D'Souza: The Tequila Strikes Back!

Like a fishmonger trying to pull a fast one, Dinesh D’Souza attempts to pass off yesterday’s scrod as fresh by wrapping it in today’s newspaper.  In the Sunday Washington Post, he essentially spews the same piece he published last week in the LA Times, and which we gingerly poked with a stick here.  But he covers up the rancid flavor by heavily salting the corpse with tears of self-pity:

In the pages of Esquire, Mark Warren charges that I “hate America” and have “taken to heart” Osama bin Laden’s view of the United States. (Warren also challenged me to a fight and threatened to put me in the hospital.) In his New York Times review of my book last week, Alan Wolfe calls my work “a national disgrace . . . either self-delusional or dishonest.” I am “a childish thinker” with “no sense of shame,” he argues. “D’Souza writes like a lover spurned; despite all his efforts to reach out to Bin Laden, the man insists on joining forces with the Satanists.”

“…and then, and then he made fun of the leopard skin rug in my office, and then he shoved me head first into a trash can behind the cafeteria, and then him and some other guys pulled my pants off, and they threw ‘em onto the roof of the natatorium, and I had to get the custodian, and then when he was pulling my pants down with one of those poles they use to open the windows in the gym, my pants turned inside out, and my puffer fell out of my pocket and somebody stepped on it!”

And in my recent appearance on Comedy Central’s “The Colbert Report,” I had to fend off the insistent host. “But you agree with the Islamic radicals, don’t you?” Stephen Colbert asked again and again.

My, that does sound like a low blow.  Or it did, until I rewatched the segment on Crooks and Liars (the exchange starts at about :05:00):
COLBERT:  And you have the courage to say that, right?  That you agree with some of the things that these radical extremists are against in America.
D’SOUZA:  I’m more concerned –
COLBERT:  Are you — Do you agree with that statement?
D’SOUZA:  Well, no, I’m…I’m…
COLBERT:  Do you agree with that statement?
D’SOUZA:  I agree with it.

Personally, I’d be a little more outraged at Colbert’s impertinent suggestion that D’Souza concurs with Islamic radicals if D’Souza hadn’t, you know, said he agreed with them.  (I know the right wing depends on Good Ol’ American Historical Amnesia about things like Vietnam and Watergate, but I think Dinesh is pushing the load capacity of the Memory Hole when he expects us to forget things that happened 10 days ago.  Which were captured on tape.  And posted on the interwebs.)  And perhaps other wingnuts should take a lesson from Dinesh’s experience:  If you go on a comedy program where the host plays a blowhard conservative who pretends to agree with your ridiculous premise while taking it to its logical conclusion, then maybe you shouldn’t be so shocked when he doesn’t sit back like the Sunday talking head hosts and let you fill the room with your stale outrage like carbon monoxide in Thelma Todd’s garage.  Better yet, maybe you shouldn’t go on comedy programs at all, if you’re only going to get tweaked when you realize a week later that they were making fun of you.

Why the onslaught? Just this: In my book, published this month,

…and available on remainder tables everywhere…

I argue that the American left bears a measure of responsibility for the volcano of anger from the Muslim world that produced the 9/11 attacks.

Dinesh goes on to regurgitate his charges from last week about how during the Carter and Clinton years (and he’s right about how memory can play tricks on you — I’d forgotten their terms were consecutive, having some fuzzy hallucination of another couple of guys shoehorned in the middle there), America dressed all slutty, and danced suggestively at the roadhouse, and so we kinda had it coming when a group of men who firmly believe in traditional values decided to teach us a lesson on top of the pinball machine.

The reaction I’m eliciting is not entirely new to me. As a college student in the early 1980s, I edited the politically incorrect Dartmouth Review and was frequently accosted by left-wing students and faculty. They called me names back then, too.

Names like, “Distort D’news.”  Via Media Matters:

As an undergraduate in the early 1980s at Dartmouth College, D’Souza gained national notoriety as co-founder and editor of the conservative newspaper The Dartmouth Review. During D’Souza’s tenure as editor of the Review, according to a September 22, 1995, article in The Washington Post, “[T]he off-campus newspaper [The Dartmouth Review] published an interview with a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, using a mock photograph of a black man hanging from a campus tree, and ‘outed’ at least two gay students.”

Oh Dinesh, you puckish iconoclast.  Way to stick it to the man!

But the personal attacks have reached new heights with “The Enemy at Home.” So much so, in fact, that I feel compelled to explain why I wrote this book, what it does and doesn’t say and why I think it prompts people to threaten me with hospitalization.

Ah, he’s going to do his own Shorter Dinesh D’Souza.  Excellent.

First, and I feel silly having to say it: I don’t hate America.

…I just hate 60 percent of the people who live in it.

Immediately following 9/11, there was a wondrous moment of national unity in which the American tribe came together. “Why do they hate us?” some wondered, but no one wanted to comprehend the enemy — only to annihilate him. And I shared this view.

…Still do, in fact.  Well, at least about the Enemy at Home.  Which just happens to be the title of my new book, now 50% off, and available from a table in the back of Borders, next to the pile of discounted 2007 cat calendars.

But five years later, that unity has dissolved amid a furious national debate over the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism.

Some people have realized that these are two separate things, thanks to that meddling national debate, and despite our efforts to conflate them.  Even worse, they’ve realized that the failure of the former has hamstrung the latter, and my wondrous national unity is melting, melting…what a world, what a world…

I thought it was time to go back and reconsider 9/11; in so doing, I concluded that the prevailing conservative and liberal theories explaining Muslim rage were wrong.

…because if I can pin 9/11 on the liberals, then that will mean they’ve inflicted a more serious wound on the body politic than George W. Bush has with his septic war in Iraq.  And all those sneering attacks from the right wing on people who tried, shortly after 9/11, to grasp the terrorists’ motives, who tried to understand “why they hate us” never happened, understand?  They are no longer operative.  Because now that we know that the terrorists don’t hate us, they just hate the Blue States, it’s okay to muse about their motives and even to publically approve of them.  Amazing the distance we’ve traveled in just a little over 6 years, isn’t it?  As another immigrant and noted foreign policy thinker, Yakov Smirnoff, famously observed, “What a country!”

Contrary to the common liberal view, I don’t believe that the 9/11 attacks were payback for U.S. foreign policy. Bin Laden isn’t upset because there are U.S. troops in Mecca, as liberals are fond of saying. (There are no U.S. troops in Mecca.)

Well, you got me there, Dinesh.  Still, I can’t help wishing that I had a passing knowledge of recent history, because something about that statement sounds kinda hair-spllitting and evasive…

Marking the end of an era, the United States will soon withdraw about 7,000 U.S. military personnel from Saudi Arabia and terminate a significant military presence there that lasted more than a decade, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced Tuesday.
Many Saudis resent the presence of U.S. forces in the nation that is home to Islam’s two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina, and some–including Osama bin Laden–had used this as a justification for terrorism.

But it’s not like when Reagan Clinton withdrew from Lebanon after the Marine Barracks bombing in 1983, or when Clinton pulled out of Mogadishu in 1993 (damn he gets around).  George Bush only yanked our forces out of Saudia Arabia because he’d been ordered to by a bunch of inbred, muumuu-wearing religious fanatics he occasionally likes to hold hands with.  So it’s not like there was anything pussified about it.

He isn’t upset because Washington is allied with despotic regimes in the region. Israel aside, what other regimes are there in the Middle East?

Who could possibly be upset by our hopping into bed with despotic regimes?  That’s as crazy as your wife getting mad when she finds you in bed with a hooker; it’s not your fault she was out of town for the weekend.  Love the one you’re with, man.

Contrary to President Bush’s view, they don’t hate us for our freedom, either. Rather, they hate us for how we use our freedom.

Because freedom is like the “Sword Thrusting Will Turner” action figure from Pirates of the Caribbean.  Once you take it out of the plastic, it completely loses its collectibility.

When Planned Parenthood International opens clinics in non-Western countries and dispenses contraceptives to unmarried girls, many see it as an assault on prevailing religious and traditional values.

And when Western NGOs object to female circumcision, they might just as well be flushing a Koran down the toilet.  It’s a simple equation, liberals: you’re either with us, or you’re with the foreign clitorises.

When human rights groups use their interpretation of international law to pressure non-Western countries to overturn laws against abortion or to liberalize laws regarding homosexuality, the traditional sensibilities of many of the world’s people are violated.

“Violated” is too mild a word.  Can you imagine how traumatized it makes people with traditional values feel when you cook up some loony “penumbra” or “emanation” from international law that prevents them from stoning a raped woman for adultery, or burying homosexuals alive?  That’s the kind hurt that just doesn’t go away, you heartless bastards.

One radical sheik even told a European television station a few years ago that although Europe is more decadent than America, the United States is the more vital target because it is U.S. culture — not Swedish culture or French culture — that is spreading throughout the world.

To sum up:  If Sweden made better action movies, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

What would motivate Muslims in faraway countries to volunteer for martyrdom? The fact that Palestinians don’t have a state? I don’t think so.

Neither do I.  As long as you don’t count all those Palestinians suicide bombers over the years.

