworthy.

But not at ABC, CBS or NBC. Last night, all three evening newscasts failed to report on the fact that Republicans had voted down a previously bipartisan bill designed to provide medical coverage for Sept. 11 emergency workers. At the major networks, that development was not considered newsworthy.

That's pretty remarkable. But the larger point here is that Republicans are now practicing an unprecedented brand of obstructionism and they're doing without having to pay much of a political price. Why? Because the press is giving them a pass.

I suppose one could argue that major media outlets might have given this more coverage if Democrats were more effective at raising a fuss. Perhaps. But news organizations should be able to recognize important developments on their own, whether partisans tell them what's newsworthy or not.

Regardless, there's a larger truth here -- Republicans know the Noise Machine lets votes like these slip under the radar, and without scrutiny, the GOP, already lacking in shame, feels comfortable taking steps that should be scandalous, but aren't.

Steve Benen 10:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41)

Bookmark and Share

On the other hand, it lead The Daily Show.

Make of that what you wish.

Posted by: martin on December 11, 2010 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

What Republicans also know is that out in the country, their voters don't give a shit about New York or New Yorkers. Those folks are liberals and foreigners and otherwise yucky types. The symbol of the fallen towers is important to them but not the people who live there -- even the rescue workers.

Posted by: Bat of Moon on December 11, 2010 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

"we'll fight tooth and nail for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, but we'll also reject health care cost for 9/11 rescue workers."

That's real good, Steve. In fact, when I read that, I thought of that insurance commercial series about mayhem. I think the Dems should run a whole series of commercials on an ongoing basis that brand the GOP as the party of mayhem and they should use paypal to allow us to show our appreciation and vote for our favorites to ensure they keep coming.

Posted by: chopin on December 11, 2010 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

They only care about 9/11 in so much as they can exploit it for their political gain.

As for the MSM, Fox and the right wing echo chamber leads them around by the nose. Whatever narrative the right is pushing will eventually be the narrative the rest of the media coalesces around.

This country is f'd unless there is some sort of national awakening.

Posted by: Holmes on December 11, 2010 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, well, Democrats would be "more effective at raising a fuss" if the media were not bought and paid for by the backers of the Republican party.

Posted by: karen marie on December 11, 2010 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

This was a banner week for the corporate (aka, mainstream) news outlets. They not only failed to report and clarify the Republican vote on compensating 9/11 first responders they barely mentioned the international climate change conference in Cancun. You can still get good informatom from websites like this one, Google News, C-SPAN, NPR, the BBC, and several newspapers that are still hanging in there like the Philadelphia Inquirer, but it is getting harder and harder to find good information. The really bad news is most voters routinely come home from work and turn on Fox News which rarely reports international events and slants everything to the far right, and this is after listening to hate radio on the way home. I hope the journalism schhools are thinking this through and discovering new ways to inform the electorate before we go over a cliff with a dingbat like Palin or a swamp ape like DeMint.

Posted by: max on December 11, 2010 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

You are making a false assumption. There are no news outlets. The organizations that once were news outlets are now functioning as stenographers. (If you don't know what a stenographer is, ask an older person.) If there is not a he said / she said, it is not news.

Ted Turner learned long ago that hard news all day every day would not hold an audience, so he went with infotainment. All news outlets followed suit.

If there is no controversy, then it is not worth airing.

Posted by: TravisInTexas on December 11, 2010 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

Actually I woke one morning and saw it my local cbs channel. I did not hear the beginning of the story so I may have missed whether or not they pointed the blame on the GOP but towards the end the reporter just kept saying it was congress where the problem was.

Posted by: Alli on December 11, 2010 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

Well here we are-America- home of the brave, land of the free. Look world at all we are-the shining beacon,light on the hill,salt of the earth, and defender of all those who are downtrodden and oppressed. Isn't this the continual mantra articulated by the conservative right and their masters (corporations and the rich). What a bunch of fu#king bullshit. Shame, they have no idea what shame is. They live in a world where up is down, evil is good, and shame well that is rightousness. And the media most of it is owned by right wing idealoges so no the majority of the people in this country never even know what is REALLY happening and even if they did they can't see past the end of their noses and realize that they have been completely brainwashed into thinking how glorious this country is and always will be. We are a country of robots. Finally, this country needs an ENENEMA.

Posted by: Chris on December 11, 2010 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

The major media advance Republican talking points because there is an enormous Republican spin machine pushing those points 24/7. Democrats don't have anything like it. Had the situation been reversed, no reporter would be able to interview a Republican, any Republican, without hearing the message of the day, which in this case would be "Democrats cheat 9/11 rescue workers, this is monstrous." When the message of the day has justice, and the media can't avoid it, the media report it.

Democrats are too undisciplined and fractious to launch media campaigns successfully, and after several decades of Republican success, the media are now wired for Republican messages.

If the situation were reversed, dozens of Republicans would be on the phone all day to everyone they know at ABC, CBS, and NBC hammering the message home, with the threat of attacking the networks for liberal bias if they didn't carry the message. Was there any Democratic effort?

Posted by: Joe Buck on December 11, 2010 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

... and to expand on your second-to-last paragraph: Democrats, get a clue. The media will not cover Republican misdeeds if Democrats don't raise a fuss. If you want to survive as a political party, learn this.

Posted by: Joe Buck on December 11, 2010 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, well, Democrats would be "more effective at raising a fuss" if the media were not bought and paid for by the backers of the Republican party.

It would also help if the American people weren't such a bunch of damned fools.

Posted by: hells littlest angel on December 11, 2010 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

New Yorkers need to surround the stock exchange Monday morning and take it hostage until the Republicans cry Uncle. Those are the only kind of tactics they seem to understand.

Posted by: delNorte on December 11, 2010 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

If the Democrats had a communications strategy in which this was characterized with the same language, by multiple elected officials, on every media outlet, and over and over again, this would have a chance of getting through the media fog. But the Democrats don't have a communications strategy.

Posted by: Amy on December 11, 2010 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

All the people who complain constantly about Obama's failure to 'use the bully pulpit' keep this story in mind. Obama gives a lot of speeches. The White House puts a huge amount information out there on its web-page. Gibbs brings up most of these issues at the daily press briefings. So do most of the other departmental spokespeople, as do the members of the cabinet.

The speeches are ignored by the media. If the daily briefings are mentioned its only in relation to the issue of the day (usually whatever the Republicans want to talk about). Cabinet members rarely show up on the Sunday shows.

The bully pulpit can be a great tool. Obama does use it. But its effectiveness is badly undercut when the MSN makes the conscious decision to ignore the President.

Posted by: thorin-1 on December 11, 2010 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks for alerting me, Steve. I wouldn't have known because I don't watch the evening news for those very reason and instead look abroad for real journalism.

Can anyone direct me to a graph showing the ratings for the major news shows over the past 10/20/30 years? I'de like to see the rate of decline.

The audiences for these shows, who still remember Murrow, Cronkite and other real journalists, are dying. I don't see many people under 50 who will be filling their shoes.

Posted by: bdop4 on December 11, 2010 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

I haven't watched TV news on a regular basis--ABC, CBS, NBC, much less Fox--for decades. I don't even watch PBS. I do watch John Stewart.

So if other people like me have stopped watching the TV news, who remains in the audience of the MSM? The slow learners, the gullible, the people who like to hear about sensational murders and celebrity divorces.

At the same time, media ownership has been consolidated in the hands of right-wing conservatives; a vicious cycle has ensued. The conservative owners don't want their audience to feel angry at Republicans so they don't tell the true story. This drives away the educated, which forces the media to pander more and more to the audience that remains.

I don't know what we can do to hold the media accountable, other than cheering on Jon Stewart. I don't have much leverage if I am not part of their economic base.

Posted by: PTate in Mn on December 11, 2010 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK


Everybody wants to blame the media. Here the Democrats are to blame. Congressional aids should have been on the phone non-stop with every news outlet in the country complaining about the obstructionism. They should have been offering Democratic Senators for interview availablity. When ask plenty of Democrats were pissed. I even saw Ben Nelson indicate displeasure, but nothing organized from the Democratic caucus.

I know, Bernie Sanders was pulling his all day mini filibuster and the Democrats in the house were stomping around pounding their chests, but there are 58 Democratic Senators and god only knows how many Democratic congressmen. You would expect at least some of them can multi-task.

For years a lot of us have been after them to adopt a media strategy geared to the 24 hour news cycle. The Republicans are make several congress critters and senators available every single day, but the Democrats seem unable to grasp the concept. If they complain that their aids can't get the attention of the bookers, they should fire their aids and hire new.

Posted by: Ron Byers on December 11, 2010 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

Just one more reason that, when another attack happens, I won't be helping anybody except myself and my family. Thanks repukes. I not only don't really care about 99.999% of the human race right now, but I promise to smile every time something horrible happens to anybody even remotely "right wing"... hopefully starting with any politicians family!

PS - There are no "news outlets" any longer. Just well paid whores repeating whatever they're told to say by their corporate masters. I turned off fake TV news in the 1980's and haven't missed it since.

Posted by: Run, don't walk! on December 11, 2010 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

Not only did the major networks not cover the story, but, in Illinois, the two major newspapers mentioned neither the story nor Kirk's flip-floping at their on-line sites.

Of course, the Progressive US Rep Earl Blumenhauer joined the RepuGs in voting Nay for giving seniors a one time $250 payment on their SS checks, but, the Oregonian mentioned neither his vote nor the defeat of said bill.

But, then, in Chicago, there is the upcoming Bears-Pats game and in Oregon, the mighty Nike U is preparing for the BCS Championship. Must keep priorities straight.

Posted by: berttheclock on December 11, 2010 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

When the concept of an object with a bright shiny surface is observed as not necessarily truth , honor , and godly justice , and has demonstrated traction with the gods of blonde and beauty , we may be able to examine complicated issues of who steals the cookies from the cookie jar and discover which fingers are pointing in perpetuity .
Or the Potemkin malls where real 'Murikans are encouraged to be ready to fight and kill for the bit of plastic prize signifying 'Murikan Exceptionalism . When to winnow the wanna bees from the sharp eyed , sharp elbowed , plastic hawks isn't so different from deciding which government to destabilize . A Christian country need only just check to see , first if they act independently (not permitted) , and if they are brown or not (not particularly acceptable) . The gloves come off baby if you have the temerity to be born poor , off white , acting all in your face , as if two plus two equals four when the exceptional's stay for dinner and determine they likee three or five .
So it must seem like a crackpot idea to p off the gods of blonde and beauty to the mac and cheese classes who defend the right to untold wealth on the principle that they are only one coupon away from trust funds and Greens fees with helicopters shuttling their dignity from the defense of hypocrisy acts along with all the humility of the preening wingnutterie calmly observing Traitors in 2003 to Shoshialists in 2009 - 11 .

Posted by: FRP on December 11, 2010 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

Everybody from Steve on down has got a piece of the problem. Here's my contribution.

Democrats do have to get their heads out of their asses and develop an integrated media strategy designed to deal with 24/7 media rather than a daily 6:00 deadline. No question. But, in developing that strategy, they have to internalize and respond to the fact that they've deeply institutionalized disadvantages that aren't going away any time soon:

1. The modern media is just a rotted out shell of what it used to be. It needs to be approached on the assumption that it simply no longer has the capacity to process diversity of opinion and complexity of thought. Democrats have to assume that, to the MSM, that just looks like chaos and that's how they report it. When they look at Democrats, they're like some uneducated rural dullard with an I.Q. of about 90 who's been dropped into a the middle of a 21st century construction site and told to report on what he sees. He just can't take it in. It all just looks like a big swirling mess of people milling about doing things beyond his comprehension without any apparent direction or purpose.

