Where Do The Haters Go Now?

The Pilot Newspaper: Opinion

This past week, the big question in the great state of Arizona was “will she or won’t she?” — with “she” being the state’s governor, Jan Brewer, and the question being whether or not she’d veto an act passed by the state legislature making it legal for businesses to refuse service to gay or lesbian people on “religious grounds.”

The bill, which would allow businesses to do to gay and lesbian customers what they can’t do to black, Latino, Jewish, etc. ones, all in the name of religious freedom, passed the state House 33 to 27 and the Senate 17 to 13.

The hullaballoo was fierce and immediate, with gay and lesbian activists such as actor and politician George Takei urging a boycott of the state if the law takes effect, and business leaders calling for Brewer to veto the bill because it would kill jobs and commerce.

Companies like Apple (which is planning to build a plant in the state), American Airlines and Marriott also called for a veto.

Officials of the NFL, which is holding next year’s Super Bowl in Arizona, issued a statement saying, “Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or any other improper standard,” thus raising fears that they might actually move the Super Bowl, like they did in 1992 when Arizona refused to enact a Martin Luther King Day holiday.

Interestingly, among the people urging a veto of the bill were three of the senators who’d actually voted for it.

“While our sincere intent in voting for this bill was to create a shield for all citizens’ religious liberties,” wrote Sens. Bob Worsley, Steve Pierce and Adam Driggs (the majority whip), “the bill has instead been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance. These allegations are causing our state immeasurable harm.”

Turns out religious principle might end up costing money. Can’t have that, can we?

This whole argument that we should be allowed to discriminate against people if we can find some justification in the Bible raises the question: Where does it end? I frequently get emails from a virulent racist who peppers his angry and often incoherent screeds with supposed biblical support for the oppression of — well, I can’t use some of the words he uses.

And this fellow isn’t alone. Should people like that be allowed to refuse to serve African-Americans, Latinos, Jews or interracial couples on the ground that their interpretation of the Bible forbids mixing of the races, even at lunch counters? Are we going to return to the vileness of Jim Crow laws so long as we can drape that ugliness in religious robes?

Finally, Gov. Brewer saw sense and vetoed the bill. I’m sure a lot of people who would have loved to freely exercise their hatred in the name of the Baby Jesus were let down. But I want to help, because that’s the kind of guy I am.

If you really want to live in a country where they put the gays in their place, may I suggest Russia? They’re all about conservative Christian values these days. Of course, the weather is horrific, the food is worse, the plumbing doesn’t work, and packs of feral dogs roam the streets, but these should be small prices to pay to safeguard yourself from having to deal with gay people.

Or how about Uganda? Their president recently signed a bill that makes homosexual acts punishable by life in prison. The original version of the bill made those acts punishable by death, and hey, you can’t hardly get more biblical than that.

Just last week, a Ugandan newspaper helpfully published a list of what it called the country’s “200 top” gays, to make it easier for the authorities to enforce traditional family values at gunpoint. Now, the country is periodically racked by unrest followed by vicious government crackdowns and there’s terrible poverty and disease everywhere, but hey, there probably won’t be any gay people coming into your business if you set it up there.

At least as far as you’ll know. Because discriminating against gay and lesbian people doesn’t make fewer of them. It just makes for more misery in the world.

All in the name of God, of course.

Journalism Goes to the (Starving) Dogs

The Pilot Newspaper: Opinion

It seems that the speedy decline of the international news media is continuing at its accustomed pace, and may even be accelerating.

The latest example of sensational, shoddy journalism from people who should really know better came in the reporting about the execution of Jang Song Thaek, the uncle and political rival of bat-spit-crazy North Korean dictator Kim Jong-in.

As you probably remember, reports filtered through last month from that secretive country that Jang had been removed from all his party positions, expelled from the party itself, and jailed. In a move straight out of Orwell’s “1984,” his image was Photoshopped out of photos with other leaders and removed from all official media.

Then, on Dec. 13, the North Koreans officially announced that Jang had been executed for, among other things, “politically motivated ambition” and “obstructing the nation’s economic affairs.”

Then things started to get weird.

Since very little actual information makes it out from behind the veil of secrecy the Kim family has maintained around North Korea for years, the news media resorted to their usual technique of reporting rumors, harebrained speculation, and outright deranged fantasy to fill the information gap.

The New York Times reported that two members of Jang’s faction had been executed with heavy caliber anti-aircraft guns. Another story in the British press quoted unidentified “Japanese media” as saying the executions were carried out in such a gruesome fashion on the orders of a “very drunk” Kim.

Then, to cap it all off, American TV networks, including NBC and Fox News, reported that Jang had been executed by being “stripped naked, thrown into a cage, and eaten alive by a pack of ravenous dogs, according to a newspaper with close ties to China’s ruling Communist Party.”

The Singaporean newspaper the Straits Times expanded on the lurid details, saying that “120 hounds, starved for three days, were allowed to prey on [Jang and his compatriots] until they were completely eaten up.”

Am I the only one who read reports like this and went, “Now, wait just a gosh-darned minute here” (or some reasonable facsimile thereof)?

I mean, Baby Kim’s a homicidal loon, no mistake about it, but when I see something that reads like an account from a James Bond movie or one of those unexpurgated versions of Grimm’s Fairy Tales, I tend to get, shall we say, a little skeptical.

As it turns out, we skeptics were right. Reporter James Pearson of Reuters traced the “Jang was eaten by dogs” story all the way back to a Dec. 11 post on a Chinese satirical website called Tencent Weibo. It did not, in fact, come from any intelligence source, insider or actual witness. It was a joke, albeit a particularly odd one.

Perhaps there’s a lot in Chinese humor that gets lost in translation. Perhaps it’s also payback from the time a few years ago when the Chinese press printed a story from The Onion (”Kim Jong-un Named The Onion’s Sexiest Man Alive for 2012”) as truth.

The clue should have been when, as the NBC News website put it, “the story could not be independently confirmed.”

Now, I’m just a simple country lawyer, not a big-time famous print or broadcast journalist, but I seem to remember hearing about a day when, if a journalist couldn’t get independent confirmation of a big story from at least two sources, no editor would run with it.

But that day is not this day. These days, “independent confirmation” has been replaced with, “Well, I read it from someone who read it in another place who may have seen it on Twitter,” and so on, until there are no real sources or confirmation of anything anymore, just a bunch of credulous rubes on their laptops or iPhones, desperate to generate content and blindly repeating what someone else said he read on another website or Twitter feed, maybe adding a little embellishment before passing it on to the next sucker, each echo getting louder until there’s nothing but a full-throated chorus of total balderdash.

It’s journalism reduced to the level of middle school gossip, only louder and stupider, and it reaches its truest heights of absurdity when its original source is a joke repeated as truth by people who didn’t get it.

I’ve often said that the hardest part of writing satire these days is staying ahead of reality. It gets even harder when satire is breathlessly reported as reality by sensation-hungry media hucksters for whom some stories are, as the saying goes, “too good to fact-check.”

I suppose that’s also meant as a joke, but the end results are more grotesque than funny.

Trollin' Trollin' Trollin': Duck Dynasty Edition

The Pilot Newspaper: Opinion

Listen: Phil Robertson is trolling you.

If you’ve spent any time on the Interwebs, you know that a “troll” is someone who, in the words of Urban Dictionary, “posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.”

However, in the age where the Internet continues to push its influence more and more into real life, where news organizations routinely go to Twitter to find out what’s going on, where the latest meme or viral video becomes the water-cooler conversation du jour, the trolling that used to be the province of socially maladjusted teenagers online is now a PR technique.

The pattern has become depressingly predictable: Minor celebrity or previously unknown CEO says something racist, misogynistic or homophobic. The Internet explodes with outrage, calls for boycotts, etc. Within a day or so, the counter-outrage begins with a disheartening number of people claiming, in essence, that the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech means that saying something stupid should have no consequences whatsoever, even criticism.

Voila! The previously little-known figure is now front-page news. And once again, America has been trolled.

If the original troll gets really lucky, their work or their product (say, for example, chicken sandwiches) now becomes something that racists, sexists or homophobes now feel like they NEED to consume as much out of a sense of “we’ll show those libs!” as out of actual enjoyment. Because nothing sweetens the taste of a wingnut’s chicken sandwich as much as thinking that he’s sticking it to “those people” with every bite.

Which brings us back to Phil Robertson. The so-called “patriarch” of the clan featured in A&E’s rednecks-with-money reality show “Duck Dynasty” caught a lot of flak recently for an interview with GQ magazine in which he trotted out the tired old canard about how tolerance of homosexuality would lead to “bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” and asserted that gays would not be admitted into heaven.

He also claimed that pre-civil rights and “entitlements” he never saw any black people complain and that in fact, they were “happy and singing.” Later, a speech Robertson had made a few years ago popped up in which he urged men in their 20s to marry 15- or 16-year-old girls because they won’t pick your pocket, “they’ll pick your ducks.” (I’m hoping that’s not some kind of weird euphemism.)

The reaction proceeded according to the usual playbook. Twitter and Facebook went nuts. A&E suspended Robertson (but didn’t say anything about cancelling the show). Cracker Barrel removed some Duck Dynasty products with Robertson’s bearded visage on them from their “Country Store.”

The counter-backlash occurred right on schedule, with people claiming that A&E’s suspension of Robertson violated his First Amendment rights (showing once again that the people who clamor loudest about the Constitution have clearly never read it). Sarah Palin weighed in on Robertson’s behalf, but later admitted that she hadn’t actually read the interview. Pretty soon “I Stand With Phil” petitions began to appear, followed by the inevitable T-shirts. Cracker Barrel quietly returned the Duck Dynasty stuff to the shelves. A&E not only reinstated Robertson, they ran a Duck Dynasty marathon over the holidays. Successful trolling achieved!

The thing is, the show, like most “reality” TV, is a fraud. I’ve seen a few episodes as I meander around the channels. Sure, it’s amusing. Phil Robertson and his sons, heirs to the multi-million-dollar “Duck Commander” hunting supply fortune, come off on screen as some sort of modern-day Beverly Hillbillies dressed in camo and bandannas and sporting beards that make them look like a ZZ Top tribute band.

But the whole thing’s as big an illusion as that so-called “Country Store” mentioned above. Pictures have surfaced all over the Internet of the college-educated Robertsons dressed as what they grew up as: rich frat boys who grew up to be rich yuppies.

There’s even one embarrassing shot of brother Willie with frosted tips in his hair.

 Phil Robertson himself admitted in another interview that A&E inserts “bleeps” in the soundtrack as if the boys are doin’ some down-home cussin’, but they’re actually not.

It’s all marketing, and this latest controversy is just another example of how there’s no such thing as bad publicity. The vast majority of the people who’d get riled up over Papa Phil’s remarks aren’t going to be buying his products anyway, but he and his sons can count on the tribalism, persecution fantasies and resentments of right wingers to help line their pockets.

Trolling’s not only become an art form, it’s become a profitable one. And it ain’t just the ducks gettin’ plucked.

These Guys Really Will Fall For Anything (Which Explains Newt Gingrich)

Latest Newspaper Column:

I've often said in these pages that the hardest part of writing satire is staying ahead of reality.

I write about something so mind-bogglingly off the wall that no one with more than three viable brain cells could possibly believe it's serious, only to find that something 10 times weirder actually happened the day I turned in the column.

Apparently, some people have the opposite problem: They're unable to distinguish satire from reality. People like Republican Congressman John Fleming of Louisiana, for example.

You may remember Rep. Fleming as the poor little rich boy who appeared on MSNBC this past September and complained that by the time he paid taxes, paid all his bills, and "fed his family," he had "maybe, $400,000 left over." Clearly, someone who can say something like that with a straight face doesn't have much of a sense of irony, or reality, for that matter.

So it is perhaps not surprising that Rep. Fleming fell for a joke posting on the well-known satirical website "The Onion." The fake story, which ran several months ago, was headlined "Planned Parenthood Opens $8 Billion Abortionplex" and described "a sprawling abortion facility that will allow the organization to terminate unborn lives with an efficiency never before thought possible."

It gets more and more outrageous from there, with descriptions of an on-premises  "three-story nightclub and a 10-screen multiplex theater", and a Planned Parenthood spokesman "quoted" as saying: "Although we've traditionally dedicated 97 percent of our resources to other important services such as contraception distribution, cancer screening, and STD testing, this new complex allows us to devote our full attention to what has always been our true passion: abortion."

Now, anyone who would give this a moment's thought would come to the conclusion that it was a joke, a sendup of the paranoid fantasies that mark the right-wing attitude toward Planned Parenthood, one of the many, many organizations they love to hate.

But when you're so addicted to outrage that you're willing to believe anything that gets your dander up, there's no such thing as a moment's thought, and no story too over-the-top for you to fall for like a credulous rube on his first day in the city.

Recently there's been a big brouhaha over the decision by the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation to withdraw funds for breast cancer testing from Planned Parenthood, then reinstating them after a public outcry. This sort of thing is just catnip to a right-wing demagogue like Fleming, so he apparently thought it would be a good idea to jump on the bandwagon.

He decided to weigh in against Planned Parenthood by posting the "Abortionplex" story on his Facebook page, with the snippy comment: "More on Planned Parenthood, abortion by the wholesale [sic]."

Fleming's inability to comprehend a joke was immediately picked up by the website "Literally Unbelievable: Stories from The Onion as interpreted by Facebook." Much merriment ensued in the comments, with "how did someone as dumb as you get elected?" being a recurring theme. Pretty soon the story had gone national.

The whole fiasco reminds me of the great Harry Potter scare of the early 21st century, when another group of paranoids seized on an Onion article titled "Harry Potter Books Spark Rise in Satanism Among Children" to "prove" that the Potter books were evil.

An article in the far-right blog WorldNet daily even quoted "High Priest Egan of the Church of Satan in Salem, MA," saying, "Harry is a godsend to our organization. We've had more applicants than we can handle, and of course most of them are virgins, which is just gravy."

"High Priest Egan," of course, was a complete fabrication, as was the story. You'd think the use of the word "godsend" would be a tip-off, as would the absurdity of a Satanist church having an application process. But hey, wingnuts believe more absurd things before breakfast than most people can even think of in the average day, and they're not happy unless they've got something to be unhappy about, so they're easily punk'd, as the kids say these days.

At least I think they say that. I read it online somewhere.

Today's Reading From The Book of Trump

Latest newspaper column:

It came to pass in those days that times grew lean among those whose job it was to mock and to ridicule the Powerful and the Silly.

The Snow Princess’ star had begun to fade in the North. The Chalkboard King had announced he was leaving the Fortress of the Fox. Even the Mad-Eyed Lady of the Cold Lands had shown a glimmer or two of sanity; forced to gaze upon a ­certified copy of the president’s birth ­certificate, she ­abandoned her demands that Obama prove his birthright and stated, “That’s what should settle it. … I take the president at his word. Introduce that, we’re done. Move on.”

And there was ­wailing and gnashing of teeth among the jesters and the merchants of the snark. “Who is able to be as crazy as these?” they cried. “And who shall be like unto them in mockability?”

But there were others who said, “Fear not. For it is written that in the darkest hour, a new buffoon shall rise, and great will be the silliness thereof.”

Then it came to pass that out of the Big Apple, one did come. Greatly did he bluster and strut. Hilarious was his hair, if hair it was. His name was Trump. He took up the banner of the Birthers, and did champion their cause, saying, “Lo, I have dispatched my minions to the Far Island, and there you will be amazed at that which they find. Just see if you aren’t. Real soon now.”

Greatly did his polls rise as the People of the Far Right, including the Birthers and the Baggers of Tea, did hail him, saying “We knew it! We always knew the president was not of our tribe and land, and soon shall he sit no more in the White Palace!”

And there was great rejoicing. But not just among the People of the Right.

“Whew,” said the makers of humor, “that was close. But now shall the jokes practically write themselves.” For Trump’s last job had been as Master of Celebrity Apprentices, leader and director of a motley crew of those who had once been Somebody, but who were now sad and diminished, having sojourned long in the Land of the Has-Beens.

“How can you take a man seriously as a candidate,” it was said, “who was recently on TV as the boss of Gary Busey, Meat Loaf, and some woman named NeNe?”

“He makes liberals angry,” said the People of the Right, “and verily, that’s all we need.”

The Humble Columnist spoke out then, saying, “You know he supported a Canadian-style health system, right?”

The people of the Right were sore amazed, saying “What?”

“In truth,” the Columnist said, “for thus it is written, in Trump’s book ‘The America We Deserve,’ that ‘we must have universal health care. I’m a conservative on most issues, but a ­liberal on this one. … The Canadian plan also helps Canadians live longer and healthier than Americans.”

“Stop! Stop!” said the People of the Right, and they did place their hands over their ears.

“Wait,” the Columnist did say, “for it doth get better. Thus it is also written by Trump: ‘By imposing a one-time 14.25 percent net-worth tax on the richest individuals and trusts, we can put America on sound financial footing for the next century.’ Soundeth like a tax increase on the wealthy to me.”

“Thou liest,” the People of the Right wailed. “The Donald is a conservative.”

“Nay,” that one said. “The Donald is a huckster. A showman. A con artist. Crazy he is, but as the fox is crazy. Verily, he shall tell thee anything he thinketh thou wantest to hear. He no more believeth thy Birther nonsense than he doth in the Easter Bunny. Ye rubes, ye have fallen for yet another grifter, this one in a bad comb-over.”

“Thou fearest the Donald,” they sobbed, “just as thou did the Snow Princess. Thou liberal, thou art filled with hate for conservatives, for they are successful.”

“Thou mayest tell thyself that if it doth make thee feel better,” said the Columnist, “but there shall I be when this one crasheth and burneth. And great shall be my mirth on that day. So long, suckers.”