Even as the cultural left accuses Bush of imperialism in invading Iraq, it deflects attention from its own cultural imperialism aimed at secularizing Muslim society and undermining its patriarchal and traditional values.

Sure, we’ve lost over 3,000 American troops in Iraq, and roughly 600,000 people have died there as a result of George Bush’s invasion, but you people made Dukes of Hazzard!
And anyone who would undermine the patriarchy probably has the effrontery to walk around with an intact clitoris.

All my arguments can be disputed, but they are neither extreme nor absurd. So why has “The Enemy at Home” been so intemperately excoriated? I can imagine only two reasons. The first is given by James Wolcott himself. I am not, as he says, an unqualified right-wing hack. Rather, I am a scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, so Wolcott fears that I will be taken seriously.

Of all the fears that may awaken James Wolcott in the wee dark hours of the morning, I have a feeling this particular one ranks just below, “going birdwatching and getting pecked to death by Marshmallow Peeps.”

The second reason can be gleaned from the common theme in the reviews: that mine is a dangerous book. But if a book says things that are obviously untrue and can be disproved, then it is not dangerous — it is merely fiction and should be ignored. A book is dangerous only if it exposes something in the culture that some people are eager to keep hidden.

A third possibility is that a man who thinks that having his name on the voice mail menu at the Hoover Institution makes him a “scholar,” also thinks that critics who call a book bullshit do so because it’s dangerous, and not because it’s, you know, bullshit.

Posted by scott on Sunday, January 28th, 2007 at 5:05 pm.

 

32 responses to "D'Souza: The Tequila Strikes Back!"

His whole silly “chickens coming home to roost” bullshit reminds me of that asshole Colorado professor that was famous for a few minutes after 9-11 for calling the victims little Eichmanns. Dinesh:
Planned Parenthood:Islam::Hitler:European Jewry

Left by Jeff on January 28th, 2007

D’Souza, like so many other of his right wing pundit pack, illustrate in crystal clarity the degrees to which class priviledge can elevate a mediocre mind in this society.
Seeing him on the Colbert bit it was clear he’s merely projected his schoolyard experiences to the big field. There! I wrote a book and you’re in it and its all your fault! There! Hey! Stop grabbing my book bag! Don’t push me down…I…I…I can write in sentences you know!”
Yeah, he showed us didn’t he? Tough guy he is.

Left by kate on January 28th, 2007

So glad that you attacked this little turd and his whiny, self-important crap. And his book is not dangerous in the slightest, unless “dangerous” has suddenly become a synonym for “disgusting.”

Left by sophronia on January 28th, 2007

Two things:
1. Why do these rightwingers go on Colbert’s show and then wonder that it didn’t go well and they weren’t treated with respect, etc? Do they watch the show at all? Do they really think they can think on their feet faster than a professional comedian who’s dealt with hecklers his entire careers?
2. Why does DD think he can say wildly insulting things about liberals without them getting upset about it? “I just said you were responsible for 3000 deaths, what is the big deal? That is no reason for you to be rude to me! Geez, you liberals! You really are responsible for all those deaths, though. What? What did I say?”

Left by jpj on January 28th, 2007

Those are good questions, jpj, and I don’t have the answers to them. But I have a question of my own: Is this sentence:
Bin Laden isn’t upset because there are U.S. troops in Mecca, as liberals are fond of saying. (There are no U.S. troops in Mecca.)
the most rhetorically bankrupt statement ever written in an opinion column for a major newspaper, not counting obvious candidates such as the WSJ or Jonah Goldberg? Actually, this sentence contains so many logical fallacies that I am willing to bet that Dinesh snuck into Jonah’s office while Jonah was in a Cheetos daze and stole it. It’s got Jonah written all over it: Here’s an argument no one has ever made, which I refute with a non-sequitur, and therefore show that my opponents are irrational. It almost has a strange beauty in itself.

Left by Mark S. on January 28th, 2007

Here’s an argument no one has ever made, which I refute with a non-sequitur, and therefore show that my opponents are irrational. It almost has a strange beauty in itself.
I thought exactly the same thing, Mark. It’s almost like a Zen koan. Coined in bad faith. And a drunken stupor. By the world’s most obnoxious monk.

Left by scott on January 28th, 2007

To sum up: If Sweden made better action movies, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
Not enough explosions in The Seventh Seal for you? Philistines. Go back to Philistinia.

Left by Herr Doktor Bimler on January 28th, 2007

That was brilliant, Scott.
This is my favorite bit from you:
Of all the fears that may awaken James Wolcott in the wee dark hours of the morning, I have a feeling this particular one ranks just below, “going birdwatching and getting pecked to death by Marshmallow Peeps.”
And this is my favorite bit from nutjob D’Souza:
The second reason can be gleaned from the common theme in the reviews: that mine is a dangerous book.
I believe the appropriate response to that goes like: I slap at mosquitoes, too, asshole, whether they’re carrying malaria or are just annoying.

Left by D. Sidhe on January 29th, 2007

Dishwater D’Stupid’s claims to “dangerousness” are utterly ridiculous, primarily because, to be “dangerous,” someone, somewhere would have to take his “argument” seriously enough to take action, based on it. To date, this would be exactly no one, not even Dipstick himself. Ding-dong’s book is about as “dangerous” as a deflated balloon being kept in the deepest recesses of a sock drawer, buried under dozens of pairs of socks. And, even that is more dangerous–a child could choke on the balloon if she found it in there, or it could ruin a pair of socks when its latex broke down and it stained them. Yes, that’s our Dum-dum–less dangerous than a stain.

Left by Marq on January 29th, 2007

Doodah D-Souse writes: “I am a scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University,”
He is the very model
of a modern major scholar
At the Hoover Institution
of the Stanford University
His scholarship is on his sleeve
and fraught with mediocrity…
Take it away, Bill S!

Left by Chris Vosburg on January 29th, 2007

Also, he polished up the handle so carefully
That now he is an author at Regnery!
(I know. But Random House didn’t fit and I’ve been up forever.)
I continue to believe, for the record, that conservatives are stuck in some kind of time warp in which all punditry and political speech is declaimed at whistlestop tours. Because they sure don’t seem to understand, ever, that what they say will be made note of, and that when they lie about it six weeks later, someone out there has that record. It’s genuinely baffling. They’ll stand and lie about never having said that, despite the fact that they should know damned well it went out on the radio or TV or they wrote it themselves to be published in a magazine or paper. And it’s not just guys like Trent Lott and Dick Cheney, it’s people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly. Shouldn’t they understand the nature of their business? How is it possible they’re always so outraged when Media Matters *quotes them accurately*? And how in the face of that do they have the sheer idiocy to continue to deny it?
I have this thing I do when people call to talk us into changing our phone service: I insist we do not have a phone. This always leads to a great deal of confusion on their part and amusement on mine, but the thing is, I’m not Rush Limbaugh. I don’t actually *believe* we have no phone. I *know* I’m lying. And, incidentally, if they announce that this call may be recorded blahblahblah, I just hang up. But again, it’s not my job. Even a politician should know–or at least assume–that everything he says in a public place will be recorded. But Bill-O damned well ought to *know* it so deep it’s instinctual.
And, just so you know, Dinesh, we’re also crushing Canada’s uniqueness with our freaky pop culture–ask about movies and TV, if you want a rant. We’re even exporting homophobes and creationists and gun nuts, which seems like the height of bad manners, and they still haven’t shown any interest in blowing us up. (And don’t say they couldn’t–they’ve got a way bigger budget and far more natural and industrial resources than Al Qaeda does.)
It might be worth asking what we’re doing or not doing to Canada, and France, and England, and Mexico, and India, for that matter, that is *different* from the assorted terrorists and insurgents.
Unless of course this new “figure out what’s motivating the terrorists” thing is just a con designed to enlist fanatical murderers in your cause of scaring the liberals into staying quiet while you guys decide whose rights to strip away next.

Left by D. Sidhe on January 29th, 2007

So it is liberal Americas pusing its liberal values that they hate us for? Well then are they hating us in Iraq for bringing democracy? So then we should leave so they will stop hating us? Hey DD did you just advocate us leaving Iraq? But then again you say that will embolden the terrorists if we leave? Make up your mind. Youare not dangerous, you are pathetic. As soon as the right is done with you then you will be dropped like a bad habit. This guy is the next Ann Coutler (the republicans were in bed with her as long as it was usefeul but when her real crazines came out they got away from her, leaving her the bitter old maid seh is). I used to believe in listenning to the right (and even had some common opinions and if not at least I heard their facts and ideas) but idiots like this made me have to choose, between being a thinking rational person, or a mindless cog of a irrational machine. And also their facts were made up junk, I mean when you got to make up facts and put out all the lies they did, how good can your arguiument be. Are they are any conservatice institues not chalked full it nuts who cannot get a real job (for obvious reasons). I mean if these guys had to put their book through something like peer review (like sceintists or historians) they woudl never get published!

Left by richard on January 29th, 2007

If anyone from Stanford is reading this:
D’Souza has just given us Cal alumni another reason to laugh at the Junior University.
Sever your ties with Hoover, or remain a laughingstock.

Left by DocAmazing on January 29th, 2007

Chris Vosburg, if I might…
He is the very model
of a modern major scholar,
He churns out books that justify the wingnut welfare dollar.
At the Hoover Institution
of the Stanford University,
He parries slings and arrows cast by liberal diversity.
He decries in tones refined (he won’t resort to thuggery)
Enemies at home who love abortion and love buggery.
His scholarship is on his sleeve
and fraught with mediocrity…
He’s so dangerous he might be forced to drink hemlock like Socrates!

Left by FlipYrWhig on January 29th, 2007

“Alan, nobody likes a sarcastic wimp.”
-tabloid source’s advice to Alan Alda on the old SCTV network show
Let’s see if we’re within spitting distance of the truth here: somebody at Random House was foolish enough to contract for this thing under the Random House imprint instead of any of hundreds of others they have available. Did they imagine they were getting a scholarly Ann Coulter? Did they have him confused with Deepak Chopra? We will probably never know.
But now they’re stuck with A-list promotion, and somebody books him on Colbert. I can only assume the booker had never met D’Souza in person, or else was fired by cell phone about one minute into the interview. Here’s a guy whose only combat experience is lobbing long-range artillery at cardboard targets and suddenly he’s in the tiger cage with the fastest gun in the business. And he’s not just depantsed, he winds up admitting he agrees with Osama bin-Laden. Wow. Were there reports of mass aorta explosions at Random House that day?
Because if there weren’t our time would be better spent trying to find out who’s actually bankrolling the Madame Nhu of the Naughts and his chocolate-coated turd of a book. In the interim, at least we know whose Op-Ed pages are available to other media conglomerates in need, don’t we? Okay, okay, like we didn’t know before.

Left by Doghouse Riley on January 29th, 2007

Thanks, Flip, for rescuing my clumsy metering, and well done!

Left by Chris Vosburg on January 29th, 2007

I argue that the American left bears a measure of responsibility for the volcano of anger from the Muslim world that produced the 9/11 attacks.
He’s right, of course: we let those numbskull neo-cons run rampant instead of locking them up and throwing away the key…

Left by actor212 on January 29th, 2007

Proof that D’Souza is exactly the right wing hack he protests being is his constant conflating of some vague concept of a cultural left with a political left (aside from the issue of whether there even is a cultural left as he characterizes it). In fact, D’Souza’s entire schtick is just extreme religious fundamentalism vs. the reality of American secular life, and I hate to break it to him, but the majority of this country, i.e. the “enemy” at home, has yet to embrace his theocratic ideal. In fact, , a majority of even his fellow Catholics supports “cultural leftism” like contraception, legal abortion, and stem-cell research—in other words, most Catholics are a lot more like Nancy Pelosi than Dinesh D’Souza.
Or take D’Souza’s ludicrous assertion that it’s the cultural left that is the bad angel whispering in Congress’s ear Cut off the funding. Block the increase in troops. Shut down Guantanamo Bay. Lose the war on terrorism — and blame Bush. With this crap, it’s clear that the “enemy” isn’t secularism, or a liberal culture at all. Like his soul-mate Ann Coulter, D’Souza’s enemy is simply anyone whose politics he disagrees with.

Left by R.Porrofatto on January 29th, 2007

What strikes me about D’Souza is that he adds up apples and still concludes oranges. Actually, he is adding up apples and concluding, not even oranges or any other kind of fruit. He is concluding 1967 Impala.
“And what is that? It is that the far left [that's me] seems to hate Bush nearly as much as it hates bin Laden.”
check. The key word, for me, is nearly, but I’ll concede the basic point. But then I tend to hate mass murderers whose names begin with B.
“Bin Laden may want sharia, or Islamic law, in Baghdad, they reason, but Bush wants sharia in Boston.”
Well, maybe Leviticus, particularly that stoning stuff.So check. Suspension of Habeus Corpus, anybody? Torture?
“Indeed, leftists routinely portray Bush’s war on terrorism as a battle of competing fundamentalisms, Islamic vs. Christian.”
Well, if we are talking about Bush’s War on Terrorism as opposed to a sane, competent president’s fight against terrorists. Something about appealing to a higher father and talking to God? So, Check.
“It is Bush, more than bin Laden, they say, who threatens abortion rights and same-sex marriage and the entire social liberal agenda in the United States.”
Well, last I looked, it was Bush and not bin Laden who went around appointing Supreme Court Judges. So, gotta check on this.
“So leftist activists such as Michael Moore and Howard Zinn and Cindy Sheehan seem willing to let the enemy win in Iraq so they can use that defeat in 2008 to rout Bush — their enemy at home.” 1967 Impala. How the hell did he get here? Last I heard, Bush can’t even run in 2008. Oh, and the War on Terror and the War on Iraq equation. Nice one, Dipshit. The whole article ends not with a bang but in a non sequitur.

Left by tomg on January 29th, 2007

You know what I love about Sword Thrusting Will Turner? Not only does he have KungFuGrip,which allows him to “grip” his “sword”….and not only does his other hand have “partner hip handling” action”…he’s also got quite the package!(Oh, look at the pic again and you’ll see what I mean)

Left by maryc on January 30th, 2007

And, I quote:

“Squeeze Will’s legs together for a sword-jabbing attack!”

Yeeeeessssssss–!!
I’ll bet!–

Left by Marq on January 30th, 2007

I wonder what happens when you spread his legs apart?

Left by Marq on January 30th, 2007

What would motivate Muslims in faraway countries to volunteer for martyrdom? The fact that Palestinians don’t have a state? I don’t think so.
So in his world it doesn’t make sense to die so that your people have their own state, but it does make sense to die for Janet Jackson’s booby.

Left by Hysterical Woman on January 30th, 2007

I am not, as he says, an unqualified right-wing hack. Rather, I am a scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University
There’s a difference? Who knew?

Left by Realist on January 30th, 2007

Even professors start out as adjunct or assistant professors, in time may get to be associate professors, and then, with luck, become full professors and then emeritus professors.
So I’m absolutely POSITIVE that Hoover’s personnel department has a job description known simply as “Scholar.” Suuuuuure they do.

Left by Mrs. Tarquin Biscuitbarrel on January 30th, 2007

“In the pages of Esquire, Mark Warren charges that I “hate America” and have “taken to heart” Osama bin Laden’s view of the United States. (Warren also challenged me to a fight and threatened to put me in the hospital.)”
Mark Warren ain’t the only one who’d like to pound on this ratfaced, cowardly putz. Is there a sign-up sheet somewhere?

Left by Max Booty on January 30th, 2007

Liberals hate his book because “it’s dangerous”? Dangerous like a big pile of dog s***t in the middle of a sidewalk.

Left by Kathy on January 30th, 2007

Scott writes: “A third possibility is that a man who thinks that having his name on the voice mail menu at the Hoover Institution makes him a “scholar,” also thinks that critics who call a book bullshit do so because it’s dangerous, and not because it’s, you know, bullshit. ”
There’s a certain familial similarity between this defense and the one that sniffs, hey, they laughed at Columbus too, and look how right he turned out to be.
Yes, as Carl Sagan reminded us, “they laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

Left by Chris Vosburg on January 30th, 2007

Immediately following 9/11, there was a wondrous moment of national unity in which the American tribe came together. “Why do they hate us?” some wondered, but no one wanted to comprehend the enemy — only to annihilate him. And I shared this view.
Wrong. There were in fact many of us who said, “Wait–let’s figure out what makes these guys tick so we can handle them better!” or “Sure, Bin Laden’s a nutcase, but how did he manage to manipulate 20 guys into killing themselves for him, not to mention all the folks who helped them out? Let’s make sure we don’t accidently give Bin Laden more ammunition to use against us!” And we were villified for “rationalizing the attack” and “making excuses for the terrorists” and “blaming America!” And I’m sure Dinesh shared that view, too.
Does Dinesh not remember liberals and Democrats being accused of wanting to offer “therapy” to the terrorists instead of just bombing them into oblivion? Did he miss the arguments about “they hate us for our freedoms, so shut up about foreign policy already”? Now, all of a sudden, Dinesh wants to do the therapy and figure out why people in the Middle East hate America.
And Lo and Behold! It’s the liberals! See, if they’d let us ask these critical questions 5 years ago, we could have had invaded Hollywood instead of Iraq.

Left by Dorothy on January 30th, 2007

I think one important issue that isn’t really being addressed is that our cultural exports are a part of our national grand strategy for global hegemony. During the Cold War, conservative as well as liberal presidents, administrations, and congresses advocated the diffusion of American culture across the world. The whole point was that we wanted to propagandize and show the world just how throughly thrilling the American experience was.
He’s basically repudiating 50 years of across-the-aisle political posturing and Cold War strategy.
He isn’t just in bed with the terrorists, but the communists as well. What a wonderfully contrived straw-man he has become – it’s like he’s trying.

Left by Andrew on February 12th, 2007

The thing D’Souza’s not putting together, if he’s trying to argue that “Radical Islam” only hates western liberals for their supposed moral degeneracy, but not conservatives (which WOULD be mostly true if not for that pesky theological business about how claiming Jesus is half-a-god is blasphemy because the god of Abraham [Ibrahim] clearly states “you shall have no other god before me”…sorry dudes they hate you too) is what some of us have been saying for years…Radical Islam and Conservative Christianity have more in common with one another than than either of them has with the values of democracy, freedom, justice, equality or just the plain old fucking golden rule. Oh and BTW the average muslim on the street, since most bougie conservative honkies have never met one, is just a regular schlub like everybody else whose too busy trying to make ends meet to think too much about the big picture, so he just goes along with everybody else in his society. Sound familiar?

Left by Croix Clayton on April 8th, 2008

As an Indian, I’m completely and utterly disgraced by the likes of Dinesh D’Souza. He’s basically a White ass-kisser who looks down on his own race/people. This man has no self-respect and never spares an opportunity to take a dig at his own fellow Indians, Indian government, Hindu religion….anything and everything that must please his White masters….fucking toad.
Whatever India might be today; poor, third-world, etc. etc. we don’t need certification from the likes of Dinesh D’Souza. OK you made your own life better by moving to US, and calling yourself an American…all the power to you.
Mr. D’Souza don’t ever fuck with real, patriotic Indians – we’d be only too happy to knock your teeth down. As had happened with certain members of Australian cricket team when they tried to bully Harbhajan Singh…a hot-blooded Sikh. Wimps and sell-outs like Dinesh D’Souza certainly don’t represent authentic Indians.
And one more thing, Mr. D’Souza…fuck you. Go and kiss some more White ass.

Left by Indian dude on June 5th, 2008

Dinesh D'Souza: Mediocre Tequila, Worse Pundit

In light of Dinesh D’Souza’s recent appearances on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report to promote his book, The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, it may seem cruel to pile additional abuse on his piece in today’s L.A Times. But given that I’m one of the people who caused the attack on 9/11, you’ve got to admit that it’s just the kind of thing you’d expect from me. (Okay, okay, I don’t want to be accused of being an attention whore; maybe I didn’t cause 9/11, I just transmitted the “go” code to the terrorists from my secret aerie in the ziggurat of the Woolworth Building. And like the words “Tora! Tora! Tora!” that launched the bombing on Pearl Harbor, the 9/11 code phrase will serve as the title of the definitive motion picture treatment of the attacks. Look for The Gaberdine is Crisp!, coming to theaters this fall.

By now I’m sure most people are familiar with D’Souza’s thesis: Radical Islamic theocrats attacked us because of Will and Grace and Girls Gone Wild, and those Bowflex commercials with their toned delts and sweaty torsos, thrusting us into the single defining conflict of this generation, which we must fight to the death by becoming exactly like the people who attacked us in the hope that they’ll get confused and accidentally bomb themselves. Pretty succinct theory, really. But a facility for inadvertant irony isn’t Dinesh’s only contribution to the public debate; he also has a gift for proceeding from false assumptions that is so dazzling that I suggest his next book be titled, How Many Questions Could a Question-Beggar Beg if a Question-Beggar Could Beg Questions?

IN CONSIDERING a funding cutoff for U.S. troops in Iraq, the liberal leadership in Congress runs the risk of making the United States more vulnerable to future attacks, not just in the Middle East but here at home.

Wow, a lie right out of the box. Apparently Dinesh learned his sense of pacing from all those porn movies he watched while researching our degenerate culture, where it’s necessary to jump right into the action lest the viewer hit the Fast Forward button, or flip around to see what else is on Spectravision. Anyway, a show of hands if you’re heard any members of “the liberal leadership in Congress” talk about cutting off funds for U.S. troops in Iraq. Certainly they’ve talked about capping the number of troops at their present level, and John Murtha has said he wants to ‘“fence the funding,” denying the president the resources to escalate the war, instead using the money to take care of the soldiers as we bring them home from Iraq “as soon as we can.”‘ So far only Dennis Kucinich is seriously talking about cutting off all funds and demanding an immediate withdrawl from Iraq, but last I looked, the Democratic leadership has installed a “You Must Be At Least This Tall To Lead Congress” sign at the switchbacks leading to the Speaker’s Chair.

Pundits on the left say that 9/11 was the result of a “blowback” of resistance from the Islamic world against U.S. foreign policy. At first glance, this seems to make no sense.

Exactly.  U.S. foreign policy making people mad at us?  Whoever heard of THAT?

American colonialism in the Middle East? The U.S. has no history of colonialism there. Washington’s support for unelected dictatorial regimes in the region? The Muslims can’t be outraged about this, because there are no other kinds of regimes in the region.

MUSLIM:  Why did you give our unelected, dictatorial regime helicopter gunships and chemical weapon components?  They just sprayed our village with VX nerve agent and set my entire family on fire!
U.S.:  Well, we would’ve been happy to give the Blackhawks and the nerve gas to an elected, non-dictatorial regime if you’d had one, but those kinds of regimes don’t usually need sophisticated weapons systems to stay in power, and we had to give ‘em to someone.  Surely even you, standing in a scorched impact crater with your skin peeling off, has to admit that it would be a wee bit unreasonable to get all outraged at us about this.

U.S. support for Israel and wars against the Muslims? Yes, but the U.S. has frequently fought on the side of the Muslims, as in Afghanistan in the 1980s or in the Persian Gulf War.

Well, except for sending John Rambo and Luke from The Real McCoys, we didn’t exactly fight on the side of the muhajadeen in Afghanistan in the ’80s.  But we did give them lots of guns and ammo, which came in very handy after we abandoned the country to lawlessness and warlordism following the Soviets’ withdrawal.  But the altruism of our effort in the Persian Gulf War is undeniable, except if you count all those permanent bases in Saudi Arabia that we got out of it.

But in a sense the liberal pundits are right. The U.S. made two gigantic foreign policy blunders in recent decades that did sow the seeds of 9/11. What the liberals haven’t recognized is that these blunders were the direct result of their policies and actions, and were carried out by Democratic presidents — Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Also, as Stephen Colbert prodded Dinesh to admit, FDR, since he handed Stalin the keys to Eastern Europe at the Yalta Conference instead of ordering a nuclear strike on Moscow, which would have prevented the Soviet Union from invading Afghanistan forty years later, forcing us to give guns and training to Osama bin Laden.

To understand this, we need a little perspective.

Forced perspective, but still…

Radical Islam became a global force in 1979, when it captured its first major state, Iran. Before that, radical organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood were fighting losing battles to overthrow their local governments. This changed with the success of the Khomeini regime in Iran. The Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was the first Muslim leader to describe the U.S. as the “Great Satan”

…and he’s yet to see a dime in artist royalties for it.

…and to counsel martyrdom and jihad against it. Iran continues to be a model for radical Muslims.

Except for the radical Sunni Muslims who attacked us, since they pretty much hate the Persian Shia.  But they’re still willing to do a quick charcoal sketch — under protest — as long as Iran agrees to model nude.

Khomeini’s ascent to power was aided by Carter’s policies. Carter came into office stressing his support for human rights. His advisors told him that he could not consistently support the shah of Iran, who had secret police and was widely accused of violating human rights. The administration began to withdraw its support and finally pulled the rug out from under the shah, forcing him to step down.

Yes, the Shah had “secret police” (Dinish makes it sound so nice, like the Shah had an imaginary friend or something) and was “widely accused of violating human rights.”  But consider the source: the accusations against the Shah came almost entirely from people he’d had tortured, so they clearly had an axe to grind.  But this does pose a question:  if a tyrant is in danger of being overthrown by his own people the instant we stop propping him up, exactly how long can we keep him in power before the populace is legitimately allowed to get irked at us?  20 years?  30?  In Dinesh’s ideal world, would there be a Pahlavi on the Peacock Throne and a SAVAK agent at every keyhole in Teheran today?

Clinton’s policies also helped to provoke 9/11. After the Cold War, leading Islamic radicals returned to their home countries. Bin Laden left Afghanistan and went back to Saudi Arabia; Ayman Zawahiri returned to Egypt. They focused on fighting their own rulers — what they termed the “near enemy” — in order to establish states under Islamic law. But in the mid- to late 1990s, these radicals shifted strategy. They decided to stop fighting the near enemy and to attack the “far enemy,” the U.S.
The world’s sole superpower would seem to be much more formidable than local Muslim rulers such as Hosni Mubarak in Egypt or the Saudi royal family. Bin Laden argued, however, that the far enemy was actually weaker and more vulnerable. He was confident that when kicked in their vital organs, Americans would pack up and run. Just like in Vietnam. Just like in Mogadishu.

Just like in Beirut in 1983, when President Ronald Reagan (I don’t have his biographical information handy, but I’m guessing he must have been a Democrat) pulled out of Lebanon, a decision that prompted Osama bin Laden to declaim:  “Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place in 1983? You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly Marine soldiers were killed.”

Bin Laden saw his theory of American weakness vindicated during the Clinton era. In 1993, Islamic radicals bombed the World Trade Center. The Clinton administration did little.

Except catch the guys who did it and put them in jail.

In 1996, Muslim terrorists attacked the Khobar Towers facility on a U.S. base in Saudi Arabia. No response.

Well, there was an investigation, but it was stymied by the unelected, dictatorial regime in Saudi Arabia.  Thank goodness they’re on our side.

In 1998, Al Qaeda bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa. Clinton responded with a few perfunctory strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan.

And was promptly accused of “Wagging the Dog” by Republicans, which didn’t really help advance of the cause of counter-terrorism, but was preferable to stupidly appropriating the title of some other movie released in 1997; Tom Delay might, for instance, have criticized the President for cynically “Jungle 2 Jungling” or for committing a blatant act of ”Air Bud.”

These did no real harm to Al Qaeda and only strengthened the perception of American ineptitude. In 2000, Islamic radicals bombed the U.S. destroyer Cole. Again, the Clinton team failed to act.

And it happened on October 12, almost a month before the election!  As any moron knows, THAT’S the time you start a war.

Still, the 2001 attacks might have been averted had the Clinton administration launched an effective strike against Bin Laden in the years leading up to them. Clinton has said he made every effort to get Bin Laden during his second term. Yet former CIA agent Michael Scheuer estimates that there were about 10 chances to capture or kill Bin Laden during this period and that the Clinton people failed to capitalize on any of them.

Michael Scheuer also said this:  “I think Iraq is finished. We’ll just find a way to get out. I frankly don’t think we ever intended to win there. We certainly didn’t send enough troops to close borders, to control the country. [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld was obsessed, apparently with his new, lighter, faster military. The inflow of fighters is growing. The pace of the insurgency, both there and in Afghanistan, is increasing. I don’t hold much of a brief for Sen. John McCain, but he’s right, in an unpalatable way: Unless we greatly increase the number of troops we have in Iraq, we’re going to have to leave. I think the question is how do we leave? Do we leave with some dignity, or do we leave by flying off the top of the embassy as we did in Saigon?”  So I guess he knows what he’s talking about.

Two lessons can be drawn from these sorry episodes. The first one, derived from Carter’s actions, is: In getting rid of the bad regime, make sure that you don’t get a worse one. This happened in Iran and could happen again, in Iraq, if leading Democrats in Congress have their way.

To quote the Hoosier Sage, Doghouse Riley:  Boy, That’s A Hell Of A Mess We Left In Your Yard There.  Here’s How We Think You Should Clean It up.

The second lesson, derived from Clinton’s inaction, is that the perception of weakness emboldens our enemies. If the Muslim insurgents and terrorists believe that the U.S. is divided and squeamish about winning the war on terror, they are likely to escalate their attacks on Americans abroad and at home. In that case, 9/11 will be only the beginning.

But if we stick it out and continue to dump blood and treasure into an unwinnable, inescapable quagmire, our perception of victory is assured. So the question is simple: do we fool our enemies and lose, or do we fool ourselves and win?

Posted by scott on Thursday, January 18th, 2007 at 9:14 pm.

 

29 responses to "Dinesh D'Souza: Mediocre Tequila, Worse Pundit"

The Cole thing still amazes me. They get definitive evidence that Bin Laden was responsible right before Bush takes office, and politely let the new administration handle it the way they want. And for this, Clinton is TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE!!!! for 9-11 because he didn’t LOOK TOUGH after the Cole.
So, um, who decided to give Bin Laden a pass on the Cole again?

Left by Dorothy on January 18th, 2007

D’Souza (what’s with the spelling? Anybody? It looks like one of those Fractured French beauty parlor names with a couple apostrophes and an accent aigue tacked on apparently at the sign painter’s discretion) was born in 1961, which not only makes him old enough to know better, it blows my theory he’s the product of a secret, mid-60s, joint Hoover Institute/CIA breeding program to produce home-grown Colonial mouthpieces as a response to our coming ethnic crisis. I believe that must have followed the spectacular failure of the Madame Nhu thing, after which they realized they needed greater genetic control.
Anyhow, if they can’t persuade him to find another line of work, somebody at least needs to convince D’Souza to stay off teevee and out of poker halls. His interview with Colbert was the second time someone’s soul was depantsed on that program–the first being Peggy Noonan, when Stephen asked her, “Who really ended Communism, Ronald Reagan or John Paul II?” At least Noonan, the aged war horse of charlatanism, was able to remain upright for the remainder of the segment.

Left by Doghouse Riley on January 19th, 2007

we must fight to the death by becoming exactly like the people who attacked us in the hope that they’ll get confused and accidentally bomb themselves.
That sounds about right. Honestly, I loathe Dinesh in ways I loathe few other republicans. It’s his deranged fluffing of Reagan, his see-no-evil partisanship, his creepy terrorist appeasement, his scuttling “Oh, I didn’t mean *you* when I said all liberals should be shot” interviews. Sanctimonious, hypocritical prick. “Blame America First” seems to be the rallying cry of the eliminationist right, and applying it to liberals, even as they place the blame for terrorist hatred on us, is obscene and perverse.
But, hell, perversity seems to be what conservatives do best.

Left by D. Sidhe on January 19th, 2007

Can someone cut and paste this and then email it to the LA Times as a rebuttal to D’Souza? I’ve never seen such a well laid out smack down since….well…since the LAST time WoC laid a smack down on a rightwing neo-con pundit.

Left by maryc on January 19th, 2007

D’Souza (what’s with the spelling? Anybody? It looks like one of those Fractured French beauty parlor names with a couple apostrophes and an accent aigue tacked on apparently at the sign painter’s discretion)
It always makes me think of W.C. Fields playing Egbert Souse in The Bank Dick, and continually correcting people: “It’s Soo-ZAY. Accent grav over the e.”

Left by scott on January 19th, 2007

World-O-Crap is the best.

Left by Adrian Browne on January 19th, 2007

It is kind of inspiring. A classic responsibility-shedding manly chickenhawk, and damned if he doesn’t turn into a giggling conciliator when faced with a…
liberal?
I guess when you’re outing suicidal gay classmates to their parents you don’t actually have to face them.

Left by julia on January 19th, 2007

Apparently D’Souza has never heard of the CIA led coup against the moderate democratically elected Mossadegh in 1953, for the crime of thinking the Iranian people deserved to benefit from British Petroleum’s control of their oil fields. I recall hearing innumerable conversations back in ’79, puzzling over why these people hate us so much, and that little tidbit would always pop into my head.
While D’Souza’s blaming Carter, maybe he could spare a thought for those such as Jeanne Kirkpatrick and the Committee on the Present Danger, who argued that the already exaggerated CIA reports of Soviet military strength understated their actual capability. It was they who advocated the financing and arming of the offshoot of the fascist Muslim Brotherhood, known as the Mujahideen, as a counter to Soviet influence in Afghanistan. The CPD was so obsessed with the Soviet Union, that they thought they were even behind the revolution of the Mullahs in Iran.
It’s very convenient how these groups get set up to be the bogeyman du jour a couple decades down the road, whose activities are then used to justify ever increasing defense and black budgets. Who is the US setting up at the present moment I wonder.
There seems to be some indication that the local CIA station chief visited Bin Laden while he was in the hospital in Qatar, or was it Bahrain, in July 2001. Wonder what they talked about.

Left by bidziliba on January 19th, 2007

Not sure if everyone has seen these videos of the US military in Iraq or not, but they are pretty amazing: Hopefully our ‘surge’ will not include too many of these types…
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/winning-hearts-and-minds-part-three.html

Left by MinorRipper on January 19th, 2007

Some one ased how this guy gets his persepectives and ideas.
Simple, this guy sees only the history he wants to see and in fact few americans have the time in this great ecconomy to spend it looking for all the wholes in this guyss arguements. When did all these Republicans complain about us running from Samalia? When did they call Reagan a coward when we left Beirut. And thank GOd some here has heard about what we did to Iran in 1953. Yep historical ignorance is the only way these right wing pundits get a job and book deal. If we had true scholars on TV and real news they would all be cleaning bathrooms in Grand central station. Also they forget there are plenty or religious conservatives who DO BLAME AMERICA FIRST. THey will say with a straight face our lack of comformance to THEIR morality brought this to ourselves because either GOD caused it or let it happen (as if until the 90s God had a hand over our heads keeping us safe but all them gays caused hinm to change his mind). Pathetic ins’t it?

Left by richard bennett on January 19th, 2007

And was it not none other than G.H.W. Bush, the pResident’s father, who, just prior to the 1980 election met with representatives of the Khomeini regime to make sure the embassy hostages weren’t released until after the election. And, perhaps I’m forgetting something here, but was it not the very same G.H.W. Bush who got us into that little Somalia dustup that Clinton yoinked us out of? How quickly they forget.

Left by Marq on January 19th, 2007

MinorRipper, that was simply appalling. I’d seen the water bottle incident, but not the other two.
That, plus WOC’s brilliant takedown of Dinesh D’Souza, underscores the fact that this war is a never-ending source of outrages.
Blessings on your head, and on Scott’s and s.z.’s, for telling it like it is. (Didn’t I just betray my age there!)

Left by Mrs. Tarquin Biscuitbarrel on January 19th, 2007

Clearly, John Philip Souza is to blame, for allowing one of his decendants to use his inherited composition skills to create the tapestry of bullshite being skewered here by World ‘O Crap.

Left by (: Tom :) on January 19th, 2007

Amazing how little appreciation, if not actual knowlege, of history it takes to be a conservative “scholar.” Along the same lines as conservative “president.” What could he possibly do for an encore?
Kennedys failure to nuke California caused Watergate? Truman allowed the SCOTUS to select Bush in 2000, proving that liberals hate democracy?

Left by strangely enough on January 19th, 2007

D’Souza (what’s with the spelling? Anybody? It looks like one of those Fractured French beauty parlor names with a couple apostrophes and an accent aigue tacked on apparently at the sign painter’s discretion)
I believe the mendacious, rodent-faced little dipshit is of Portuguese-Indian origin, his forebears probably hailing from Goa or another former Indian possession of Portugal (see this Wikipedia discussion, e.g.):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ramesh
Great smackdown of the weaselly little bastard. Anyone with an ounce of shame would hide his face for a long while after this and Colbert, but D’Stupid obviously has none (after all, he was willing to date Ann Coulter).

Left by Max Booty on January 19th, 2007

Random thought: Mendacious D would be a great name for a pseudo-con rock band fronted by D’Loser.

Left by Max Booty on January 19th, 2007

Wingnut pundits always remind me why conservatives are so emphatic about keeping public school systems underfunded.

Left by kate on January 19th, 2007

Damn that Jimmy Carter for pandering to the Iranians!
And thank the gods for Ronald Reagan laying the smackdown on them. That was quite the surprise he had for them that October.
And by the way, although disputed, “Climb Mt. Niitaka” was the code to initiate the Great Pacific War; “Tora! Tora! Tora!” was the code to indicate that the Pearl Harbor attack was a successful (December) surprise.

Left by arghous on January 19th, 2007

Washington’s support for unelected dictatorial regimes in the region? The Muslims can’t be outraged about this, because there are no other kinds of regimes in the region.
Like bidziliba says — a prime reason for the lack of democratic governments around the Persian Gulf that Western governments have proud tradition of deposing democracies (Mossadegh) or of imposing and propping up kleptocracies (the House of Saud).

Left by Herr Doktor Bimler on January 20th, 2007

Plus it’s been my experience that religious extremists of any stripe can certainly be outraged against just about anything, regardless of justification or relationship to reality. See, Christmas, War On.

Left by D. Sidhe on January 20th, 2007

Dear Sir,
While I would be happy to sharpen any stick with which you wish to poke Mr. D’Souza (and gladly assist in the poking,) I must decry the gratuitous insult to Sauza (that’s S-A-U-Z-A) brand tequilas, of which there are several, ranging from popularly-priced labels (Giro) to the cognac-like eight-year aged anejo (Tres Generaciones)[that's twice as old as Cuervo 1800]. Sauza is the number-one brand of tequila in Mexico (the markedly inferior “Joe Crow” owes its U.S. success strictly to marketing,) with a heritage of over 150 years, unlike the recent rash of “premium” tequila labels arising out of the investment portfolios of American celebrities. (No, I don’t and never did work for them.)

Left by blue agave on January 20th, 2007

I believe that Dinesh was known as “Distort D’Newsa” when he was an undergrad at Dartmouth.
Another one the Ivy League has to answer for.

Left by Dr. DRE on January 21st, 2007

Others have said it, but bears repeating: Thank you for putting this piece of human excrement in his place. Like Borat, you stuck him in a doggy bag; flushing’s too good for him. He belongs with the other trash.
The real problem is the fact that most Americans are barely literate, have been socialized to mock/belittle/scorn learning/knowledge/mastery of facts, and seem to pride themselves on and rejoice in their appalling ignorance. Mr. D’Soused is state’s evidence #1. Case closed.

Left by Liz on January 21st, 2007

I have to tell you, I find that there’s an upsetting disonance in all this talk about Mr. D’souza.
I mean, the guy isn’t just a hack, he’s certifiabley insane. His blather really is only superior to, say, a Renew America post in terms of grammar and style.
And honestly, not by much.
And yet you guys talk about him like he wa a respected conservative, an… I dunno… Derbyshire or something.
It disturbs me.

Left by Christopher on January 21st, 2007

What Blue Agave said. I’ve been a dedicated Sauza drinker for many years, and several of their products run circles around the many pretentious, overhyped, wildly overpriced, Republican-style tequila brands which have infested the American market lately.
Sauza’s vast superiority to the all-sombrero, no-vacas J-Cuer is muy true too, and I’ve been preaching as much to my friends and barstool acquaintances for two decades. Sauza is the smart democrat’s tequila, sans strident Cuervo-style campaign commercials.
So let’s not conflate the contemptible D’Souza with the admirable and exemplary D’Sauza, mmkay?

Left by Romy B. on January 21st, 2007

Herradura Anejo is better than any Sauza product I’ve ever drunk, and that includes Tres Generaciones.

Left by Basharov on January 22nd, 2007

What a breath of fresh air to hear so called enlightened ones attack a man based on his name, his political views as well as his heritage.

Left by Julian on February 4th, 2007

While we’re kicking Dinesh for ‘forgetting’ Reagan and Beruit in ’83, can we not also kick him for ‘forgetting’ Reagan’s acquiescence in Marcos’s downfall in the Philippines (compared to his outrage at the Carter-Shah issue)?

Left by Carleton Wu on February 7th, 2007

[...] It’s Mr. Rowan Scarborough of the neoconservative Hoover Institution, home as well to V.D. Hanson, Niall Ferguson, Dinesh D’Souza, and on down the line to John “Podenfreude” Podhoretz. And also Ed Meese. [...]

Left by Sadly, No! » Teh Aristocrats on July 17th, 2007

May 12, 2006 by Scott

DULLARD FILLMORE

Leafing through the LA Times over lunch yesterday, I saw that Bruce Tinsley's Mallard Fillmore (the scheming, two-faced Eve Harrington to Howard the Duck's Margo Channing) continues his Cassandra-like efforts to expose the War on Junior Petite Beef-Ts. The first few days of his campaign were dedicated to strips that shouted, "Can youbelieve that kids are being expelled in Denver for wearing star-spangledTuffskins?" The last couple days have been devoted to panels like the one above, which bleats:

"To all those readers still writing me to say I'm making up stories about schools banning students from wearing 'patriotic clothing'...Please pick up a newspaper sometime, or go to Townhall.com!"

Um, okay. Just curious, but where does Bruce think the vast majority of readers encounter his trenchant, Mencken-like social criticism if not wedged between Mary Worth and Beetle Baily? Does he think he's podcasting? And this is the second time in a week that Tinsley has forgone even his usual wan simulacrum of a joke in favor of driving traffic to the screedosphere; on April 30th he climaxed his hectoring with a demand that we go to FreeRepublic.com now and learn the truth! Even though we can't handle the truth! (When it comes to the use of italics, Bruce subscribes to the Stan Lee every-third-word-regardless school.)

Anyway, there wasn't anything about Bruce's bete noir in the newspaper I was already holding in my hand, so I went to Townhall, and lo and behold, there wasn't anything there either. But after scrounging around in the Search window, I found a piece by rookie A-ball sensation FredMaidment entitled What Are We Teaching Our Children?

So a cadre of patriotic teens were ejected from school for wearing t-shirts that said "God Bless the U.S.A." or "These Colors Don't Run" or "Proud to be an American"? As Fred put it:

To be clear, these actions were taken in response to people wearing American patriotic clothing. At Shaw Heights Middle School in Westminster, CO, the school banned �clothes with political messages or flags of any sort,� according to Denver�s CBS 4 News. Principal Myla Shepherd said that �tensions over the immigration issue were apparent when more than 20 students came to school wearing camouflage jackets and pants, apparently to show what they call their patriotism and American pride.�

The CBS 4 News website quotes one of the students:

“It upsets me that we cannot support our troops — the military,” said Kirsten Golgart, an eighth grader who was told she’d be suspended if she didn’t change her clothes. “We can’t support our country. If we’re American, I think we should be proud to be an American.”

I frequently miss the memo, but when did fatigues become our national costume? I would have guessed it was bluejeans, or cheeseheads, or visible bra straps or something. Or if we're talking about quaint native garb, the equivalent of kimonos or leiderhosen, wouldn't it be cowboy duds, or some other Village People-y faux Western getup? If I see a civilian dressed in camouflage pants it's usually a pissed-off Vietnam Vet if he's in his 50s, or a thin, jittery, Klebold and Harris wannabe if he's in his teens. Or a doughy Sunday afternoon Rambo on his way to a paintball range if he's in his 30s.

Myla Shepherd, the principal, said that tensions over the immigration issue were apparent when more than 20 students came to school wearing camouflage jackets and pants, apparently to show what they call their patriotism and American pride.

“We started seeing name calling,” Shepherd said. “Safety is my first concern, so I’m going to do things to keep us from getting to a point where anybody is hurt or being suspended for fighting.”

She said the dress code alteration diffused the tension immediately.

