You know, I can't seem to even work up much outrage over the self-satisfied and foolish exchange between Janeane Garofalo and Keith Olbermann that occurred a few days ago on his new show. He probably has, what, ten or twelve viewers, and watching these two lackluster and depressed-seeming individuals having such a lackluster and inane conversation left me understanding why, as well as feeling almost sorry for them. (I am not a viewer, by the way; I just saw the clip.)
--
Garofalo referred to the "inherent" racism of the Tea Party, something Olbermann would not, of course, challenge her to support with any evidence, and went on to opine that Herman Cain was probably being paid by someone--Karl Rove, perhaps--(this provided an unintended moment of hilarity, at least for me) to run, in order to deflect those charges of racism. One wonders if Ms. Garofalo, prior to appointing herself a political expert, did a lot of drugs or something, because the total 'out there-ness' of her speculations was made even more bizarre by the apparent seriousness with which Olbermann treated them. I kept waiting for them to burst out laughing and say "Got ya!"
But no, this was for real, it seems, and it wasn't enough for Garofalo to besmirch Mr. Cain's integrity so thoroughly, she couldn't resist further insulting him with another jab at the Tea Party by suggesting that he perhaps had a touch of "Stockholm Syndrome." (That is the name given some decades ago by a psychiatrist to the phenomenon of captives beginning to sympathize with and defend their captors.)
I won't get into the ridiculousness and absence of any kind of logic that characterized Ms. Garofalo's ramblings, because they're just not worth a lot of attention (and the lack of response from pretty much any quarter suggests maybe 10 or 12 viewers is an over-estimate) but one example will give you the general idea. After the host and his guest snicker over a couple of pictures of Michelle and Marcus Bachmann going down on corn dogs (har-har, very high-brow show!) there is a picture of Rick Perry with his foot up on a hay bale at the Iowa State Fair. Asked her opinion, Garofalo announces the racism of the Tea Party is confirmed by the fact that she doesn't see any black people. Hey, Janeane--it's IOWA! If it was an SNL skit, it would have been funny.
Vladimir Lenin noted that "a lie told often enough becomes the truth," and that appears to be the strategy behind the constant repetition--sans hard evidence of any kind--of the charge of racism against the Tea Party and all its members. (I am assuming all my readers are bright enough to understand that I am not suggesting there are no individual racists in the Tea Party. There probably are, in the same way that there are individual racists in any group. The white union member demanding of a black Tea Partier whether he had any children he was "willing to claim" comes to mind.)
The people who knowingly push this scurrilous and unfounded slur are doing it because they want gullible and loosely-informed people to "know" it, in the same way they 'know' George Bush is 'stupid,' whether or not they can cite any reasons, and the way they 'know' conservatives don't care about the poor and downtrodden while 'progressives' do, even though they can summon no evidence or logical argument to support their convictions. Why are those things true? "They just are."
So anyone--self-identified Tea Partiers for certain, one assumes, but anyone else as well--who has decided that Obama hasn't done a good job and doesn't deserve to be reelected, is a racist. But someone like Janeane Garofalo who attacks not only Herman Cain's integrity by suggesting he's being paid to run for president, but suggests his mental health is compromised, isn't?
It's always been a problem for aggressive Progressives who are spreading the racism canard, that the Tea Party loves a black man--Herman Cain--so much. So, they're reduced to attacking him to try to explain it. It smells of desperation, and I'm afraid we should just resign ourselves to 14 more months of it.
Again, I think my readers are all intelligent enough to understand that using Bachmann and Rick Perry in the above examples is not an indication that I support them. My candidate, Mitch Daniels, never got in the race, and I am simply watching, right now. The point is that this low-down strategy of denigrating anyone who wants 'change' in 2012 as a racist--whether done crudely and overtly or slyly--has no place in a campaign, regardless of who the Republican nominee turns out to be. That said, things don't look good for Obama, and I don't expect these ugly aspersions to go away. No matter that a lot of people who voted for Obama the first time but won't be voting for him again can't suddenly have turned into racists, logic isn't important to desperate people. Maybe, though, more and more people will begin to see their accusations for what they really are.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
I think the American Atheists need a new president
The following is a portion of a news report about a lawsuit just filed by the atheist organization mentioned in the title:
A group of atheists has filed a lawsuit claiming the display of the World Trade Center cross at the 9/11 memorial in lower Manhattan is unconstitutional, calling it a "mingling of church and state."
The American Atheists...filed the lawsuit Monday to stop the display of the cross, arguing that it should not be included if "no other religions or philosophies will be honored," according to a statement on the group's website.
The cross, which consists of two intersecting steel beams that were found intact in the rubble at Ground Zero, was initially constructed on a side of a church in lower Manhattan. The cross was then placed inside the 9/11 Memorial Museum during a ceremony over the weekend.
"The WTC cross has become a Christian icon. It has been blessed by so-called holy men and presented as a reminder that their god, who couldn't be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists or prevent 3,000 people from being killed in his name, cared only enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross," the group's president, Dave Silverman, said in a press release.
The reason I think a new president might be in order is that, surely, there are smarter candidates than Dave Silverman to choose from? The few self-described atheists of my acquaintance are intelligent people, and I can't imagine any of them saying something this dumb. Mr. Silverman's thinking seems pretty confused. Is he mad at the Christians' god because the Muslims killed in his name? Is he saying the Christians and Muslims have the same god? Oh wait, there is no God, so apparently he's angry at a figment of someone else's imagination for 'car{ing} only enough to bestow upon us some rubble.'
The suit includes claims from four individual atheists (presumably atheist 9/11 survivors--the language isn't entirely clear) that they are suffering from various physical symptoms resulting from the stress which the sight of this artifact is causing them. My guess would be that those claims are the result of advice from legal counsel that recognizes the weakness of the constitutional argument.
It's weak because this is not a Christian cross (regardless of whether or not it was later blessed, or how people began to think of it.) No one made it or purchased it with the intent to place it on the site. If that were the case, the atheists' insistence that other religious symbols should have equal inclusion and prominence would be more supportable. But this is an ARTIFACT which was found, in its present condition, in the rubble. The fact that it happened to resemble a cross and, as a result, came to have meaning vis-a-vis the tragedy for Christians, in no way negates its status as an artifact. It belongs in the museum. In the unlikely event that a pile of rubble had come to rest in the shape of a pasta strainer, and the Pastafarians had come to view it as an important symbol relative to the events of 9/11, it would belong in the museum, too.
Atheists can and often do serve an important function as watchdogs for the separation of church and state, but their credibility is enhanced or tarnished by the battles they choose. I don't think this one is wise.
A group of atheists has filed a lawsuit claiming the display of the World Trade Center cross at the 9/11 memorial in lower Manhattan is unconstitutional, calling it a "mingling of church and state."
The American Atheists...filed the lawsuit Monday to stop the display of the cross, arguing that it should not be included if "no other religions or philosophies will be honored," according to a statement on the group's website.
The cross, which consists of two intersecting steel beams that were found intact in the rubble at Ground Zero, was initially constructed on a side of a church in lower Manhattan. The cross was then placed inside the 9/11 Memorial Museum during a ceremony over the weekend.
"The WTC cross has become a Christian icon. It has been blessed by so-called holy men and presented as a reminder that their god, who couldn't be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists or prevent 3,000 people from being killed in his name, cared only enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross," the group's president, Dave Silverman, said in a press release.
The reason I think a new president might be in order is that, surely, there are smarter candidates than Dave Silverman to choose from? The few self-described atheists of my acquaintance are intelligent people, and I can't imagine any of them saying something this dumb. Mr. Silverman's thinking seems pretty confused. Is he mad at the Christians' god because the Muslims killed in his name? Is he saying the Christians and Muslims have the same god? Oh wait, there is no God, so apparently he's angry at a figment of someone else's imagination for 'car{ing} only enough to bestow upon us some rubble.'
The suit includes claims from four individual atheists (presumably atheist 9/11 survivors--the language isn't entirely clear) that they are suffering from various physical symptoms resulting from the stress which the sight of this artifact is causing them. My guess would be that those claims are the result of advice from legal counsel that recognizes the weakness of the constitutional argument.
It's weak because this is not a Christian cross (regardless of whether or not it was later blessed, or how people began to think of it.) No one made it or purchased it with the intent to place it on the site. If that were the case, the atheists' insistence that other religious symbols should have equal inclusion and prominence would be more supportable. But this is an ARTIFACT which was found, in its present condition, in the rubble. The fact that it happened to resemble a cross and, as a result, came to have meaning vis-a-vis the tragedy for Christians, in no way negates its status as an artifact. It belongs in the museum. In the unlikely event that a pile of rubble had come to rest in the shape of a pasta strainer, and the Pastafarians had come to view it as an important symbol relative to the events of 9/11, it would belong in the museum, too.
Atheists can and often do serve an important function as watchdogs for the separation of church and state, but their credibility is enhanced or tarnished by the battles they choose. I don't think this one is wise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)