2. The very thing that makes someone want to be a Democrat, however, inherently means he or she is going to gag at the idea of participating in the kind of lockstep messaging discipline it takes to penetrate the dullard's limited capacity to comprehend.

3. The game is rigged against Democrats in dozens of ways, large and small. If tomorrow, Democrats started doing Republican style messaging, the MSM would respond with cynicism and sneering denigration (Think Don Gonyea, Candy Crowley and Cokie Roberts.) There's a reason we all recognize the acronym IOKIYR.

4. Democrats being who they are, any attempt to, say, increase integration and coordination between the White House, Senate, House and DNC messaging outfits stands a high risk of either endless vicious bickering and infighting that defeats the purpose or else a stream mushy "everyone's opinion is important and needs to be validated" content-free blather.

Those are the challenges. The problem with Democratic office holders and apparatchiks alike is that most of them don't recognize the challenges--because to do so would be to recognize the need to exercise some self-restraint, self-discipline and to scale back on the kind of stuff they love to do to make themselves feel important-- and the response of those who do see the challenges is mostly despair that anything can be done about it.

Posted by: Steve (Not that one) on December 11, 2010 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

Stories like this, IMHO, represent exactly the reason Obama was right to cut a deal with the GOP in order to extend unemployment benefits. I've heard critics say that, if only Obama had hung tough, the public would have seen how cruel the GOP was, and they would have caved. But consider: Republicans didn't feel public pressure to cave on a bill they had no particular ideological reason to oppose. Does anyone really think they're going to cave on the very issue (tax cuts for the rich) that defines them as a party?

Or to put it another way: If you were unemployed, would you go on InTrade and bet your entire benefits check on the GOP agreeing to a compromise that raised taxes? Because that's essentially the decision Obama had to make.

Obama famously compared the situation to a hostage negotiation. Others have compared it to a game of chicken. But there's a crucial distinction between the two. In a game of chicken, both sides are equal. In a hostage situation, the hostage takers have already demonstrated that the hostage's life is immaterial to them. Which do you think better describes Obama vs the GOP?

Posted by: Zorro for the Common Good on December 11, 2010 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

@ TravisinTexas: No media outlets? Really? This will come as a huge surprise to the Pew Research Center which tracts 52 "media outlets" for its Project of Excellence in Journalism News Coverage Index. This is an overview of their news coverage index from your nonexistent media outlets:

"About the News Coverage Index
The Project for Excellence in Journalism’s News Coverage Index is, we believe, the largest effort ever to measure and analyze the American news media on a continuing basis.

The Index examines more than four dozen news outlets in real time to determine what is being covered and what is not—a broad sense of the American news agenda. The findings are then released in a weekly report that features an Index of the top stories, a narrative analyzing the twists, turns, and trajectory of the coverage, and a breakdown of the differences among media sectors.

The initiative is an attempt to provide an empirical basis for cataloguing and understanding what a wide swath of media offer the American public at a time of growing debate about the press’ influence, standards and economic foundation.

The outlets studied come from the five main sectors of mainstream media—print, network TV, cable, online, and radio. They include evening and morning network news, several hours of daytime and prime time cable news each day, newspapers from around the country, the top online news sites, and radio, including headlines, long form programs and talk. In all, the Index sample includes 52 outlets (27 to 30 each week-day with some rotation), every Monday through Sunday."

The issue some of us are discussing is who owns the information and why isn't some of it being reported.

Posted by: max on December 11, 2010 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

On the subject of the press, my Brazilian mother-in-law pointed out that in Brazil, and I suspect most of the world, the Climate summit in Mexico was getting a tremendous amount of news coverage. In the U.S.? Not so much.

If the press were ever liberal (i.e., fact-based and reality-based), they aren't any more. Steve highlights how today's press is not only biased in what and how they report, but their bias is also demonstrated by what they choose NOT to report.

For example, more and more Americans are questioning the validity of scientific conclusions that carbon emissions are increasing global temperatures. Who's fault is that? The press'. Therefore, it's not surprising that the last thing the press wants to show American viewers is a world united against greenhouse gases.

By the same token, the press' failure to accurately report on Republican filibusters is more of the same. Even MSNBC reports cloture votes as if they're ordinary up-or-down votes, leaving viewers in the dark about what's actually happening.

Posted by: Chris on December 11, 2010 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

well the reason the msm didn't think this was newsworthy is that they all know that the gop always blocks things that add to the deficit....unless they're tax cuts, natch and then the msm doesn't mention the deficits....

Posted by: dj spellchecka on December 11, 2010 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

Yesterday I observed an unchallenged , unchallengeable column in an ordinary "Metro" freebie "Newspaper" which flatly stated either a thousand "Scientists" or "Thousands" , were astounded or sumpin' , over the impossibility and outright fraud being conveyed that poor little humans were in any way responsible for higher carbon content in the atmosphere . Little detail accompanied the sanctimonious scorn which oozed with every vagary , chumily compelling the reader to scoff at the scandal of Climate Change being within the realm of human management , let alone responsibility .

Posted by: FRP on December 11, 2010 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

The climate change problem is perhaps the biggest timebomb, snowjob, and gamble the corporate press has ever undertaken. It is astounding to see a side-by-side list of the organizations that support climate change legislation worldwide next to a list of organizations that claim this is all some grand hoax. On the pro side you see just about every scientist and credible scientific body and on the other a meager list of oil company front companies and right wing think tanks bankrolled by religious extremists.

Posted by: max on December 11, 2010 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

Can anyone out there say term limits?

Posted by: michael#2 on December 11, 2010 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

The reason that the public won't hear about this grossly cynical Republican defeat of the 9/11 legislation is because the mainstream media is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the GOP. The most craven, corporate-ass sucking maneuver by the Repugnicans will be portrayed as a courageous stand for free market principles. The mildest, most timid effort by Democrats to help ease the siege of the middle class will be painted as a headlong rush to socialism. Anyone who thinks the press is an impartial bystander reporting on the fight between the two major parties is badly mistaken.

Posted by: damart48 on December 11, 2010 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

Fighting this is going to be a major, K'ED,D'EO brawl in which we have to keep complaining and making noise over and over.

Posted by: neil b on December 11, 2010 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

Building the Park51 project a few blocks from the supposedly hallowed Ground Zero is a national outrage because it is supposedly some kind of slap in the face to 9/11 victims, yet denying funds for health care for 9/11 responders is perfectly fine -- that sums up today's Republican party. The hypocrisy and cynicism is breathtaking.

And, as someone else already pointed out, the Republicans don't care -- this impacts people from NJ, NY and CT. They are not their constituents so they don't care.

Posted by: Shelly on December 11, 2010 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

So why don't liberals/progressives develop an effective communications plan/strategy and a consortium of outlets/media, and get $ to implement it? NOW. This HAS to be a top priority, and it has to reach more than just the "choir." Who is the leader or group we could support who could help this happen? Or are we all just going to comment, comment, comment as we slide into the abyss? Remember the original "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" --? Perhaps one strategy to reach the non-readers is for Hollywood scriptwriters to incorporate mention of credible/people-oriented vs big-brother media in their stories as a way to get people to realize they're being used as serfs.

Posted by: pea on December 11, 2010 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

One is surprised that Viacom TV (CBS), General Electric TV (NBC) and Disney TV (ABC) would do this? Well, maybe those who still believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and that America is still a constitutional democracy rather than a corporate-fascist state.

Posted by: TCinLA on December 11, 2010 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

@Run, don't walk! I feel the same. Also, if the NYPD & NYFD were so tough and outraged, they'd take action against their local politicians who allowed this non-vote. I suspect that most of the First-Responder types vote Republican. In which case, if that is true, then they get what they voted for. Too bad for those who are not in this category. Let them demonstrate their heroism and shut down Wall Street and maybe deal out some real pain. No one should be immune to their anger, especially the wealthy who are profiting from their pain.

Posted by: st john on December 11, 2010 at 11:43 PM | PERMALINK

When you start with Reagan's premise that government is the problem, not the solution, all kinds of contradictions arise. Like, why do prisoners in Guantanamo get better health care than the 9/11 rescue workers (in between tortures)? Why do members of Congress who enjoy generous taxpayer-funded health insurance get to deny care to the very people they used as props for George Bush's famous 9/11 rubble speech?

GOP ideological sanctimony rams meanness down our throats and it makes my stomach turn.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on December 12, 2010 at 4:14 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe someone's already mentioned this, if so then I'm repeating it for emphasis.

You can blame the media for not reporting it, but where are the voices who support the legislation? Why aren't they making as much noise as possible to point it out?

For instance, one Bernie Sanders like outburst of explaining what went down goes a long way. Instead, there is nothing like that. It is also rare that anyone has the temerity to try and go beyond a soundbite. Obviously, people will devote 10 minutes to something captivating.

So, maybe Obama should just say something controversial on in Weekly Address (which some moronic journalist labeled his "weekly YouTube video") He should spend that cojoling, pointing out what did or didn't happen and explain the importance of the issue.

That should be his bull pulpit. The problem is, unless everyweek is captivating and elicits outrage or praise, people will get board and move on to something stupid.

Again, the Democrats have a role in this, too. If the media could hand on everyone of Rumsfeld's words and then repeat them then get Biden out there to make noise. If he screws up, so be it, keep the story alive by explaining the important stuff.

But instead of that stuff, we cower at the GOP's might and growl at the media's complicity.

Make them work for us.

Posted by: gus on December 12, 2010 at 7:00 AM | PERMALINK

PS, in reading it, I see Steve B does mention that. So, consider the above a possible way to approach the problem. A good one? I dunno. But, anything is worth a try as long as something is being done.

Posted by: gus on December 12, 2010 at 7:03 AM | PERMALINK

TCinLA: "One is surprised that Viacom TV (CBS), General Electric TV (NBC) and Disney TV (ABC) would do this? Well, maybe those who still believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and that America is still a constitutional democracy rather than a corporate-fascist state."

Very well said. The free market here is essentially dead and our corporate-run media simply reflect the way our economy really works. Self-professed free market types are loath to acknowledge there isn't much of a free market here anymore; just huge conglomorates buying influence with government policy makers, and a media operation owned and operated by the same people. The alternative, i.e., state capitalism as practiced in Russia and China, would of course be worse, but we need to be much more candid about what we have really here at home.

Posted by: max on December 12, 2010 at 7:49 AM | PERMALINK

The Daily Show brought up this point about five years ago, when Jon pointed out how the same GOP that wanted to exploit the 9/11 first responders to push an amendment that banned burning the American flag were the same ones who opposed federal funds to cover the healthcare costs for those same first responders.


Posted by: 2Manchu on December 12, 2010 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

"What Republicans also know is that out in the country, their voters don't give a shit about New York or New Yorkers. Those folks are liberals and foreigners and otherwise yucky types. The symbol of the fallen towers is important to them but not the people who live there -- even the rescue workers."


The Ground Zero Mosque really was the first time they actually got to pretend to give a shit about the feelings of the 9/11 victims. On the actual day of the attacks, the only thing I seem to remember out of them is their blessed preachers lecturing on how it was God's punishment on New York and Washington for tolerating fags and feminists.

Ignoring 9/11 rescue workers dovetails perfectly into that mindset. They care about 9/11 to the extent that it allows them to claim the moral high ground. Period.

Posted by: Chris on December 14, 2010 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK



Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM

buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly