NPR Book Critic Lauds the Election of Obama as Proof of 'Overwhelming Tolerance'

Photo of Tim Graham.
  • Bookmark and Share

National Public Radio’s website has a section called "Books We Like," and NPR is unafraid to declare it likes books that please the hard left. NPR book critic Simon Maxwell Apter lauded a book on white supremacists called Blood and Politics by the author Leonard Zeskind, a man who recently declared on Pacifica Radio that Sean Hannity and Pat Buchanan offer "a rational sense of justification" to hardened racists. Apter revealed that he liked not only the book, but the election of Barack Obama:

The recent murder of a security guard at D.C.'s Holocaust museum reminds us that racial and religious fanaticism live on in the U.S. But thankfully, while a handful of bigots are still grumbling on about the South's loss of the Civil War, the tyranny of "ZOG" (the "Zionist Occupied Government" currently reigning in Washington) and the "eight Jewish families" who "own" the Federal Reserve, some 70 million others have, in a testament to the overwhelming tolerance of contemporary American society, gone ahead and elected Barack Obama president.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

The NPR bio of Apter touts his left-wing publishing credentials: "Simon Maxwell Apter is assistant editor at Lapham's Quarterly, where he also runs the Web site. His commentaries and reviews have appeared in The Nation, The Guardian, The American Prospect, and the San Francisco Chronicle. He is also a frequent contributor to The Huffington Post."

Most of NPR.org’s "Books We Like" are works of fiction. The last nonfiction book touted before Zeskind’s was D.D. Guttenplan’s "valentine" to radical journalist I.F. Stone. It came with the headline "Journalism’s Courageous, Cantankerous Hero." (Conservatives might use the headline "The Viet Cong’s Cantankerous Hero.") Cornell professor Glenn Altschuler offered the Stone tribute:

Stone declared the war in Vietnam all but lost as early as 1963, and a year later speculated that the attack on the U.S.S. Maddox that precipitated the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution might well have been provoked by the United States.

Guttenplan recognizes that Stone's claim to the title "first blogger" has become "a cyber-space cliche." But, he adds perceptively, banishment from the corridors of power after the anti-communist hysteria of the 1950s saved Stone — and his subscribers — from mere punditry. [His newsletter] I.F. Stone's Weekly became legendary for grounding opinion in hard and trustworthy information.

Well-researched and gracefully written, An American Radical gets inside the head and heart of a courageous and cantankerous reporter with a "street-wise, lapel grabbing" signature style. With newspapers on life support these days, Guttenplan's paean to investigative journalism and one of its boldest practitioners is sure to make some of his readers nostalgic for a return to the Stone Age.

Altschuler didn't touch on the conservative argument from the Soviet archives that Stone was not only pro-Soviet, but at one time was a Soviet spy.

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Tolerance

And Obama is showing overwhelming tolerance of the 7th century, Iranian mass murdering, homicidal maniacs called "mullahs". The butchered girl named Neda??, ahh, umm er, well, NOT SO MUCH.

are you?

I'm not really surprised. How could we possibly have known he was really a mooslim at heart? The State Run Media would have no part in any investigative journalism when it would possibly tarnish the chosen one. Get ready. Next in line, he will dictate everyone bow to mecca.

Apparently NPR hasn't

Apparently NPR hasn't gotten the memo from the race pimps that this doesn't change anything....

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.  -Bart Simpson

 

Some of these things are just like the others.... dum de dum...

The following is very clear.

"The recent murder of a security guard at D.C.'s Holocaust museum reminds us that racial and religious fanaticism live on in the U.S. But thankfully, while a handful of bigots are still grumbling on about the South's loss of the Civil War, the tyranny of "ZOG" (the "Zionist Occupied Government" currently reigning in Washington) and the "eight Jewish families" who "own" the Federal Reserve, some 70 million others have, in a testament to the overwhelming tolerance of contemporary American society, gone ahead and elected Barack Obama president." 

 Gee, so the first handful of words is an apt descrition of anyone who didn't vote for Prz Obama?  That would be me?