“I don’t think that’s a solution, though because you’re punishing 400 students because the action of 100,” said Eric Golgart, Kirsten’s father.

As I freely admit, I'm abysmal at math, but 100 out of 400 sounds like kind of a lot. That's basically a quarter of the student body, isn't it? But Eric makes a good point. What about Kirsten's rights, and the rights of all her likeminded, camo-clad classmates? Yeah, sure, they could "support our troops -- the military" by organizing a blood drive for the Armed Forces Blood Program, or holding a fundraiser for Soldiers’ Angels or anysoldier.com or volunteering time at the VA hospital in Denver, but that wouldn't be nearly as effective as swaggering around the Quad in camouflage pants and a surplus field jacket and giving hard looks to all the Hispanics.

Oh wait, I was wrong, Bruce did close with a joke:

“This has been a public service announcement to inform aging“radicals” that they are now “the man.”

Denver-area High School Principals: America’s Stalinists. “You call it a gulag. We call it…Detention.

Posted by scott on Friday, May 12th, 2006 at 1:40 pm.

I kept pressing my finger on the link to townhall.com in my newspaper but nothing happened.

Left by Doug Bile on May 12th, 2006

Well, I have to say I’ve never seen a cartoon blatantly plug a partisan news site. Points for originality, I guess.
Newsflash for Conservatives: YOU ARE “THE MAN”. YOU CONTROL ALL THE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. THANK YOU. I AM USING ALL CAPS, SO MAYBE YOU CAN HEAR ME.

Left by Jack of None on May 12th, 2006

How dare you compare that stupid duck to a shrewd schemer like Eve Harrington! Mallard Fillmore isn’t fit to lick her pumps.
The most he can hope to be is Nomi Malone, and I still think I’m being generous.

Left by Bill S on May 12th, 2006

Scott, have you learned nothing from Red Dawn??? Obviously, these Colorado teens are dressing in camo clothes so they can fight the Cuban commies when they invade. And obviously, the principal is a commie agent of influence. I bet she also bans blood drinking on school property, and won’t allow the kids to pee into the school bus radiator. Damn liberals!

Left by s.z. on May 12th, 2006

s.z.-
At first I read that as “Red Dwarf” and thought, gosh, I must have missed that episode. 

Left by Bill S on May 12th, 2006

Amazing But True Tales of Public School:
My 6th grade daughter was told not to bring her knapsack that had a black and white “yin yang” on it back to school, because it was a gang related symbol. (They say that Lao Tzu was a baaad mutha SHUT YOUR MOUTH)
A year or two later I was trying to get my son out of some trouble in the high school office (same school district) when some teenage kid walked in with a book bag featuring a big black Nazi swastika superimposed on a pale blue Star of David. No one said a word to the kid about it.
It’s generally conservatives that want to restrict clothing choices to prevent trouble in school; when they find their own kids hoisted on that same petard they squeal like stuck pigs.
PS–Never rely on an eighth-grader’s own explanation as to why he or she wore or didn’t wear a particular article of clothing. (That goes double if it’s your own kid.) You’re setting yourself up for a monster migraine.

Left by trashfire on May 12th, 2006

Is there a pool for how many letters Tinsley actually got by the time he drew Thursday’s cartoon, considering he first mentioned it in one published on May 3? How about one for how many he’d gotten by the time he made his first complaint, published May 6? Or for if/when he’ll publish a correction to his wildly incorrect strip of April 14?

Left by tigrismus on May 12th, 2006

To tell you the truth, I’m amazed to find there’s an actual kernal of truth to the claim, once you translate “patriotic clothing”, since most of these tales turn out like the Banned Red and Green Napkins or the Teacher Who Was Fired for posting a Picture of President Bush.
Then again, if you chase the story to the Rocky Mountain News you’ll learn there were rumors that schools stopped flying the flag, or that Old Glory was banned while the Mexican flag was not, or that students were expelled for wearing blue jeans, white t-shirts and red sweaters. Never fails.
As the husband of a public school teacher, lemme note that administrators are frequently the problem, but in part because they have been placed in PR roles by meddling politicians, partisan parents, and a pandering local media, not to mention the very real concern of school violence. School officials would be neglegent–criminally–if they didn’t do everything they can to defuse that sort of situation. You’d think the people of Denver, ten miles from Littleton, would be especially sensitive to that.
Instead there’s always one guy who decides his opinion trumps the school’s, and instead of taking it up with the school he takes it to the local teevee news.
BTW, trashfire, it’s likely your daughter ran into an overzealous principal who’d misunderstood something, but it’s also possible that religious bigotry was the real cause. If you’d explained the yin-yang is a religious symbol they’d have been forced to accept it if they accept cross pendants and the like.

Left by Doghouse Riley on May 12th, 2006

Next it will be the email meme of the Iraqi immigrant woman who accused a store clerk of “bombing her country” while a warfighter was in line behind her. Of course she was roundly told off in terms that made the Gettysburg Address sound like a Dennis Miller monologue.
All those victimed Americans fantasies just keep being flushed out of those right wing “think” tanks. From mean old librul bureaucrats keeping patriotic clothes out of their domain to stories of brown’s people’s ingratitude toward the master race is giving me extreme cultcha war fatigue.
Can someone send Mallard to Peking Gardens for the ptomain lunch special?

Left by TF-MA on May 12th, 2006

I think the the Geico Cavemen have a recipe for Mallard

Left by Sly Fanatic on May 12th, 2006

I can’t stand that drama queen, Tinsley. The guy has a percesution complex that rivals most fundies. He whined about how the big, bad “liberal media” was demonizing Regan (the most overrated prez ever) when they never aired that Regan movie and all the news mag articles on him were positive and many acting as if he soley stopped the Cold War.

Left by Yaoi Huntress Earth on May 13th, 2006

Just curious, but where does Bruce think the vast majority of readers encounter his trenchant, Mencken-like social criticism if not wedged between Mary Worth and Beetle Baily? Does he think he�s podcasting?
The duck is supposedly a TV newscater.
Which, considering the brainpower on display, sounds kinda plausible….

Left by Thlayli on May 13th, 2006

“Mallard Fillmore” was cancelled by the Houston Chronicle a few weeks back. Hopefully this is the start of a trend.

Left by YDD on May 13th, 2006

Can I request a Bill O’Reilly Sanity Watch? If you haven’t yet seen this, you really need to. The man’s looking like delayed-onset schizophrenia to me, and I should know. Go, look. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll have even less idea than usual WTF he thinks he’s talking about.

Left by D. Sidhe on May 13th, 2006

I’m always struck by how much Mallard Fillmore looks like it is drawn by one of those guys who will do a characture of you at the fair for $20.
And I think the duck is clip art.

Left by Ted on May 13th, 2006

Since I believe in something called the 1st Amendment, I don’t really agree with what the Denver principal did in this case.
Principal Myla Shepherd said that �tensions over the immigration issue were apparent when more than 20 students came to school wearing camouflage jackets and pants, apparently to show what they call their patriotism and American pride.�
Maybe it was cynical. But the way to deal with speech you do not like is to refute it, not censor it. If it was such a distraction that it was interfering with schoolwork, than maybe, but I see this as a slippery slope. The kids in Tinker were only wearing armbands.
Also , Scott, this is really lame:
Yeah, sure, they could �support our troops � the military� by organizing a blood drive for the Armed Forces Blood Program, or holding a fundraiser for Soldiers� Angels or anysoldier.com or volunteering time at the VA hospital in Denver, but that wouldn�t be nearly as effective as swaggering around the Quad in camouflage pants and a surplus field jacket and giving hard looks to all the Hispanics.
This is like criticizing a person for saying child abuse is wrong and then pointing out the person has never contributed to a shelter. It’s lame, and it makes you seem extremeley sanctimonious.

Left by Mark on May 13th, 2006

Maybe these kids can wear their fucking camo and march down to the local post office and instead of buying Britney’s new CD, spend the fucking $15 on a PHONE CARD for an Iraqi soldier to call home and ask for more Kevlar.
Bitches.

Left by actor212 on May 13th, 2006

This is like criticizing a person for saying child abuse is wrong and then pointing out the person has never contributed to a shelter. It�s lame, and it makes you seem extremeley sanctimonious.
Perhaps, if I was calling the students chickenhawks, or suggesting that if they wanted to wear camouflage so badly, they could march down to the local Army recruiter. But that wasn’t my point; what strikes me as lame is this: donning camouflage to show your nativist sympathies in the midst of tensions over immigration protests, and then when you’re called on it, pretending that you and your friends were just trying to “support the troops.” To me that’s both craven and cynical.
Let’s not forget, this wasn’t a response to an anti-war rally, or a protest over military recruiters attending the job fair for seniors. This was a bunch of white kids marching around in militiawear in an effort to either intimidate the Hispanic students, or provoke a fight.
I’m not calling these kids and their parents hypocrites because they want to “support the troops” by playing dress-up, rather than taking any sort of meaningful action. I’m calling them liars, because supporting the troops had nothing to do with this, except as an ex post facto rationale.
As far as this being a first amendment issue, I’m not one of those who believes the Bill of Rights should be banned from school grounds like pocket knives and Pamprin. And if you want to argue that the principal overstepped her authority, and the kids had a constitutional right to dress up like G.I. Joe (or the Latino students had a right to wear Mexican flag t-shirts if they chose), even if it was intended as a provocation, there’s certainly a case to me made for that. I just don’t believe this particular little costume party was a spontaneous expression of love for the Armed Forces anymore than I believe that the Iraq war is suddenly all about bringing liberal democracy to the Sunni Triangle.

