The Age of the Empty Stare

[Pamela Troy]

“You lefty crazy people run around, calling us ‘extra chromosome’ and ‘Hitlers’ and ‘Nazis’ and everything, and nobody says anything. She calls somebody a ‘harpy’ and you'd think that, you know, the whole world was on fire.”
Mary Matalin on IMUS IN THE MORNING 6/9/06

Many years ago in North Carolina a shy friend of mine who was a devout Catholic mentioned to me that he’d been invited by a university classmate to attend a Protestant, Born Again Christian church service. He was a foreign student, new to the American south, and when I told him that he would likely be targeted for conversion during the service he waved off my warning. “I told them I didn’t want any of that,” he said, “I explained that I’m happy with my religion and that I hate being the center of attention in strange situations, and my friend assured me they wouldn’t try to pressure me or anything.”

When I saw him again after that Sunday, he was visibly upset. The service had climaxed with a “call to the altar” for the “unsaved,” and he’d ended up being the only person in the church who didn’t step forward to convert. The preacher then announced that the service wouldn’t end until everybody had made that walk to the altar. My poor friend had spent two hours sitting miserably on a bench while all these lunatics – including the woman who’d invited him and assured him he wouldn’t be targeted – babbled in tongues and prayed at him.

That was bad enough, but what truly bothered him was her reaction afterwards when he confronted her. “You said you wouldn’t pressure me!” he said to her the next day.

She’d stared at him blankly, her eyes wide and innocent. “Pressure you?” she asked, her voice light with delicately feigned astonishment “We didn’t pressure you. How in the world did we pressure you?”

Today, many of us are depressingly familiar with that same empty stare. It’s become positively endemic.

“Racism?” your co-worker asked back in the 1990s, after the publication of THE BELL CURVE, “What do you mean racism? All the authors say is that black people as a group are significantly and unchangeably less intelligent that white people as a group. How is that racism?”

“Oh come on,” your friend said shortly after the 2000 election. “Disenfranchisement? Isn’t that a little strong? I mean, no legal voter was deliberately purged from the voter rolls, so how can you call it disenfranchisement?”

“Torture?” your neighbor asked four years later, his face blank, his eyes puzzled, “Since when is sleep deprivation and near drowning torture? Come on, nobody has ever claimed that’s torture!”

It does no good to cite the dictionary definition of “racism,” or “disenfranchisement,” or to quote the relevant passages from Solzhenitsyn’s chapter on torture in THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO. That empty stare is impenetrable. They’ll shrug, drop the subject and, when it comes up again, doggedly repeat their blank-faced denials.

The latest empty stare is related to Ann Coulter’s stunningly offensive comments about the 9/11 widows in her recent book in which she’s described them as “harpies,” suggested their husbands might have been trying to divorce them, and accused them of “enjoying” their husbands deaths.

Not surprisingly, many in the liberal blogosphere predicted in the wake of this that, at last, Coulter had gone too far. Surely nobody except the most rabid Freepers or ditto-heads could defend that kind of disgusting malice! “I think the tide is turning against her finally,” said John Amato on Crooks and Liars, “Might Ann Coulter have reached a tipping point?” Asked Chris Durang on the Huffington post.

It wasn’t an entirely unwarranted assumption. After all, the normally oblivious Matt Lauer had been, as Coulter complained “testy” with her on the Today show, and Tucker Carlson overtook testy and was firmly in the realm of the genuinely appalled when he interviewed her on The Situation. To Carlson’s credit, the idea of mocking the grief of a widow, saying that she enjoyed her husband’s death and he probably didn’t love her anyway apparently seems…well, just not right, somehow. ” It doesn't mean they were enjoying it. Their husband's gone, and their kids are there and geez, it's depressing,” he observed.

And, of course, there were the inevitable wishful calls to “Just Ignore Her and She’ll Go Away.” I recall hearing the same thing from liberals about Falwell back in the ‘70s and Rush Limbaugh back in the ‘80s.