OK, this is what Liberals are working so hard to paint the Republican Party members as racial and religious fanaticism living on in the US?

Instead of competing in the arena of ideas, these folks have to paint dissenters from their really sick point of view as being a handful of bigots.  He wasn't talking about neo-Nazis here and wasn't talking about White Supremist Gangs; he was talking about all the people who didn't vote for Obama.

Clever but incredibly shallow.

ACA 

...

Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)

Are you suggesting that only

Are you suggesting that only a handful of people did not vote for Obama.  I believe the margins were a bit closer than you suggest. 

No, bedmondson, I'm now suggesting you can't read.

Try to follow this:

1.  I'm suggesting a great number of the people who are self-declared Liberals are mentally arrested development cases with low IQ's.  I said nothing about the people who voted for Obama as a Universe of voters.  I imply, I think correctly, that of the people who voted for Obama, many (I don't know the exact number but through extrapolation of Census I would guess about 25%) have serious issues with cognitive skills.

2.  You have proven this by your post.  It is an emperical proof and you've just added to the database.

Thank you..

ACA

...

Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)

huh?

You make no reference to liberals cognitive skills and infact imply at the end of your post that they are 
"Clever but incredibly shallow."

bedmondson - this is tiresome. And useless. ACA

What I said was:

"Instead of competing in the arena of ideas, these folks have to paint dissenters from their really sick point of view as being a handful of bigots. He wasn't talking about neo-Nazis here and wasn't talking about White Supremist Gangs; he was talking about all the people who didn't vote for Obama."

Clever but incredibly shallow."

The statement defines a sordid group of malcontents who nobody in their right minds would wish to be associated.  Then the statement jumps over and calls Obama's voters tolerant.  Lipstick on a pig.  The statement really defines bigots twice, so I didn't bother to reference the first definition as it was redundent.  A bigot is a bigot, regardless of how many ways or times one defines it for their point.

The statement by inference then basically calls everyone who did not vote for Obama intolerant bigots.  I disagree.

I know this is hard for you, but it is quite clear:

The logic shown in the statement is as follows:

All dogs have four legs.

Some tables have four legs.

Some tables are dogs.

This logical fallicy is indicitative of a shallow mind.  Liberals conflate these type of statements all the time.  Obama is doing it presently by tacitly accepting the praise that his speech in Cairo caused changes in Lebanon and is currently the basis for changes that may or may not play out in Iran.

People who are Liberals suffer from cognitive deficiency which I believe is a result of arrested development and room temperature IQ.

I'll not bother to try to explain this further as I see it is like trying to explain the magic of electricity to a savage.

ACA

 

...

Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)

From one savage to another,

From one savage to another, don't be so sure about your analogy.

Also I never once disagreed with the premise of your arguement, especially about how much of the population are cognitively impared. I would go farther and say over half the population has low IQs, did Bush not get elected two times? Next time, take a breath and read what people say. Here you are explaining electricity to a savage and I was only pointing out a few weak details in your statement. But since you are so evolved (intelligently designed) I guess there is not point in a savage even reading your posts.

Please add this to your "database" as imperical proof. (One more note, I believe you mean to be interpolating not extrapolating).

No, I meant extrapolating.

And that was a cute picture.  Took you a while to find that, I suppose.

Your snarky intelligently designed comment is moronic.

The logical construct shown was an example of a logical fallicy.  Not an analogy. 

You have no idea how you come across, do you?

ACA 

...

Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)

Since you asked, I don't

Since you asked, I don't really know how I come across to other people but I hope to appear to be an irreverent troll who always goes against the conventional wisdom of what ever is being espoused.  Also, I understand this website is your life but calm down! No need to to be infering about other people's intelligence just when you do not agree.  You are probably like four times older than me so give me a break.

bed,pmdspm - here's your break - ACA

1.  Grow up.

2.  Play with the Big Dogs, get the Big Dog treatment.  Either start doing your own research or go back to the puppies.

3.  If you look at my history of posting on this site, I've probably posted more in the last three days than I have in the past three years.

4.  You aren't stupid, but you need to understand that if you want to discuss physics with a physicist - then read a book.

ACA 

...

Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)

WOOF WOOF!!

Now this is definitely going in my database.  Thanks for the lecture Professor Big Dog.

Irreverent troll?

Bad word choice, fella.

Irrelevant was the proper word in this context.  Be sure to look these things up before you post.  Spellcheck wouldn't hurt, either.

We need a better class of troll, here. ©

 

I hope he fails, too.

 

 

Now, you can't be serious.

Now, you can't be serious. First of all I can not believe you are acting as a spelling nazi for dumb blog posts.  Second, should you maybe have looked up the word yourself before assuming you know all the words in the english dictionary?  Irrelevant is not the word I was looking for. I am not suggesting that I am irrelevant (I probably am) but I am suggesting that I am irreverent.  Got it?

irreverent:  lacking proper respect or seriousness

Maybe you are taking the whole "blonde" thing a little to far. 

He he he, junior

I got you to bite on such an old troll-bait.  Such an amateur.  You type "Nazi"....you lose. 

Poor little noob.....seriously, it's sad when things fly right over your silly little head, isn't it?  If you don't understand, I suppose any of a dozen posters would be happy to explain my numerous (and subtle) points to you.

If you are confused, feel free to ask.

You will find, little noob, that I alway use the exact word I mean to use. Irrelevant....bedmondson....irrelevant.

 

I hope he fails, too.

 

 

I forget I am talking to

I forget I am talking to people who think the internet is a "bunch of tubes."  Spelling nazi is a term widely used outside of this liberal/conservative debate and is not used in the context you are thinking of.  I am not calling you a nazi which you would know if you were as immature as me.  I understand that you quick to jump on that word because people always sink to level of calling each other nazis when they have no good point, like Bill Orielly always does.  

I enjoy your sadness to me being a noob with a silly little head but do not feel too sad. The longer I am here the more wisdom I might gain from such relevant people such as yourself.

Keep thrashing

You have no idea how amusing it is.

 

I hope he fails, too.

 

 

Meoooow! Looks like we have

Meoooow! Looks like we have a cougar loose on NB.  I will keep on thrashing until your finished baby.  

That's the best you've got?

Dog and cat sounds?

Pathetic.

I hope he fails, too.

 

 

And finally we agree! 

And finally we agree! 

The left is only tolerant

The left is only tolerant of people who share their views and race mongers like those on NPR are evidence to that.

 

When the people fear the government it's called tyranny, when the government fears the people it's called liberty!

Agreed

Look at what the left says and does to women and minorities who are conservative, or the thug tactics they employ to get their way, or their misuse of the Constitution to squelch free expression of religion while establishing another "religion" - atheism - as the state religion.

And I wonder how long these glowing praises of "tolerance" will last since Obama's approval ratings have been in a steady decline since his inauguration.  Today, Rasmussen has his Strongly Approve/Strongly Disapprove Index at zero.  The past two days, it's been -1 to -2.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

Its telling when Republicans

Its telling when Republicans get so upset about a book on the White Nationalist Movement.

#1 fishing rule:

Refresh bait often.

Really?

Why is that?  Could it be because it's nothing but lies?  And, in fact, two of the most bigoted spewers of hate in contemporary culture - the Holocaust Museum Shooter and Fred Phelps - have more in common with the DNC than the GOP.

All the attempts by the media to paint all conservatives and Republicans (two different things) as racist nut jobs is the same as someone reporting that your father was a drunken drug addict, your mother a prostitute, then telling you not to be upset when they allude to your being a pedophile.

I oppose Obama and his policies not because he's black.  I, frankly, wouldn't care if his skin were magenta or chartruse.  What I care about is the color of his policies and politics, and they are very, very deep red.  He is doing things that threaten my freedom, my children's financial future, and my ability to earn and provide for my children and family.  People who think disagreement = racism are clearly struggling with some cognitive issue.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

I don't know how sheltered

I don't know how sheltered everyone is on this site but go and visit
sites like stormfront and others and you will see quickly that these hate groups
do exist and are very active.  I have read the review of that book and still do not see where it says all that did not vote for Obama are racist nut jobs.  It says there are racist nut jobs out there, which I guess you disagree with.

You're the one who implied

You're the one who implied that Republicans, not necessarily all those who didn't vote for Obama (but they're basically the same thing) when you said

Its telling when Republicans get so upset about a book on the White Nationalist Movement.

So you're the one making the implication that all Republicans are somehow connected to the White Nationalist Movement (because we wouldn't be upset about this book if we weren't), along with every media outlet that's blamed Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and any other conservative figure for both the murder of George Tiller and the shooting at the National Holocaust Museum...and we're not supposed to be upset about that?

I don't disagree that there are nutjobs out there of every stripe.  However, I do disagree that it is only conservative points of view (including conservative media like talk radio, blogs, and FoxNews) that cause people to go absolutely crazy. I don't visit sites like the ones you mention because I don't support or agree with their agendas, even if they claim we have things in common.

No better example is the coverage of those recent high-profile events.  The guy who killed George Tiller wasn't a lone nutjob - he was a pro-lifer so all pro-lifers are responsible for Tiller's death.  Yet the guy who killed a military recruiter in Arkansas, who was a professed Muslim and planned more deaths, was a lone actor not influenced by Islam and it's teachings on jihad.  Von Brunn was a neo-Nazi who hated Jews, Christians, and others and believed 9/11 was an inside job, all things that sound more like leftist talking points...but Von Brunn was painted as a "Christian right winger" and the same people who killed George Tiller were responsible for Von Brunn's actions.

So which is it?  Are there small sects of nut jobs out there who take any movement to extremes?  Or do all nut jobs act solely because talk radio and conservatives made them?

That's what I disagree with.  And anytime anyone tries to equate me - a conservative, pro-life Catholic Christian - and those I know with the small sects of nutjobs because our beliefs aren't politically correct, I'm going to stand up and defend myself.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

Sheesh

We need a better class of troll, here. ©

I hope he fails, too.

 

 

And the thought-free post

And the thought-free post of the week goes to...

"The recent murder of a

"The recent murder of a security guard at D.C.'s Holocaust museum reminds us that racial and religious fanaticism live on in the U.S. But thankfully, while a handful of bigots" My gut feeling is that they are assuming that Von Brunn was a "religious" man, which he was not. I am also concerned that their definition of "religious fanaticism" is to broad and is solely pointed at Christians. The left speaks of tolerance, but does not practice it, notice that the intolerance they speak of is only coming from the right, no mention of the intolerance of coming from the left.

You're absolutely

You're absolutely correct.  In fact, Von Brunn was almost as hostile toward Christians as he was toward Jews, blaming Christianity for the fall of the Roman Empire.

And, yes, "religious fanaticism" doesn't include, say, Muslims who regularly engage in acts of terrorism but is designed to encompass all Christians.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

Pretty sad how the only reason why Hannity is

...being called a racist now is because he stood up to Obama.

See, if you oppose Obama...snap!...you're a racist! As a recovered Liberal, I know first hand how this works, as I've been called a racist on every Liberal blog there is because I supported Hillary during the Democrat primary. What an eye opener that experience was, as the Liberals proved on a daily basis every negative thing that conservatives have been saying about them. It's also why I changed my registration form Democrat to Independant, and why I no longer read far left blogs.

So wear your racist badge with honor there Sean Hannity. 

So those of us who didn't

So those of us who didn't vote for Obama are intolerant?   

It couldn't possibly be because of his senatorial voting record revealing a leftist ideologue.  It couldn't possibly be because he failed so offer enough substance during his campaign.  It couldn't possibly be because of his questionable personal and political associations.

No, it's simply the color of his skin.  Silly me, what would I do without the left telling me how to think?

If there's on thing

If there's on thing liberals are good at, it's being tolerant. Especially toward conservatives.

/sarcasm

The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy