Roger Ebert is nothing if he isn’t a knee-jerk leftist, absolutely without a single original political or cultural thought in his head and his latest meandering post on the Sun-Times hosted Roger Ebert’s Journal is a perfect example.
His piece is titled “Ten things I know about the mosque” but it doesn’t seem like there really are ten things nor are they all about the mosque. After reading his wandering post one is tempted to believe that the only reason he posted the thing was to find an excuse to attack Sarah Palin, someone that has nothing to do with the Ground Zero Mosque.
Let’s deal with Ebert’s off topic attack on Palin first. For a piece that is supposed to be about the Ground Zero Mosque (and by the way he never once calls it the Ground Zero Mosque, even as the Imam that was planning the thing has called it that) Palin’s appearance at point 6 on his list makes no sense. Not only that but Ebert goes off on a tangent of a tangent by discussing Palin’s interaction with Dr. Laura and her “N” word controversy. Hello, Rog… mosque? What does Palin and Dr. Laura have to do with the mosque?
Even more absurdly, Ebert’s first few points are filled with his ruminations on the First Amendment. Then he attacks Palin for employing her own freedom of speech? It’s a whiplash-inducing tangent, for sure.
Plus, in essence he calls Palin a liar by assuming that some right-wing “anonymous genius” is writing all her Tweets and Facebook posts. Ebert has to reach into the dim corners of his conspiracy-laden mind for that one because there is no hint anywhere in the rest of the world that Palin isn’t writing her own stuff. It’s just Ebert’s hatred of Palin informing his belief that she’s too stupid to put two words together.
Worse he seems to be saying that it was Sarah Palin that invented the name “Ground Zero Mosque.” This is an untruth. Then he calls Palin Hitler by saying she is using tactics from Mein Kampf.
That’s alright Rog, we know that you are using tactics invented by Marx, so you have that going for you, which is nice.
OK, the off topic tangent aside, let’s start with Ebert’s first point. He says America is the one “missing” an opportunity with the Ground Zero Mosque. We should bend over backwards for Imam Rauf so we can “showcase” our “Constitutional freedoms,” Ebert insists. We should allow the mosque because it is these Muslim’s right to build it at Ground Zero. Never mind, Roger, that Imam Rauf is deeply involved in a project to push Sharia laws on the U.S. and if successful his law would eliminate everyone but him from having freedom of religion in America. I guess Roger thinks it is Rauf’s right to take away all our rights.
His second point is about the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause, a point he mars by introducing Dr. Laura’s “N” word controversy into the mix. Again, Rog… what does Dr. Laura have to do with the “ten things” you know about the mosque? Nothing. So why clutter up a piece with tangential points? It only makes your post seem more geared toward the left-wing political talking point du jour instead of one discussing timeless American principles. It shows you are a hack, not an elegant writer or deep thinker.
Ebert does have a good point on the mistake of planning a mosque near Ground Zero, though. But once again he mars what could be a good point with his left-wing talking points.
The choice of location shows flawed judgment on the part of its imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf. He undoubtedly knows that now, and I expect his project to be relocated. The imam would be prudent to chose another location, because the far right wing has seized on the issue as an occasion for fanning hatred against Muslims.
First of all, this Sharia pushing Imam has made no such admissions. What we have here is Ebert giving him the benefit of the doubt, a benefit he doe not extend to conservative Americans. Secondly it is interesting to note the tone Ebert has in his first point and this, his third point. In his first point Ebert scolds Americans for not being sensitive to the Muslims needs for their mosque project. In his third does he scold the Muslims for not being sensitive to Americans who might be angered that a mosque is being built within striking distance of a place that Muslims killed three thousand people? Nope, Ebert instead scolds right-wing Americans for making of this mosque a political issue. The Muslims are innocent as a lamb as far as Ebert is concerned. Quite despite that the very name of the project, Cordoba House, implicitly invokes an historical Muslim victory over westerners in 8th century Spain when Muslims invaded and took over that country.
But, no, Ebert blames Americans as he always does.
Point four is a real gymnast’s twist. Ebert thinks that a “buried motive” for attacking the Ground Zero Mosque, a project he graciously calls the “Park51″ project, is that evil Americans think Obama is a Muslim. How this mosque became about Obama is anybody’s guess. But Ebert knows that evil right-wingers are only attacking the mosque because they want to “get” Obama. Never mind the fact that America had been outraged by the GZ Mosque for at least a week before Obama even opened his mouth — and inserted his foot — about the matter. Nope Ebert’s left-wing talking points have to make this all about our Imam in Chief.
… and you are a racist if you say otherwise, I guess?
Point five is right on. He finally was able to address a point without all the incoherent left-wing extremism souring it. He says that like being pregnant, you can’t be only “a little free.”
On to point seven because we dealt with his hate-filled rant against Palin already. Aaannnd… as it happens his point seven is no point at all. He says nothing in it to even consider it a “point.” All he does is ramble about how much he hates Fox News.
On to point eight:
In point eight Ebert simply makes things up. “A meme is infecting our society that Muslims are terrorists and hate America; they are the enemy,” he says. Really? Who is saying that all Muslims are terrorists and hate America? There is a difference to feeling that almost all terrorists today are Muslim — which is a true statement — and all Muslims are terrorists. No one thinks “all Muslims are terrorists.” But, what do we have here really? What we have is Roger Ebert promulgating the very meme he pretends to decry. It is called the strawman argument. Set up a false premise and then bat it down with righteous indignation. Way to go Rog.
Aside from point five, point nine is the only other point that is on topic.
Ebert wraps up with the tenth in his rant claiming that Americans are too stupid to know what is really being planned for the Ground Zero Mosque. Ebert puts on the shine to the mosque project claiming that it’s really just a “community center” and that a “retail mall” is what is really going on at Ground Zero. But the fact is that debris of one of the planes that hit the Towers also hit the building that the mosque builders want to tear down for their project. So, it really is Ground Zero.
And finally, of the fact that this mosque will be so close to Ground Zero as to encompase the killing grounds of 9/11, Ebert thinks this is great. “What might have been more appropriate?” he asks.
Ebert thinks it could be very “appropriate” that a mosque is close enough to be touching the killing grounds of the victims of Islam. Say, how about building a Nazi headquarters building right next to Auschwitz? Sound good? Or maybe we can build a museum to the greatness of Stalin over the top of one of his Gulags? I know, how about we build a nice, glowing homage to Timothy McVeigh right next to the bombing site he made so famous in Oklahoma City? Would those be “appropriate” Mr. Ebert?
In the end what we have here is Roger Ebert putting on his hate for his fellow Americans, excusing those that would stand against her, and rolling out one left-wing trope after another.
I won’t be the first or the last to relate to this left-wing hack that he should stick with the fluff of movies and leave the real thinking to those more equipped for the effort.
**Update** to correct information on the construction of a mall at Ground Zero.