Left by scott on May 13th, 2006

Off topic….due to technical difficulties that naturally began last wednesday I’ve been off-line and only now am I getting to use my bro’s dial-up—otherwise I would have been much faster off the mark to say thanks vor the votes and I feel really “chuffed” in being honored with a steaming mug o crap in the Wingnut comp. I should be back in action by monday pm to give poper props to all the peeps or whatever. Suffice to say I feel like the luckiest mug-owning owner of a mug in the whole world!

Left by Simon on May 13th, 2006

1st, Thank you, Scott, for being very civil. I know that doesn’t sound like much, but these days on the internets, it is actually quite rare.
2nd, I kinda doubt these twenty or so kids spontaneously decided to show support for the troops by dressing up as soldiers. I guess I just do not trust school administrators when they say something will be disruptive. When I was in high school, some students wanted to have a walk-out during study hall to protest the first Persian Gulf War. After the the administration threatened to expel any student who took part, that fizzled out pretty quick.
I realize being a high school principal is not an easy job, but I think threatening people who are engaging in free speech is the wrong way to teach a lesson.

Left by Mark on May 13th, 2006

I guess I just do not trust school administrators when they say something will be disruptive.
Distrust of all officials–school administrators among them–is the default position as far as I’m concerned. And not just nowadays.
When I was in high school we had a closed circuit TV studio on campus and broadcast a daily news program, and I was expelled in my junior year for airing a story about administrative meddling in the student council elections. In brief, the principal (who looked like Greg Marmalard gone to seed) didn’t care for the troublemaker who won the election. So he voided the results, ordered a “run-off” between the original two candidates, and a third ringer of his own choosing who hadn’t run in the original campaign.
When the ballots were counted, the student government members who always handled it were sent out of the room, and the ringer’s friends (who resembled the Blue Ribbons from Disturbing Behavior) were brought in to tabulate the vote. The results were predictable. Even then, some of the student government volunteers actually saw Blue Ribbons altering or trashing ballots. I reported the story and the next day was told to clean out my locker. On the bright side, since I wasn’t expelled for any cause the administration could comfortably defend, I wasn’t sent to the local continuation school (the district landfill for thugs and burnouts).
So I’ve always felt that the burden of proof is on those who want to carve out exceptions to the First Amendment. Likewise, if someone is going to make trouble, they ought to be candid about their motives and willing to own up to the consequences. Having Mallard Fillmore plead their case seems like a good sign that they’ve done neither.

Left by scott on May 13th, 2006

Um, who exactly are the “aging radicals” in these cases?

Left by FlipYrWhig on May 13th, 2006

WOO HOO! FITZMAS IS FINALLY HERE!
Bawl your eyes out, wingnuts!

Left by glenstonecottage on May 13th, 2006

FlipYrWhig-
You should know better than to try and MAKE SENSE out of a “Mallard Fillmore” punchline. Trying to locate the humour is like trying to locate where a toenail clipping has fallen on the bathroom floor. Except that in the latter, you’re more likely to find something of value.

Left by Bill S on May 13th, 2006

I’ve always taken orders from a cartoon duck. I gained my Master’s in Fine Arts by perusing his advised reading list.
I also get my nutrition tips from Garfield. But he never explains what to do with the hairballs. That’s why ducks are more trustworthy than cats.

Left by Kevin Hayden on May 14th, 2006

But that wasn�t my point; what strikes me as lame is this: donning camouflage to show your nativist sympathies in the midst of tensions over immigration protests, and then when you�re called on it, pretending that you and your friends were just trying to �support the troops.� To me that�s both craven and cynical.
Really?
Cuz you know, Scott, it smells more like cowardice to me. They got busted on overinflating their sense of self and patriotism, realized it, and hid from their past behavior like Adam and Eve wearing fig leaves of “well, let’s support our troops, you commieliberalbastard”.
They couldn’t face up to their idiocies, so thought to deflect blame is how I see it.

Left by actor212 on May 14th, 2006

actor212 writes: Cuz you know, Scott, it smells more like cowardice [than craven and cynical] to me.
Uh, which sense is implied by the word craven, actor.
MW10: “2 : lacking the least bit of courage : contemptibly fainthearted
synonym see COWARDLY”

Left by Chris Vosburg on May 14th, 2006

And interestingly, the wearing of the green, whether camo or fatigue, carried a somehat different meaning back in the day. Army wear was de riguer for us young seedlings of democracy protesting the presence of troops in southeast asia in the ’60s (hey, guess I’m that aging radical Tinsley’s yammering about), and I was repeatedly told back then that I was “not entitled” to wear an army shirt, and further that I “soiled the memory” of our brave– and dead– troops by doing so.
To which I replied, if moemory serves, in the time-honored tradition of angry young men everywhere and everywhen, “fuck you, man, you’ll be the first against the wall come the revolution.”

Left by Chris Vosburg on May 14th, 2006

And lastly, a comment on the wearing of military gear as a show of support for one’s country.
How fucking creepy can you get? How much like Nazi Germany does this country have to become before we can say it out loud?
By way of illustration, TMC will run “Judgment at Nuremburg” tomorrow night (Monday), and I recommend it to you all. There you will get to see Burt Lancaster, as Nazi judge Ernst Janning, deliver lines like this:
There was a fever over the land. A fever of disgrace, of indignity, of hunger. We had a democracy, yes, but it was torn by elements within. Above all, there was fear. Fear of today, fear of tomorrow, fear of our neighbors, and fear of ourselves. Only when you understand that – can you understand what Hitler meant to us. Because he said to us: ‘Lift your heads! Be proud to be German! There are devils among us. Communists, Liberals, Jews, Gypsies! Once these devils will be destroyed, your misery will be destroyed.’
Boy, I’ll say.

Left by Chris Vosburg on May 14th, 2006

Christ on a bike. Can you even begin to imagine Trudeau doing a whiny strip like that? Or any non-political comic strip artist, for that matter?. Yet another piece of evidence in the enormous “conservatives don’t understand the comic strip form” pile.

Left by Ginger Yellow on May 15th, 2006

Chris Vosburg Says:
May 14th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
actor212 writes: Cuz you know, Scott, it smells more like cowardice [than craven and cynical] to me.
Uh, which sense is implied by the word craven, actor.
Scott’s context was that it was more cynicism than cowardice, which of course, you’d realize if you’d bother to read his entire lengthy post.
But thanks for allowing me to clarify this.

Left by actor212 on May 15th, 2006

“”I frequently miss the memo, but when did fatigues become our national costume”"
I was sickened to notice in Walmarts
childrens clothing section that they
are pushing camouflage on little boys
as if its Whats In Style. There was
racks and racks of different kinds of shirts
and pants right throughout the section
as if saying “this is what your kids should be wearing this season. It was sickening.

Left by Civilization on May 15th, 2006

by the way; via Juan Cole’s Informed Comment:
“Veterans Surround Richard Perle, Demand Accountability for His Role in Launching Illegal War”
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/perle

Left by Civilization on May 15th, 2006

This should be added to the dictionary definition of microcosm, as applied to left/right politics, and how the left and right attempt, each in their own way, to diffuse any given political situation. To the left, the approach is to try to avoid conflict. To the right, the approach is to swagger around in cowboy boots and yell, “Bring it on, biatch!”, and, let us not forget, to accuse the left of siding with the enemy.
Microcosm in the high school (cf. Bush’s Amerikkka)

Left by Mr Fiddlehead on May 15th, 2006

This is interesting. I think a lot of us liberal types are generally pretty darned suspicious of school authorities quelching free speech.
But Tinsley is such an incredible whining douchebag that we don’t want to agree with him about anything, just on priniciple.
And I’m not criticising anybody for it! Tinsley is such a failure as both a cartoonist and a thinker that it’s perfectly natural.
Not to mention the fact that pretty much every “Oh my God, Liberals are persecuting us!” story turns out to be exagerated or outright fabricated.
Personally, my immediate inclination if I were the Principal in this school would be to just ban camo outfits, since such outfits are generally designed to allow people to be more effective at meting out violence, and school is a non-violent place.
Of course, I don’t know all the details of the situation.

Left by Christopher on May 16th, 2006

Christopher says: Personally, my immediate inclination if I were the Principal in this school would be to just ban camo outfits, since such outfits are generally designed to allow people to be more effective at meting out violence, and school is a non-violent place.
Think harder, Chris. The implementation of mandatory uniforms in schools has been credited with decreasing youth violence caused by display of “gang clothing” or the like.
If that’s the case, why not make all adults wear ‘em?
How now, brown Mao?

Left by Chris Vosburg on May 17th, 2006