Anyone who assumes that this is about nothing more than publicity for her book, or that the mainstream right has now hit its own moral nadir and will now drive her away with righteous outrage, or that if all of us liberals just pay no attention, everyone else will get embarrassed and stop listening to and reading Ann Coulter, is failing to grasp an important point. It’s not just about publicity. It’s not just about making liberals angry. And as far as mainstream conservatism is concerned, it’s certainly not in any way shape or form about Coulter’s affront to basic humanity.

It’s about multiplying those empty stares. It’s about taking American discourse into an even lower level, one in which both common sense, common decency and even the basic verities of how language works are deliberately discarded, allowing the likes of Mary Matalin and Lou Dobbs, and Sean Hannity and, a few weeks down the road, Tucker Carlson (trust me, he’ll get over it), to defend the indefensible.

Over the past twenty years it has become sadly obvious that many people are not used to connecting belief with logic or morality with human consequences. When they hear a statement they don’t examine it to see whether or not it is actually true, just, and humane. They measure, instead, how often they have encountered it on TV, in print, or on the radio.

I’m not just referring here to the frothing, semi-literate masses that get their news from right-wing talk radio or Free Republic. No, I mean college educated, articulate, professional people who were apparently taught how to form complicated, even graceful sentences, who are knowledgeable about their own field of expertise, but who, for some reason, never learned the basics of critical thinking.

Ann Coulter might be a little too manic for them, but once her message has been ingested, metabolized, and regurgitated for them in more measured tones by other more acceptable pundits, they’ll decide it’s all right after all to grossly impugn the motives and the marriages of grieving 9/11 victim survivors who oppose the Bush administration. Sure, it sounded a bit harsh when Ann first said it, but once they’ve gotten used to hearing it they’ll nod in agreement with similar statements and defend them with all the sweet stupidity of SPINAL TAP’s Nigel Tufnell repeating “This one’s eleven.”

It’s already begun. On MSNBC’s Imus in the Morning, Republican Strategist Mary Matalin has gone on record endorsing what she imagines to be Coulter’s “larger point” and has pretended that it’s all about Coulter’s use of the word “harpies” to describe the four 9/11 widows rather than her obscene speculation about whether or not their marriages were happy. Rest assured, many other supposedly “reasonable” mainstream conservatives are eagerly taking that cue. We can now look forward to debates offline and on in which we’ll find ourselves reduced to diagramming the structure of Coulter’s question "And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies?” and parsing the word “divorce” while the empty stares feign incomprehension.

There’s nothing wrong with hoping that, at last, nausea has begun to set in among the Republican leadership, and Coulter will shortly be declared a pariah and deprived of the bully pulpit she’s enjoyed for far too long. But the fact is, we are rapidly reaching the point where deliberate obtuseness is the only defense that can be mustered for the policies and practices of the current administration. In the months ahead they are going to need as many of those empty stares on their side as they can gather.

And that means they may need Coulter too much to give her up just yet.

[StellaBlue]

1. I agree.

K&R.

I've long thought that elemntary logic should be taught in schools. But, of course, that will never happen.

The level of discourse in this country is sickeningly low. Watching our "news" channels and then switching to the BBC... like two different worlds. I can't seem to get a satisfactory answer (for myself) to the question: why are Americans so unrelentingly stupid? I've moved past "ignorant" now, that politically-liberally-correct term. As if, with enough "education" these people would suddenly fall away from the Rovian fold. No, they're just stupid. They have to be. Stupid and bloated with the American lifestyle. Except for the very poorest, and most marginalized Americans, everyone in this country lives very comfortably indeed compared to the rest of the world. And, despite 9/11, ultimately, they feel safe. I suppose that's my current rationalization for why so many people continue to vote against their own interests. Too bad they bring the rest of us down with them. The internet is our only salvation, IMHO.

Thanks for this post. Coulter is like Jean-Marie Le Pen. Only, here, a lot of people take her seriously.

[Kutjara]

4. Logic teaching would be good, Rhetoric even better.

The average person not only lacks basic skills in logical thinking, they also don't understand the techniques of rhetoric. People fall for utterly worthless arguments simply because they can't see how they've been manipulated by rhetorical tricks that were old when Aristotle was using them. Time and again, I hear ostensibly intelligent people regurgitating complete nonsense they've heard on the tv or radio, as if it was written on stone tablets dispensed from mountaintops. The very idea of critical thinking never occurs to them. When called on their views, they make a weak attempt to defend the position and then, when they realize what bunk they're talking, go on the offensive. Or roll out the 'blank stare.' It's far more important for them to be 'right' than informed.

I gave up arguing with religious extremists years ago after understanding that there is a bedrock of intransigence in such people that no jackhammer can penetrate. I feel the same about freepers and other assorted wingnuts now. Once you get to their level of ignorance (which doesn't take much digging), they become bovine and immovable. It's not long before belligerance and name calling starts. Fortunately, the neocon elite have furnished their herd with multipurpose terms of abuse ('liberal,' 'anti-American,' 'Godless') that have the power to stop any argument dead in its tracks. You can argue yourself blue, cite fact after fact, lay out the whole sorry mess we're in; all your interlocotur has to do is shout 'liberal!' at you and you've lost.

So maybe returning logic and rhetoric to the curriculum would be a good thing for us in the long run.

[Nikki Stone 1]

7. I wholeheartedly agree. GREAT POST

kick

[Skarbrowe]

71. I agree Kutjara! Great post! It's exactly the conclusion I've reached.

I know there are probably quite a few of us who have "lost" a family member to this type of "blank stare", "name calling", right wing rigid thinking. I've even stopped talking to all Republicans that I know. Fortunatley, I don't know that many. I have stopped all contact with a step-brother because he does everything you have mentioned. These people are wired differently. They will not change. They might know there are gaping holes in what they consider logic, if logic is on their minds at all, but they immediately turn to name calling to deliberatly shout down the truth. The truth being something totally foreign and unrecognizable to them.

My second English class in college was on how to spot those rhetorical tricks. I've never, ever forgotten that class. We had to write papers using all these tricks, which I am sorry to say that I don't remember the names of, like fallacy of argument or semantic language arguments. It's been a long time, but, I still know them when I hear them or read them.

Sometime during Bush's first four years, I wrote my step-brother a long letter politely pointing out all of these unpleasant facts and trying to say I didn't blame the whole Republican party. I tried to be as diplomatic as possible. He wrote back one sentence.

"You silly Clinton lover."

Geez.

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. Don't people take Le Pen seriously?

He got 4.8 million votes in the first round of the 2002 presidential election, and 5.5 million in the second - that's about 12% of the adult population. Bush only got 24% of the adult US population in 2000. I think that while there are plenty of bigots who like her screeds, I doubt 12% of the country would vote for her.

[StellaBlue]

81. true enough

But the MEDIA didn't take his ideas seriously. That's our problem.

[zonmoy]

86. are you sure you are not mistaking malevolence for stupidity.

[Swamp Rat]

2. If the shoe fits...

[pretzel4gore]

3. we're Frank Grimes! (may he rip)

I just saw the 'Frank Grimes' episode of the Simpsons and said wow! It was so applicable to what's going on, and while Frank is more an absurd figure in the 'toon, and Homer emerges as usual in one piece, thus the man of honour to this modern world of ours; still - Frank Grimes is a fully qualified Nuke tech recently hired by the plant and he at first marvels at the sheer incompetence and stupidity of Homer Simpson (who's the george bush character in this analogy) and the way the people at the plant (ie the newsmedia and political/biz/community leadership) just accept everything Homer does, no matter how ridiculous, or pointless/dangerous! it doesn't help that in his frustration, Frank tries to express his frustration at the ridiculousness of Homer Simpson and his worldly success by sarcastically grabbing a pair of 'danger! don't touch!' powerlines, which kills him (he must have thought the suspension of logic extended to him as he mimicked Homer and his amazing stupidity(?))..
poor Frank Grimes aka 'Grimy' as he liked to be called - he is US!

