Latest Newspaper Column- The Pilot
Several people have asked me, with varying degrees of courtesy, "So when are you going to write something about Egypt?"
Problem is, every time I sit down to write about the situation there, something new happens. That's always the challenge with a story like this: The stuff I turn in by my deadline may be as obsolete as an eight-track tape by Sunday when you read it.
I had, for example, already written and e-mailed a column wondering whether Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was going to resign. Then he did it. Which leads us to the inevitable question: What now?
On one of the more surreal episodes of the TV Show "South Park," there were these creatures called the Underpants Gnomes, whom one of the minor characters blamed for sneaking into his room and stealing his underwear.
All of the other kids thought he was nuts, until it turned out that there actually were gnomes stealing underwear, and, being gnomes, they hoped to make money off it. Unfortunately, the gnomes' business plan was more than a little vague, in that it consisted of three steps. Step One: Collect underpants. Step Two: ??? Step Three: Profit!
A lot of the pontificating about Egypt during this uprising has reminded me of the Underpants Gnomes. The "plans" I've been hearing seem to be, basically - Step One: Mubarak leaves and takes his corrupt cronies with him. Step Two: ??? Step Three: Democracy!
I wish it was that easy. Now that Mubarak seems to have seen the light and headed for the beach, probably with his suitcases full of bullion, I sincerely hope we see free and fair elections, leading to an open, transparent, and democratic government that's benevolent to its people, as well as peaceful towards its neighbors and toward the U.S.
I also hope that John Grisham will read one of my books and tell his publisher, "Hey, this Rhoades guy's the true and honest voice that American fiction has been looking for. Give him a seven-figure contract or I walk." I'm not, however, making all my plans on the assumption that either one is going to happen.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no Mubarak fan. I didn't shed a tear when he announced that he didn't intend to run again in one of the rigged elections that have kept him in power all these years. The guy's a thug who imprisons and tortures political opponents. The people who were advocating that we prop up Mubarak on the grounds that "he may be an s.o.b, but he's our s.o.b." seem to have forgotten that history has not been particularly kind to that doctrine.
But the people insisting that the American president needs to "manage" this situation, while armchair-quarterbacking every decision, are just as blind to the lessons of history. The situation is complicated further by the lack of a clear opposition leader. Every time someone seems to be rising to that position, like Nobel laureate Mohammad El-Baradei or former Google exec Wael Ghonim, I read a dozen interviews with protesters claiming, "He doesn't speak for us; this is a popular uprising."
Well, that's fine. I'm all for people taking to the streets to demand their rights. But then, who do they plan to run in these open elections we all hope for? With no clear opponent, and the looming specter of a nation of 80 million-plus people with no one at the helm, Mubarak appears to have delegated authority to the military.
Lovely. I'm just hoping we haven't seen the fall of one strongman who'll just be replaced by another. Toppling a dictator is great, but revolutions can quickly turn messy and unpredictable, and they don't always lead to a free society. Ask the French. Or the Russians.
Mubarak is gone, and that's unquestionably good for the people of Egypt. But now they, and we, need to move carefully and thoughtfully. The path between dictatorship and democracy isn't a paved road. It's a tightrope, especially in the Middle East, a place where so many of the West's good intentions (and a fair amount of our bad ones) have gone badly awry.
Frustrating as it may be, there may be little that we, or anyone outside Egypt, can do to influence what happens, other than encourage the forces of reform and wish them luck.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Sunday, February 06, 2011
Commercials I Just Don't Get, Redux
Latest Newspaper Column: The Pilot
I've mentioned before how I just don't seem to be on the same wavelength as the people who make TV commercials. Maybe I'm just not hip enough, but there are some that leave me scratching my head and trying to figure out, "How or why is this -supposed to make me want this product?"
Take, for instance, the commercial for the cell phone company where the blank-faced woman stuffs her child into a pet carrier to get the child on a plane cheap, explaining to the audience with a creepy lack of emotion that she needs to save money to pay her cell phone charges.
She's then accosted by a pair of equally creepy baggage handlers who look and speak like aliens who are trying to pass as human and failing badly at it. They tell the woman she can get cheap phone service from their company, before further confirming their alienness by failing to realize that the person speaking from inside the tiny cage is a human child and not a talking dog.
The same company used to run an ad where two talking pigs were enjoying a large plate of ham in a restaurant, explaining that what they're doing isn't as wrong as -paying high cell phone bills. Apparently, there's an ad agency out there that thinks child abuse, cannibalism and creepy humanoids are a hilarious way to peddle cell phone service.
I do not want to meet these people. Ever.
On the subject of phones, I'm glad that Apple's iPhone is soon going to start working with Verizon's phone network. But that ad with all the ticking clocks and people watching them, tapping their fingers, anxiously awaiting the exact second when they can have a choice of which company drops their calls, does not make me want to get either an iPhone or Verizon's service. It makes me want to tell these people they really need to get a life.
Then there's the commercial for McDonald's coffee in which the young hipster-looking dude with the scruffy beard rudely and repeatedly tells everyone, including a passing dog, "Don't even talk to me before I've had my coffee."
Look, I like my cup of coffee in the morning. I like it more than just about anyone I know. And I have to say, Mickey D's makes a surprisingly good cup of Java. But I've got to tell you, this commercial does -nothing except make me want to smack that guy in his pretentious hipster face. Think you're too good to talk to people in the morning, you little douchebag? Well, have a little talk with the back of my hand.
Also, I'd like to say a word or two about those Hyundai commercials where everyone who's not driving a Hyundai is a sheep. Hey, Hyundai? Here's a news flash. You don't make me want to buy your car by being smug and condescending. Just the opposite, in fact.
Oh, and here's a message to the folks at Charmin: those commercials for toilet tissue with the bears in the woods? We got the joke a long time ago, guys. Bears. Bodily functions. Woods. Really, we get it. It's just tiresome now, when it's not gross. Let it go.
While we're at it, let's face facts: Chester the Cheetos Cheetah has jumped the shark. He was kind of amusing when he was inciting put-upon young women to exact revenge. But when he starts enticing grown men into forts made out of mattresses, it's more than a little disturbing.
And what's the deal with the commercial where Chester and a female music store employee are tormenting another employee - who is, it should be noted, actually eating Cheetos - by playing "Chopsticks" over and over? What message does this send? "Eat our product and we'll still be a jerk to you"? It's almost enough to make me want to boycott Cheetos. Almost.
Tonight is, of course, the Super Bowl, which, among many other things, is the time when advertisers roll out a whole bunch of new commercials.
I probably won't get most of them, either.
I've mentioned before how I just don't seem to be on the same wavelength as the people who make TV commercials. Maybe I'm just not hip enough, but there are some that leave me scratching my head and trying to figure out, "How or why is this -supposed to make me want this product?"
Take, for instance, the commercial for the cell phone company where the blank-faced woman stuffs her child into a pet carrier to get the child on a plane cheap, explaining to the audience with a creepy lack of emotion that she needs to save money to pay her cell phone charges.
She's then accosted by a pair of equally creepy baggage handlers who look and speak like aliens who are trying to pass as human and failing badly at it. They tell the woman she can get cheap phone service from their company, before further confirming their alienness by failing to realize that the person speaking from inside the tiny cage is a human child and not a talking dog.
The same company used to run an ad where two talking pigs were enjoying a large plate of ham in a restaurant, explaining that what they're doing isn't as wrong as -paying high cell phone bills. Apparently, there's an ad agency out there that thinks child abuse, cannibalism and creepy humanoids are a hilarious way to peddle cell phone service.
I do not want to meet these people. Ever.
On the subject of phones, I'm glad that Apple's iPhone is soon going to start working with Verizon's phone network. But that ad with all the ticking clocks and people watching them, tapping their fingers, anxiously awaiting the exact second when they can have a choice of which company drops their calls, does not make me want to get either an iPhone or Verizon's service. It makes me want to tell these people they really need to get a life.
Then there's the commercial for McDonald's coffee in which the young hipster-looking dude with the scruffy beard rudely and repeatedly tells everyone, including a passing dog, "Don't even talk to me before I've had my coffee."
Look, I like my cup of coffee in the morning. I like it more than just about anyone I know. And I have to say, Mickey D's makes a surprisingly good cup of Java. But I've got to tell you, this commercial does -nothing except make me want to smack that guy in his pretentious hipster face. Think you're too good to talk to people in the morning, you little douchebag? Well, have a little talk with the back of my hand.
Also, I'd like to say a word or two about those Hyundai commercials where everyone who's not driving a Hyundai is a sheep. Hey, Hyundai? Here's a news flash. You don't make me want to buy your car by being smug and condescending. Just the opposite, in fact.
Oh, and here's a message to the folks at Charmin: those commercials for toilet tissue with the bears in the woods? We got the joke a long time ago, guys. Bears. Bodily functions. Woods. Really, we get it. It's just tiresome now, when it's not gross. Let it go.
While we're at it, let's face facts: Chester the Cheetos Cheetah has jumped the shark. He was kind of amusing when he was inciting put-upon young women to exact revenge. But when he starts enticing grown men into forts made out of mattresses, it's more than a little disturbing.
And what's the deal with the commercial where Chester and a female music store employee are tormenting another employee - who is, it should be noted, actually eating Cheetos - by playing "Chopsticks" over and over? What message does this send? "Eat our product and we'll still be a jerk to you"? It's almost enough to make me want to boycott Cheetos. Almost.
Tonight is, of course, the Super Bowl, which, among many other things, is the time when advertisers roll out a whole bunch of new commercials.
I probably won't get most of them, either.
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
How Can They Believe All That Crap?
Charles Johnson, in his blog post The New Tribalism at TPMCafe, explains how the teabaggers and other wingnuts continue to accept and embrace repeatedly discredited memes that are demonstrably untrue:
Within the tribe there's no need to be concerned with facts or accuracy; if the goal is to demonize a hated opponent, for example, anything and everything goes, including smears known to be false. That's because the objective is not to convince an impartial observer -- it's to reinforce the tribal bonds, the sense of belonging to something, with its own shared reality. That shared reality doesn't have to reflect actual reality; anybody who doesn't share it is by definition not part of the tribe, and therefore an enemy.
So, the next time you hear someone fuming about "death panels" or "Obamanation's Secret Muslim Agenda" or "Government takeover of health care/the financial industry/etc" remember: reason won't work. Reason just shows you're not one of the tribe, you're one of "them," and "they" must be resisted at all costs.
This isn't to say you shouldn't correct try to correct misinformation. People who haven't already made up their minds, the impartial observers Johnson mentions--in other words, people who aren't already part of the "tribe," need to hear it.
But forget trying to convince someone who's already in. To your hard core wingnut, it's not about the truth: it's about the tribe.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
State of the Union
Latest Newspaper Column- The Pilot:
In President Obama’s State of the Union speech this past week, he continued some of the same themes of unity and bipartisanship from his speech in Tucson a couple of weeks ago.
“We are part of the American family,” he said. “We will move forward together, or not at all.”
But the greater challenge may be not just creating a unity of purpose between Republicans and Democrats but getting members of the two parties to get along with the people who are allegedly on their own side.
Rep. Paul Ryan was picked to give the traditional response from the loyal opposition. Ryan’s speech was, like all Republican rhetoric on the deficit, long on exhortations to cut spending but awfully vague on exactly which spending to cut. This may be because Ryan’s own plan, dubbed the “roadmap,” calls for severe cuts in Social Security and the dismantling of Medicare, two huge benefits paid to the GOP’s most loyal constituency: senior citizens.
It’s quite a balancing act the Republicans do. If they really tried to make the cuts that would be required to balance the budget without tax increases, their elderly supporters would storm the Capitol (albeit very slowly) and drag their congressman down the street by the heels behind their little Medicare-funded Rascal scooters.
But then, after Ryan’s response, something unusual happened. CNN broadcast another response from another Republican, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, who claimed to be giving the “tea party” reaction.
You can always depend on Bachmann to bring the crazy, and she didn’t disappoint. She delivered the whole speech staring off camera, as if she couldn’t bear to look the American people in the eye.
As it turns out, she was looking into another camera, the one broadcasting to the tea party faithful via the Internet, which was also the camera with the teleprompter. It seems that teleprompters, like everything else the right claims to despise, are just fine if you’re a Republican.
And what would a speech from Rep. Crazy-Eyes be without a heaping helping of paranoid fantasies and outright fabrications?
Fresh from her interview in which she asserted that the Founding Fathers “worked tirelessly to eradicate slavery,” Bachmann doubled down on the misinformation, repeating frequently debunked claims that “Obamacare” would result in “16,500 IRS agents in charge of policing” the bill and bizarre warnings about “government bureaucrats telling you what light bulbs to buy.”
CNN’s decision to air the speech drew criticism from some Republicans. One aide sent out an e-mail calling it “irresponsible journalism” for CNN to aid Bachmann in her quest to become the GOP’s loosest cannon.
The most surprising criticism, however, came from a tea party group in Bachmann’s home state.
“Please call Michele Bachmann’s office and tell her that she does not speak for the tea party,” the group said in a mass e-mail. “The Tea Party Patriots Organization is a grassroots organization. One person has no right to speak for the whole organization.”
Wow. Too crazy for the tea party. That’s pretty impressive.
On the other side of the aisle, the president got some immediate pushback from his own party. In response to his promise to veto any legislation that arrived on his desk with so-called “earmarks,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sniffed that it was a “great applause line” but that Obama “should back off and let us do what we do.” Which is, apparently, diverting as much government money as possible to their states or districts to keep the voters happy.
It’s another one of those dirty secrets closely held by lawmakers of both parties. Everyone pretends to deplore “pork” or “earmarks” or whatever they’re calling it this year, but every legislator knows their voters won’t keep loving them if they don’t bring some of that federal money home to them. It’s the one thing both parties have always seemed to agree on.
Even Republican Leader Mitch McConnell was resisting a proposed earmark ban until someone from the tea party put a severed horse’s head in his bed or something and caused him to reverse himself, at least in public.
It remains to be seen if this will continue, or if GOP lawmakers will revert to their traditional stance that it’s not “government spending” if the money’s going to their district or their big campaign contributors.
Meanwhile, the two parties continue to squabble, not just with each other, but also among themselves. Maybe what we really need is not just bipartisanship, but multi-partisanship.
In President Obama’s State of the Union speech this past week, he continued some of the same themes of unity and bipartisanship from his speech in Tucson a couple of weeks ago.
“We are part of the American family,” he said. “We will move forward together, or not at all.”
But the greater challenge may be not just creating a unity of purpose between Republicans and Democrats but getting members of the two parties to get along with the people who are allegedly on their own side.
Rep. Paul Ryan was picked to give the traditional response from the loyal opposition. Ryan’s speech was, like all Republican rhetoric on the deficit, long on exhortations to cut spending but awfully vague on exactly which spending to cut. This may be because Ryan’s own plan, dubbed the “roadmap,” calls for severe cuts in Social Security and the dismantling of Medicare, two huge benefits paid to the GOP’s most loyal constituency: senior citizens.
It’s quite a balancing act the Republicans do. If they really tried to make the cuts that would be required to balance the budget without tax increases, their elderly supporters would storm the Capitol (albeit very slowly) and drag their congressman down the street by the heels behind their little Medicare-funded Rascal scooters.
But then, after Ryan’s response, something unusual happened. CNN broadcast another response from another Republican, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, who claimed to be giving the “tea party” reaction.
You can always depend on Bachmann to bring the crazy, and she didn’t disappoint. She delivered the whole speech staring off camera, as if she couldn’t bear to look the American people in the eye.
As it turns out, she was looking into another camera, the one broadcasting to the tea party faithful via the Internet, which was also the camera with the teleprompter. It seems that teleprompters, like everything else the right claims to despise, are just fine if you’re a Republican.
And what would a speech from Rep. Crazy-Eyes be without a heaping helping of paranoid fantasies and outright fabrications?
Fresh from her interview in which she asserted that the Founding Fathers “worked tirelessly to eradicate slavery,” Bachmann doubled down on the misinformation, repeating frequently debunked claims that “Obamacare” would result in “16,500 IRS agents in charge of policing” the bill and bizarre warnings about “government bureaucrats telling you what light bulbs to buy.”
CNN’s decision to air the speech drew criticism from some Republicans. One aide sent out an e-mail calling it “irresponsible journalism” for CNN to aid Bachmann in her quest to become the GOP’s loosest cannon.
The most surprising criticism, however, came from a tea party group in Bachmann’s home state.
“Please call Michele Bachmann’s office and tell her that she does not speak for the tea party,” the group said in a mass e-mail. “The Tea Party Patriots Organization is a grassroots organization. One person has no right to speak for the whole organization.”
Wow. Too crazy for the tea party. That’s pretty impressive.
On the other side of the aisle, the president got some immediate pushback from his own party. In response to his promise to veto any legislation that arrived on his desk with so-called “earmarks,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sniffed that it was a “great applause line” but that Obama “should back off and let us do what we do.” Which is, apparently, diverting as much government money as possible to their states or districts to keep the voters happy.
It’s another one of those dirty secrets closely held by lawmakers of both parties. Everyone pretends to deplore “pork” or “earmarks” or whatever they’re calling it this year, but every legislator knows their voters won’t keep loving them if they don’t bring some of that federal money home to them. It’s the one thing both parties have always seemed to agree on.
Even Republican Leader Mitch McConnell was resisting a proposed earmark ban until someone from the tea party put a severed horse’s head in his bed or something and caused him to reverse himself, at least in public.
It remains to be seen if this will continue, or if GOP lawmakers will revert to their traditional stance that it’s not “government spending” if the money’s going to their district or their big campaign contributors.
Meanwhile, the two parties continue to squabble, not just with each other, but also among themselves. Maybe what we really need is not just bipartisanship, but multi-partisanship.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Addicted to Drama
Latest Newspaper Column
First, a correction. Last week, I wrote that Sen. Rand Paul, son of Congressman Ron Paul, was named after 1950s novelist Ayn Rand, whose long-winded, preachy novels are big among what the tea party likes to think of as its "intellectual" wing. Ron Paul is an avowed fan as well, but Rand is not, it seems, named after her. It's just a coincidence. We regret the error.
Now on to your regularly scheduled column.
My friends, there is an epidemic of addiction sweeping America. It is, I firmly believe, the root cause of the angry and violent rhetoric that everyone's been talking about the past few weeks. This addiction has divided us, polarized us, and damaged our nation.
I'm talking about our addiction to Drama, with a capital D.
We've become a nation of hysterical teenage Drama queens for whom every issue is The Most Important Thing In the World to Me Ever, and every denial or obstacle triggers a tantrum in which it is tearfully asserted that You've Ruined My Life, I Hate You, and I Wish You Were Dead.
To a political Drama addict, everything is a Threat to America's Very Existence. The loss of a Senate election may require an armed insurrection (aka "Second Amendment remedies") to save the Republic from "tyranny," because if "ballots don't work, bullets will." If the presidential candidate you don't like wins the election, he's a "usurper" who's probably not even a real American, and we must fight him to Save the Constitution and Take Our Country Back Before Our Entire Way of Life is Destroyed. A health care bill you don't like means that your special-needs baby may be euthanized by order of shadowy "death panels." And so on.
Sad to say, there are those on the left who seem addicted to Drama as well. (I'm talking about the real Left, not the notch just to the left of center where the president actually resides, and which most right-wingers mistake for the real Left.) In the short time between the election of President Obama and his inauguration, I quit reading some of my favorite blogs in disgust because they were overrun with liberal Drama queens, crying out that there was No Difference Between Obama and Bush, that OMFG We Are Betrayed, and I'll Never Vote for a Democrat Again.
The catalyst for this overwrought opera of betrayal and electoral revenge? The selection of evangelist Rick Warren, who's said ignorant things about gay people, to deliver the invocation at the inauguration ceremony. Hey, I'm not crazy about the guy either, but I wasn't ready to write off Obama's entire presidency before it began over a two-minute prayer.
It's amazing that a country so addicted to Drama in its politics managed to elect as president a man who's famous for his abstinence from that intoxicant. He's made "No Drama" an ironclad rule for his staff. This, you may remember, drew no end of criticism from both right and left during the BP oil spill, when the president of the United States failed to break down and weep or to "yell and scream" as the press clearly wanted him to do.
It's hard to break ourselves of Drama addiction. For one thing, there are so many people pushing it, including a famous talk show host who only stops weeping long enough to feverishly sketch out history-spanning conspiracy theories on his chalkboard, spinning a web of Nefarious Threats to Our Way of Life that would make Dan Brown go "nah, too far-fetched."
Another titles a regular segment of his show "The Worst Person in the World." (The difference, I'll admit, is that Keith Olbermann, in his ham-handed way, is trying to be funny. I stress the word "trying.")
Like all pushers, they do it for the money. You don't get a fat contract with cable news or talk radio for being reasonable. You don't get a million views for your YouTube video by filming yourself saying "I respectfully disagree." Push a little Drama, though, and you can get millions to inject a big ol' hit of that sweet, sweet hysteria into their veins, and my Lord, how the money rolls in.
Maybe we need a 12-step program for Drama addiction, with meetings and everything. "Hi, my name's John, and I'm a Drama queen. Yesterday I burst into tears on camera over closing a corporate tax loophole."
Until that day, I'll just keep making fun of them.
First, a correction. Last week, I wrote that Sen. Rand Paul, son of Congressman Ron Paul, was named after 1950s novelist Ayn Rand, whose long-winded, preachy novels are big among what the tea party likes to think of as its "intellectual" wing. Ron Paul is an avowed fan as well, but Rand is not, it seems, named after her. It's just a coincidence. We regret the error.
Now on to your regularly scheduled column.
My friends, there is an epidemic of addiction sweeping America. It is, I firmly believe, the root cause of the angry and violent rhetoric that everyone's been talking about the past few weeks. This addiction has divided us, polarized us, and damaged our nation.
I'm talking about our addiction to Drama, with a capital D.
We've become a nation of hysterical teenage Drama queens for whom every issue is The Most Important Thing In the World to Me Ever, and every denial or obstacle triggers a tantrum in which it is tearfully asserted that You've Ruined My Life, I Hate You, and I Wish You Were Dead.
To a political Drama addict, everything is a Threat to America's Very Existence. The loss of a Senate election may require an armed insurrection (aka "Second Amendment remedies") to save the Republic from "tyranny," because if "ballots don't work, bullets will." If the presidential candidate you don't like wins the election, he's a "usurper" who's probably not even a real American, and we must fight him to Save the Constitution and Take Our Country Back Before Our Entire Way of Life is Destroyed. A health care bill you don't like means that your special-needs baby may be euthanized by order of shadowy "death panels." And so on.
Sad to say, there are those on the left who seem addicted to Drama as well. (I'm talking about the real Left, not the notch just to the left of center where the president actually resides, and which most right-wingers mistake for the real Left.) In the short time between the election of President Obama and his inauguration, I quit reading some of my favorite blogs in disgust because they were overrun with liberal Drama queens, crying out that there was No Difference Between Obama and Bush, that OMFG We Are Betrayed, and I'll Never Vote for a Democrat Again.
The catalyst for this overwrought opera of betrayal and electoral revenge? The selection of evangelist Rick Warren, who's said ignorant things about gay people, to deliver the invocation at the inauguration ceremony. Hey, I'm not crazy about the guy either, but I wasn't ready to write off Obama's entire presidency before it began over a two-minute prayer.
It's amazing that a country so addicted to Drama in its politics managed to elect as president a man who's famous for his abstinence from that intoxicant. He's made "No Drama" an ironclad rule for his staff. This, you may remember, drew no end of criticism from both right and left during the BP oil spill, when the president of the United States failed to break down and weep or to "yell and scream" as the press clearly wanted him to do.
It's hard to break ourselves of Drama addiction. For one thing, there are so many people pushing it, including a famous talk show host who only stops weeping long enough to feverishly sketch out history-spanning conspiracy theories on his chalkboard, spinning a web of Nefarious Threats to Our Way of Life that would make Dan Brown go "nah, too far-fetched."
Another titles a regular segment of his show "The Worst Person in the World." (The difference, I'll admit, is that Keith Olbermann, in his ham-handed way, is trying to be funny. I stress the word "trying.")
Like all pushers, they do it for the money. You don't get a fat contract with cable news or talk radio for being reasonable. You don't get a million views for your YouTube video by filming yourself saying "I respectfully disagree." Push a little Drama, though, and you can get millions to inject a big ol' hit of that sweet, sweet hysteria into their veins, and my Lord, how the money rolls in.
Maybe we need a 12-step program for Drama addiction, with meetings and everything. "Hi, my name's John, and I'm a Drama queen. Yesterday I burst into tears on camera over closing a corporate tax loophole."
Until that day, I'll just keep making fun of them.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Violent Talk In the Cross Hairs
Latest Newspaper Column:
The carnage staggers the mind. Twenty people shot. Six dead, including a 9-year-old girl. A U.S. congresswoman in the hospital after being shot in the head.
Within 20 minutes of news of the shootings appearing on the Internet, the Good Americans over at the conservative site Redstate.com were attempting to pin the shootings on Nancy Pelosi and (of course) illegal immigrants, while simultaneously deploring the fact that the “libs” were going to try to “politicize this.”
On the other end of the spectrum, people began pointing out statements from some tea partiers about “Second Amendment remedies” and “watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants” and other such promises of violence if they didn’t get their way.
They took note of Sarah Palin’s now-notorious “cross hairs” ad and her exhortation after the health-care vote: “Don’t retreat — reload!” The Palinistas indignantly denied there was anything wrong with this or any connection with the shootings, even as as they scrambled to take the “cross hairs” website down.
So each side is trying to blame the other. The more I learn about this shooter, though, the more it appears he was piling crazy on his plate from the entire buffet line. He goes off about the gold standard like a faithful Ron Paulian, and lists as one of his favorite books one by Ayn Rand, who’s big among tea partiers (Rand Paul is named after her).
But then he also says he’s a fan of “Mein Kampf” AND the Communist Manifesto. He once told a fellow student that he thought abortion was murder, but he also smoked a lot of weed and didn’t believe in God. A friend who was interviewed shortly after the killings compared Loughner to the nihilistic Joker in “The Dark Knight”: “There’s no rhyme or reason, he wants to watch the world burn.”
So there’s no way to draw a bright line link between the violent rhetoric of Sarah Palin or Sharron Angle, or the radio talk show host in Florida who was about to become the chief of staff of a newly elected tea party candidate before a video surfaced of her shouting to a cheering crowd that “if ballots don’t work, bullets will.”
All that said, the Palinistas and their fellow travelers on the right can spare us the righteous indignation about how awful it is that people are criticizing their violent language.
As writer John Scalzi put it: “If your political messaging traffics in rhetoric heavy on gun imagery and revolution of the overthrow-y sort, then when someone shoots a congressperson who you opposed, then guess what: You get to spend some uncomfortable moments in the spotlight being asked if it’s not reasonable to suspect a connection between your rhetoric and the actions of a shooter targeting someone you’ve opposed.”
If, for example, I put up a website with cross hairs over John Boehner’s name, and Boehner, God forbid, gets shot, then I don’t get to be all indignant if people ask about a connection. The people who quote Barack Obama’s reference to the movie “The Untouchables” (“If they bring a knife to the fight, I bring a gun”) seem to have forgotten one essential difference: No one has actually put a bullet in John Boehner’s head.
The question of whether hateful right-wing rhetoric “caused” Jared Loughner to kill six people and grievously wound 14 others is a separate question as to whether it’s bad for the country to use the language of guns and bullets and shedding “the blood of tyrants” if a vote didn’t go your way.
Sure, you’ve got a right, absent a direct threat, to say any damn fool thing you want. But people also have the right to call you on it. In the words of former Bush speechwriter David Frum: “This talk did not cause this crime. But this crime should summon us to some reflection on this talk.”
If any good thing comes out of this tragedy, it may be that, despite the right wing’s belligerent insistence that “it wasn’t us,” they’ll start thinking twice before blithely deploying rhetoric that hints of bloodshed and killing over things like marginal tax rates.
I don’t think we’ll hear Barack Obama talking about “knives and guns” any time soon. Will Sarah Palin exercise the same restraint? We live in hope.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)