If I hosted a talk show that reached an audience of millions every day and if I believed that my show influenced opinion and the political culture, as all of these guys seem to think and if I spent three hours every day attacking the president's patriotism and honesty and competence and if I spent a lot of that time suggesting that the president is a socialist or a fascist or worse and if I had suggested that he might even be deliberately undermining the country's economic well being in order to promote his one-world goals and if all of that was followed by a string of attacks by gunmen who question the president's patriotism and think he is a socialist and believe that he wants one-world government - then I might be moved to reflect, at least for a moment, on the possibility that my words might be making this planet a little more dangerous than it really needs to be. And I don't think we ought to be prosecuting, or even persecuting, talk show hosts just because some nut gets carried away. Look, I wouldn't try to stop anybody from speaking out freely. On this planet, they were blaming liberals. In the aftermath of the latest fatal assault by a right-wing conspiracy nut, conservative talk radio hosts this week were somber and reflective, wondering whether their relentless attacks on Barack Obama, Democrats and liberals in general might in any way be endangering the republic. Of course, I would never allege that Hannity would rather see soldiers die than ever admit that Obama might do something right. But Glenn Greenwald suggests they have blood on their hands. soldiers when it comes to photographs and so indifferent when it comes to Guantanamo? Good luck getting an honest answer to that question. So why are Hannity and Lieberman so concerned about the lives of U.S. David Petraeus and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Those who have made that second argument aren't just a bunch of liberal hacks, unless that's the label you pin on Gen. The argument for closing Guantanamo is that it inflames anti-American sentiment and costs U.S. The argument for covering up the photos is that releasing them could inflame anti-American sentiment and cost U.S. Photographs showing abuses at Abu Ghraib should not be released. While slaving my way through a blisteringly long string of e-mailed items for the Outpost's Calendar of Events, I listed to Hannity interview Sen. Now conservatives seem to have adopted it full scale, perhaps without realizing just how liberal they have become. It was actually liberals, I think, who began to argue that public shaming isn't such a good idea. But Letterman, whatever his motives, was fulfilling an ancient - and profoundly conservative - social sanction when he ridiculed daughter and mother for failing to adhere to social mores. No doubt the hunters and gatherers who thought this up never imagined that public shaming would become part of the TV culture. It's an ancient way of keeping young people and the parents responsible for them in line. One way that societies typically curb unwelcome sexual behavior is by publicly shaming those who engage in it. That's the conservative component of Letterman's joke. Given how much this story has been pawed over, it probably has appeared somewhere else, but I've missed it. As Hannity railed on yesterday about David Letterman insulting Sarah Palin and her daughter, something occurred to me that I haven't seen anywhere else.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |