Truly, martyrdom is in the eye of the beholder.

and yeah, Millennials are the worst when they wont let Iraq War architects bask in glory, http://t.co/U3KS29m9Jr pic.twitter.com/d0iRUeA5c9

— Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) May 14, 2014

Lots of tsk-tsking about graduates protesting commencement speakers. Lots of punditing about “college is about listening to other viewpoints blah blah blah.” But we’re not talking about classwork; we’re talking about commencement. The “education” part of the program is over. This is a celebration for the graduates, not an extension of American History 304.

And I realized today I do not remember who spoke at my graduation from the University of Missouri, class of 304 BC. Not a clue. All I remember was that my parents were there and us J-School grads were cutting up through the whole ceremony. Great fun. I’m not even sure there was a speaker; I just assume there must have been. But, y’know, that’s how it ought to be. Once in a great while somebody gives a genuinely memorable commencement address. Most of the time the speech is just something you have to sit through so you feel properly commenced, and then you can get together with your family and go out to dinner.

But I understand not wanting to sit through a speech you find genuinely odious. If my commencement speaker had been Henry Kissinger, say, I’m sure I’d remember the day much less fondly.

So I am not the least bit bothered by the fact that Condi Rice isn’t the speaker at the Rutgers commencement this year. And whoever invited her was an idiot who ought to be reprimanded, if not fired.

I realize it’s probably difficult to find a speaker who won’t piss off somebody, but that doesn’t mean you might as well get someone broadly considered to be a disgrace to humanity; nay, vertebrae. If you can’t find somebody who has accomplished something praiseworthy, then get somebody entertaining. How hard is that?

If Rice had been invited to give a talk to some foreign policy graduate class, that might be different, especially if she agreed to answer questions. I assume anything she might say would be self-serving bullshit, but I could be wrong. And like her or not, she is a real historical figure whose work had real-world consequences. I also think it’s important for historians to study pro-slavery arguments of the antebellum South and the intellectual basis of the development of fascism in Europe, because we need to fully appreciate how bad stuff happens. If we could reanimate Jefferson Davis I’d certainly be interested in what he had to say for himself, even if I think it was morally repugnant. But in a class, not at a commencement.

Studying Condi Rice is one thing; honoring her is something else.

I also don’t blame Haverford students for protesting Robert J. Birgeneau, who as chancellor of UC Berkeley during the Occupy demonstrations chose to support the police instead of the students. On the other hand I’m not sure Christine Lagarde of the IMF deserves all the vitriol thrown at her by Smith students, and I’m not sure they are objecting to her as much as to the IMF. But I am heartened that students are questioning The Establishment, in all its many forms. That’s an important part of the college experience, too.

I’m disappointed in Timothy Egan for writing this:

In that sense, the lefty thought police at Smith, Haverford and Rutgers share one thing with the knuckle-dragging hard right in Oklahoma: They’re afraid of hearing something that might spoil a view of the world they’ve already figured out.

If Rice, Birgeneau and Lagarde were outsiders who never had a chance to explain themselves in news media and books and many other venues, Egan might have an argument. But they aren’t. These are all people who are or have been in positions of power, and they have been heard plenty and have many ways at their disposal to being heard some more. They are not “silenced.” As Steve M says, “the fact is that millennials can’t silence people with whom they disagree. You may choose not to listen to warmongers in the federal government or policymakers at the IMF, but, even if you’re a millennial, you’ll have to live in the world they make.”

In other words, the graduates have their whole lives ahead of them to listen to powerful people spout self-serving bullshit, and most of the time they’re not going to have a choice about it or a means to answer back. I say whenever you do have a chance to tell them to bleep off, take it.

Regarding this weekend’s planned coup d’etat, I bring you this quote —

Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance. A mass movement offers them unlimited opportunities for both. — Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (1951)

In The Book (Rethinking Religion: Finding a Place for Religion in a Modern, Tolerant, Progressive, Peaceful and Science-affirming World) I turn to this quote several times in discussing mass movements and religious violence. It seems to me that the holy cause/fanatical grievance combination is at the center of just about any violent mass movement I can think of, whether political, religious or other.

For example, when people hear about violence perpetrated by a religious faction there’s a common assumption that religious doctrine is somehow at the center of the animosity, that I think that is rarely the case. This is especially true on the “fanatical grievance” side of the equation. The roots of the Islamic jihadist “fanatical grievance” have more to do with history, culture and politics than with Islam, for example.

In the book I devote a large part of a chapter looking at violence being perpetrated by Buddhists, including monks, in Burma (Myanmar) and Sri Lanka. These violent mass movements make a particularly good case for my theory, because there is absolutely, positively no justification for what they are doing in Buddhist doctrine. The Buddha was far more uncompromising about not causing violence than were the various authors of the Bible, for example. There is some limited allowance for self-defense, but being an aggressor in a violent situation is a clear violation of the dharma. Yet there are Burmese and Sinhalese Buddhist monks fomenting violence and declaring they are doing it to “defend Buddhism” in their overwhelmingly Buddhist countries. To understand where this is coming from you have to look at history, politics and culture (which I do, in the book).

Note that a “holy cause” doesn’t have to be religious. Nationalism and patriotism will do, especially when mixed into belief in the presumed virtue of racial or ethnic purity.

Another common factor in violent and/or totalitarian mass movements is a kind of messianic worldview, or a belief that current struggles will lead to a glorious destiny. This doesn’t have to involve religious doctrine; you can see messianism in the communist and fascist movements of the 20th century. Where religion is present it can act as a kind of accelerant, however. When people believe their cause is not only just but holy, it’s a lot easier to light the fuse or pull the trigger.

The point is that, as absurd as the “American Spring/Bundy Ranch” crew might be, all the violence factors are present. And I don’t see anything on the horizon that is likely to discourage them. Even assuming the May 16 coup d’etat is a dud, they’re likely to keep trying.

What they lack, which is notable, is some genuinely charismatic and articulate leader who is smart enough, or at least tethered to reality enough, to organize these clowns and grow the movement beyond fringe status. I think Ted Cruz could fill that role, if he wanted it, although I suspect even he realizes that if the public ties him to right-wing domestic terrorism he can kiss his political career goodbye. However, that could change in the future. And if it ain’t Ted, it could be somebody else who steps up. We’ve been lucky so far.

Even without a charismatic leader, barring unforeseen developments I suspect the anti-government militia movement will grow increasingly violent as participants become increasingly frustrated. We can’t assume they’re just going to go away.

Along these lines, do see “Spitting, Stalking, Rape Threats: How Gun Extremists Target Women.” It’s interesting that a common factor in fundamentalist religious movements is an obsession with keeping women under control and thoroughly subjugated. Here we see gun rights extremists targeting women who oppose them. It may be this is because more women than men are stepping up to oppose them, but one wonders if there isn’t something else going on with them than merely feeling opposed.

Here’s some more information on this weekend’s coup d’etat — I must say, it’s sporting of them to give advance notice. Apparently the patriots intend to patriotically carry firearms within the District, which I kinda doubt District cops will overlook.

Here’s a round up of the story thus far. Also it may be that the joy riders who illegally rode ATVs in Recapture Canyon will face charges.

The Kindle Edition is published!

This may be one of the best things Jon Stewart ever did. Be sure to watch to the end:

That hashtag, in case you missed it, is #F*@KYOURUSH .

I had noticed the Right was absolutely enraged by the photo of the FLOTUS holding a sign with the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls. Mark Steyn wrote a post called #BringBackOurBalls that was just plain twisted. As in over-the-top projective vomit. I refuse to link to the thing; you can google for it if you want to read it. Steyne is disgusted by the photo, but he can’t say what else the FLOTUS is supposed to do about the kidnapped Nigerian girl, other than send in special forces, or SOMETHING. Like a FLOTUS has the power to order special forces around.

Ultimately, Steyn’s problem seems to be that Michelle Obama exists.

Ann Coulter piled on, but it backfired a tad. Heh.

Bobby Jindal wants you to know the evil Obama Administration hates America.

Today the American people, whether they know it or not, are mired in a silent war.

It threatens the fabric of our communities, the health of our public square, and the endurance of our constitutional governance.

It is a war against the propositions in the Declaration of Independence.

It is a war against the spirit that motivated abolitionism.

It is a war against the faith that motivated the Civil Rights struggle.

It is a war against the soul of countless acts of charity.

It is a war against the conscience that drives social change.

It is a war against the heart that binds our neighborhoods together.

It is a war against America’s best self, at America’s best moments.

It is a war — a silent war — against religious liberty.

…

This war is waged in our courts and in the halls of political power. It is pursued with grim and relentless determination by a group of like-minded elites, determined to transform the country from a land sustained by faith — into a land where faith is silenced, privatized, and circumscribed.

Wow, that’s really awful. What is the awful terrible government doing to oppress religion?

First, the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate. The Obama Administration has taken the position that private, for-profit companies cannot claim a religious exemption from including birth control as part of their employee benefit packages.

Second, the HGTV Cable network — HG stands for “home and garden” — dropped plans to produce a program hosted by twin brothers David and Jason Benham. The brothers were to have helped poor people turn a “fixer upper” into a nice home. Then it came out that the brothers and their father, Fiip Benham, had a history of right-wing extremist activism that includes lots of loud hate speech aimed at homosexuals and those who support abortion rights. HGTV dropped plans for the program, no doubt to protects its politics-free brand. This episode proves, Jindal said, that “The modern Left in America is completely intolerant of the views of people of faith. They want a completely secular society where people of faith keep their views to themselves.”

It would probably surprise HGTV that they are representatives of the “modern Left.” But no one is stopping the Benhams from saying what ever they like.

And finally, Jindal is still angry about the “Duck Dynasty” guy, who suffered no ill effects from saying stupid things that pissed off a lot of people. I think Bobby feels left out he missed being fed to lions in an arena.