Pervasive Outrage and the Left

"Native American" "Professor" Ward Churchill, the man best known for calling the victims of 9-11 "little Eichmanns," is widely regarded as a moonbat--a member of the Left's ideological finge. Our own liberal correspondent Chefjef agrees.

Is it true, however, that his views are so far "out there" that they represent just the rantings of a tiny minority? Or are his views more widely shared--are they becoming part and parcel of the Left's "party line?"

It's hard to say exactly, but this link may help put things in perspective. It's to a "podcast" of one blogger's comments on Churchill's appearance a couple of nights ago on Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect. It includes audio of most of Maher's interview with Churchill. I don't link to this to feature blogger Jeff Jarvis' commentary, but to get you to listen to what Maher and Churchill are saying. Maher has said some outrageous things over the years, but he is not widely regarded as a moonbat or member of the fringe Left. Nonetheless, it is Maher who feeds a reluctant Churchill most of "party line" in this interview.

If Maher's words (and a signifcant part of his audience's applause) are to be taken at face value, then the idea that America earned 9-11 because of the "blood on its hands" is a widespread liberal notion. And if this is true, then how much further do we have to go before it's okay to question these people's patriotism, or even--scandaluse!--think of invoking the "T word?" It's one thing to express loyal opposition to the war: "don't like it, don't agree with it, but I won't take action that undermines our troops overseas and will salute smartly and go if called." It's quite another to say, "I'm happy about 9-11; it's victims deserved what they got; America is a viper pit of corrupt, deadly exploiters who have earned what's coming to them." Such thought sits perilously close to a line--perhaps not over it, but perilously close to it--between free expression of political thought and....something else.

I will be very interested to hear a liberal's perspective on this topic.

Monk

(Incidentally, I just love the way leftists casually tell the Big Lie--just throw outrages out there as if to say, "well everyone knows that, don't they?" For example, the throw-away line about "30 - 60 million slaves dying in the Middle Passage." Horrible though it was, there weren't even 30 million people living in West Africa's slave coast in the 18th century. 30-60,000 I'll buy--maybe even a couple hundred thousand--which is bad enough, to be sure (of course, not all the slaves went our colonies--many died on the way to Carribbean, Central, and South American destinations--South American jungle clearers and miner workers had it much worse than North American field hands). 30-60 million is a patent absurdity.)