[StellaBlue]

5. kicking

because it always pisses me off when I spend time writing a long, well-thought-out post and it sinks

:kick:

[Kenergy]

8. s/d n/t

[truedelphi]

6. The empty stare that I get

is often followed by,
"Well, I'll consider that point of view when the media
starts mentioning it" (The torture, the stealing of our
elections, the impossibility of two separate skyscrapers
both falling to their footprint at the speed of gravity)

They will lose the stares of the undead as soon as the media
"gets it" and spells it out for them

[Lady Effingbroke]

15. I am facing that problem in my family, as are many of us.

They believe the propaganda-spewing paid corporate media shills over a member of their own family who has spent hours researching and reading about political issues and who has taken time to shovel through the mountain of deliberately disinformative horsesh*t in search of the factual pony.

I have concluded that for millions of Americans television is more real than their actual, physical existence. They believe that if it isn't on TV, then it didn't occur; and statements made to the contrary of approved corporate propaganda are thus treated with suspicion, disbelief, and ridicule.

on edit: K&R

[bobbieinok]

85. Daniel Boorstein's book The Image (1962)

I found this a very scary book when I first read it in 62 or a bit later. He talks about how people can be 'right there' when something happens but 'have to' see it on TV before they believe it really happened.

And how 'news' is often a reporter getting someone to say something and then asking everyone else for their reactions.

If you've never read the book, check it out. It explains a lot.

[Pamela Troy]

97. Thanks, I'll look at it.

I can think of a good example of what you describe. Back in '91 a terrible fire broke out in the East Bay Hills. That morning, I looked out the window of my San Francisco apartment, wondered why the sunlight looked so red and strange, and went up to my roof to see a column of smoke bisecting the sky and bits of soot drifting down. I ran downstairs, woke up my boyfriend (who'd been up al night typing code) and pointed at the open window saying "something is happening."

He got up, glanced at the window, then walked over to the TV and turned it on to see nothing but regularly scheduled programming. He looked at me in disgust, said, "Nothing is happening," and went back to bed.

Later, he shook his head in wonder at his own reaction. I believe it made him think hard about his own assumptions.

[bobbieinok]

107. what a fabulous example

[sandnsea]

9. Yep, "shock politics"

That's the way it works. Which is why it's better to talk about how and why they do what they do, than to get in a spitting match with them when they're doing it. Jon Tester calls it "shock politics" and that's what we should repeat every time they start down that track.

[Tin Man]

10. K&R - great essay

...and well written, nice work!

[Tin Man]

11. deleted - double post.

[I Have A Dream]

12. Wonderful post, Pamela! Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[ClassWarrior]

13. You're not only right...

You're one helluva writer. Nice job. Welcome to DU.

NGU.

[Jeanette in FL]

14. K & R

Excellent work. Welcome to DU, Pamela and looking so forward to reading more of your work. You surely hit the ball out of the park with this piece.

[BrklynLiberal]

16. Wow! What a great post!!!

Welcome to DU!!!

[lostnfound]

17. What an absolutely amazing essay.

Welcome to DU.

[bleever]

18. Great essay. It's about redefining the "center".

Ann Coulter on the right, Harry Reid on the left...ah, let's just split the difference and meet in the "middle".

Or, as the incomparable Tom Tomorrow put it:

[Quantess]

45. LOL I love it.

Great comic!

[imperial jedi]

67. LOL

:rofl:

[Joanne98]

79. Oh! That's PERFECT!

[greiner3]

19. 'The empty stare' reminds me of a Cheech and Chong routine;

Before all those sub-par imitations to Up in Smoke, when they were funny. It went something like this;

Chong has a monologue and says 'I used to get messed up on drugs. Now I'm messed up on Jebusus.'

I've long thought that it's a matter of mass hysteria and our, once, fellow Americans are walking zombies for the lord. can i have a hallelujah?

[robbedvoter]

51. This should be W's confession at Fanatics Anonymous

Amazingly appropriate.

[yellerpup]

20. K&R #20!

Nice writin'! Welcome to DU. :hi: :kick:

[struggle4progress]

21. What to do about illegal immigrants? Bring the troops home from Iraq!

Let's stop arguing with true believers. We won't convert them and our willingness to debate them gives them an air of credibility, as if their ideas were authentic and deserve serious attention. Their views should be airily dismissed.

We should direct our efforts at people whose minds can be changed, and here again simply debating against the positions of the true believers is counterproductive. It is essential to reframe the dominant discourse. Here, logic alone does not help, because logic cannot provide better results than the underlying assumptions on which the reasoning is built -- and psychological processes determine those underlying assumptions.

Consider, for example, the "illegal immigration debate," which involves the idea that America is being destroyed by an army of aliens swarming into the country. This topic produces such heated discussion in part because Americans are uncomfortable with the war in Iraq, where our army swarmed illegally: it is psychologically convenient to displace that image, of a land inappropriately filled by foreign cohorts, so that America become the righteous victim of an aggressive swarm rather representing the aggressive swarm. Having understood this relation, we put it aside and concentrate on its implications.

What should we do about illegal immigration? We should bring the troops home from Iraq. Why? Oh, there are some many reasons ... We cannot afford Iraq: we have problems here at home that require money and manpower. The real costs of the war are at least $100 billion per year and probably two or three times that; we need the money for our problems here, including education and environmental protection and enforcing our laws, including our immigration laws. The National Guard is well-suited for some of these problems, like hurricane-relief and fire-fighting and perhaps for some border support as well; they do us more good alive and whole at home than dead or wounded in Iraq.

[smirkymonkey]

22. Kick!

:kick:

[lectrobyte]

23. Welcome! Excellent essay.

[LibertyorDeath]

24. Very insightful

The fact that mainstream network shows let her on to spew
her hate while at the same time helping to legitimize her views
by exposing their audience to her tells me all I need to know
about where this is ultimately headed.

She is fascism 101 for the uninitiated & brain washed sheeple

[SPKrazy]

25. Reality Check

on the news today (CNN?) they said that all of the controversy about Coulter's statements and her book had pushed her to the top of the Amazon.com book sales.

So what to do? Keep banging our heads trying to tell the world what is obvious to us? That she is a shill with an agenda and a desire to make a lot of money?

Or shut up about her and hope she goes away.

How about we shut up about her for now. Let her book pass on by. Then bring her down later?

I don't know. It upsets me no end that people buy her book at all.

It tells me a lot about the people who are buying the book that after her statements in her book and on air, that they want to buy it.

Of course, there is the "free book" ads that have been on google.com ads. Maybe there is a big buyout by some conservative site that wants to use her book to increase their hits and membership

[Mythsaje]

39. My guess?

She and a lot of her friends are buying up copies to drive the numbers up. It's no different than what many big publishing houses do with many of their more popular authors. It's artificial and meaningless.

[lyonn]

43. I've heard the repubs buy these type books in bulk

and use them as party favors for events such as AEI, Heritage Foundation, etc. Makes sense and gets those books on the No. 1 list. Of course they would be tax deductible.

[JHB]

26. Bravo!

That's why I never use any term kinder than "loathesome" when mentioning Newt Gingritch -- who is more responsible than any other single person (except Rush Limbaugh) for promoting the use of that sort of hateful spew in place of ploitical discourse.

[Tsiyu]

27. Nice

great writing,
great point re the "numbing down of America"

k & R :kick:

[motocicleta]

28. Wholehearteadly agree. K n R

I just got done with dinner with my brother and sister in law. He is a news junkie, collecting information from many sources, and is definitely something of a liberal. At least he hates bushco with the same fiery pashion I do, but he also considers himself more open minded than I because he thinks he is more fair to the realities of the situation.
When I question his joy at Zarqawi's death, though (for the record, I have no idea what happened because I no longer trust basically anything the MSM and bushco tell us - he may have been a terrible guy and he may very well have been killed the way we're told, but I respect those who bring up alternative points), my brother-in-law gives me the blank stare and very realistically suggests that he 'followed the story' as if I did not. The man collects information like a packrat, but it is all from mainstream sources, and he can not begin to internalize what I am suggesting. Which is that we should question most everything we see on cnn, msnbc, bbc, al jazeera, etc.

It is so insulting that he would, with a straight face, tell me he followed the story, as if I did not and was just some wild eyed conspiracy theorist. But what am I to do? I don't know what happened, so I don't want to get into a knockdown dragout argument over my right to question authority, but how can a guy claim to be well-informed because he trolls all the MSM outlets? It's so frustrating. The blank stare.

[DaveT]

29. Understand What is Happening, First, then

address what to do about it.

We do not yet have anything close to a consensus, even at places like DU, about what the Ann Coulter phenomenon means. I agree with the original post and the Tom Tomorrow strip that the only real significance of this gargle of piss is that it is on television at all.

She is not really a "writer" or a "political commentator" -- she is a bad taste comedian like Andrew Dice Clay, making outrageous jokes for the release of nervous energy it gives to stupid white adolescents. That is what the micro-mini skirts are about, by the way.

Even when the Diceman had a huge and lucrative audience, however, he was never put on the Today Show to talk about the political implications of his fag-bashing jokes, not even to put the snub to him.

No, Annie Dice Clay has built up a cottage industry that relies upon the complicity of the TV networks and other mainstream media outlets for the promotion of her toilet bowl full of shtick. And there is nothing comparable from the left that can even sniff the inside of a TV studio.

The complicity of the editors and publishers of the "respectable" mass media is the real splash of cold water in the face that this latest wave of Anthrax Annieism should provide.


So much of the material you read on DU and on other lefty venues in cyberspace amounts to either:

1. Criticism of "the dems" for their failure to have good enough television material, or

2. Advice to "the dems" for how to make a better presentation on television.


There seems to be a massive reluctance to face the horrible truth about the concentration of communications ownership in the USA -- the fact that the editors and producers consciously create a cumulative "reality" show of political "debate" that bears the same resemblance to reality that "COPS" does to criminal justice; that "Fear Factor" does to human psychology; that "The Apprentice" does to business and finance; or, that "Survivor" does to social relations.

In all of those "reality" shows, the producers take exquisite care to select the characters who will act out a "story line" that serves the interests of the commercial sponsors who pay for the whole production.

A freak show character like Annie plays a vital part in telling the story of American politics, and you cannot go on the "show" with her and beat her at her game, because she is not supposed to win. She is just supposed to be there -- showing her legs and doing her noxious act.


We cannot beat television from within television. I don't care how frustrating or depressing this reality is -- unless we collectively wake up to it, we will continue to get our collective asses kicked over and over again. Or until we wake up one morning on a reality show called, "Concentration Camp."

The irony is that once we all realize that TV is a show, it is by definition no longer Reality.


For now, you get dismissed, even here, as some variety of naif or loon for obsessing on this topic.

In my opinion -- it has to be the Number One concern: understanding how television really works in the 21st Century.

[marions ghost]

32. excellent post

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[femrap]

35. Don't you think that "Network" should be

viewed by all DUers? What a great movie...a prophecy, really. That might put us all on the same page.

[DaveT]

38. Agreed about Network.

I have it on DVD and watched it again a few months ago -- it is more bloodcurdling than ever during this Bush nightmare.

I also took another look at Wag the Dog recently. Talk about a prophetic film! Although not quite as fine artistically as Network -- still outstanding.

[femrap]

47. I thought about Wag the Dog just

yesterday....yep, it sure was prophetic.

And why I thought of it was because a friend and I were thinking of developing a list of books and/or movies that people with those W'04 stickers on their cars should read/watch.

I'm serious...I really want to type up a list of books/movies and place that list on their windshield.

Any thoughts? Definitely Wag the Dog and Network are on the list. Oh, The Handmaid's Tale was another....I read the book, but didn't see the movie.

[DaveT]

76. Honestly, I'm more interested in getting through to our friends

than the Bush supporters at this point in time. Don't get me wrong, I'm with you on the need for short term political education and argumentation right now. But this thread is more interesting as a discussion among progressives.


I have always thought that Network was the finest in a line of very similar Hollywood stories told over many decades about control of mass communications.


The first in the series was Frank Capra's, Meet John Doe. Like most Capra movies, it moves from a bitterly cynical and insightful premise to a soppy Hollywood ending. But the opening is a corker -- Barbara Stanwick is a plucky girl reporter who gets a pink slip from her paper in a proto-feminist fit of unfairness, implicitly because she is a woman without a familiy to support. But Barbara will not take her misfortune lying down and she schemes to get the ultimate human interest story into the paper before she is hustled out the door: she hokes up the letter from "John Doe" who promises to jump off a skyscraper in protest of all the hypocrisy and evil in the world. When the editor and publisher catch on to Barbara's ruse, they are furious -- and frustrated that they can't punish her any more than giving her the firing she already got.

But the plot turns its first corner when the bosses read what the competing newspapers have to say about the "John Doe" yarn -- they claim, accurately of course, that it is a fraud! Why, those yahoos can't get away with calling our stuff a pack of lies!!! This leads to a brilliant scene by the plucky Stanwick as she convinces the editor that he HAS to defend the honor of the paper by sticking by the (bogus) story. She promises that if she can keep her job, she will find a John Doe!!!!

Enter Gary Cooper -- who agrees to play the part of the suicidal prophet and inevitably becomes Stanwick's love interest.

She gets him on radio, and he becomes a populist hero overnight. In the next plot turn, an Evil Fascistic Rich Bastard, Edward Arnold, takes Cooper under his wing. As long as this John Doe puppet had Barbara Stanwick's hand up his ass, the message was sweet and progressive and good for The People. But now that Arnold wants to call the shots, Doe has second thoughts . . . and the story devolves into a melodramatic Capra ending.

But these themes of "The Common Voice of the People" and ritual suicide serving as the ultimate magnet for "popularity" return in later films.


Two decades later, Elia Kazan's, A Face In The Crowd casts Patricia Neal as the plucky career girl who finds a diamond in the rough of a hick town jailhouse with Andy Griffith -- who adds cornball singing to the populist persona. We move from radio to television in this version of the tale, and politics does not enter the story until the Fascist Bastards decide to come courting the everyman hero. Neal is not quite as plucky as Stanwick, and she cannot help falling in love with the selfish lout -- leaving her suitor/business associate Walther Mathau out in the cold. There is as struggle for Andy's soul, that Neal loses as Andy agrees to huckster for the Big Guy against the Little Guy.

Andy's downfall is his own cyncism as an unknown open mic catches him mocking his audience with bitter condescenion as the closing credits role. Kazan thus unmasks the Smiling Face of pseudo-populism with a mechanical plot device, and the People are saved from fascism in an ending even hokier than Capra's.

But the movie is worth watching as it shows the construction of that Smiling Face, which the gullible public thinks is a "natural."



By far the most brilliant version of this story is Network, Paddy Chayevski's masterpiece about Howard Beale, a TV network anchorman who gets the pink slip like Barbara Stanwick. Rather than hoke up a John Doe to save his career -- he uses his "last" broadcast to promise to commit ritual suicide on the air. Why? He just ran out of bullshit. Forty years after Capra and the whole gullable world first contemplated the awesome power of instant mass communication, Beale realized that nothing he said on TV mattered to anybody.

The corporate bureaucracy by now was no longer a fascistic fat guy -- now it was represented by the plucky career girl, Faye Dunnaway, who immediately realizes the same thing that Barbara Stanwick realized: suicidal madness makes for an irresistible appeal!!!

She fights the bureaucracy on Beale's behalf in a fabulous echo of Stanwick's pitch for "John Doe." Her immediate boss, played by Robert Duvall, ends the conversation by saying, "You realize that we are talking about putting a manifestly insane man on national television." Dunnaway nods impatiently in her most beautiful take in the film.

So the Mad Prophet of the Airwaves becomes a hit TV show (even though he declines to fulfill his promise to kill himself) -- opening each episode with the signature line of the film, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" The rote line is chanted in unison by the studio audience.

Nothing better describes the experience of watching television -- a rebel yell out the window, before returning to the sofa to watch more shit.


The big mcguffin in Network involves the sale of the parent company of Beale's network to "the Arabs." When Beale learns of this, he goes berserk on the air and calls on his audience to protest this travesty. Millions of people send telegrams (how quickly media change) and the sale is cancelled -- kind of like the Dubai port debacle of 2006.

This event,however, unravels Faye's grand design for keeping the audience glued to their sets in the passive act of having their noses counted for calculating advertising revenue. The biggest boss of the Corporate Universe, played by Ned Beatty, calls Beale in to explain why screwing up that deal was a bad move for humankind. Beatty echoes the Voice of God that had visited Beale in a dream, and charges him with preaching the new gospel of globalization -- the truth that borders no longer mean anything in the information age. At the end of the scene, Beale asks Beatty the same thing he asked God at the end of his dream, "Why me?"

Beatty echoes the Voice of God, word for word:

"Because you're on television, dummy!"

In what I regard as the most insightful aspect of Chayevski's scintillating script, it turns out that Beale's new corporate message bores the audience to tears. Ratings crash. And to the horror of Dunnaway and Duval, Beatty does not care if the show loses money. He wants that message told, no matter how small the audience.

If you've never scene the movie, scroll past this paragraph. This state of affairs is intolerable for the folks who run the network. Their definition of themselves transcends profit and loss and keeping their boss happy. So they decide to have Beale murdered by terrorists while doing his show.

John Doe comes full circle, as Paddy's own voiceover states, "And so Howard Beale becomes the first man in the history of television to be killed because he had lousy ratings."



Three decades have now passed since Network appeared, and the world of corporate controlled television news has become daily reality. Nevertheless, I get depressed when I see so many intelligent political allies fail to absorb its lessons.

The text of the message that comes through the idiot box is irrelevant. Ann Coulter does not persuade anyone to vote for Republican candidates with her toxic bullshit -- she is a freak attraction like Howard Beale threatening to commit ritual suicide or Sybil the Soothsayer promising to tell you what the future holds.

She plays her part in painting the picture of the ersatz "reality" of television that exists nowhere -- but it trumps the three dimensional reality of our lives because it seems to be the only way to imagine you are in connection with your country as a whole.

That is an illusion.

The national "reality" of television does not just happen -- it is created by a relatively small group of people who answer to the same tiny circle of corporate chieftans.

And they are well aware of what it means to tell a freak show performer, "You're on televison, dummy."

[RaleighNCDUer]

94. Excellent analysis --

put more simply, or complexly, as McLuhan said, the media IS the message.

Three fantastic movies. I've always been most disturbed by Face in the Crowd.

[DaveT]

103. Funny thing about McLuhan

I am 53 years old, and I tried to read Understanding Media when I was in college 30+ years ago. I could not make head nor tails of it -- it seemed like absolute gibberish.

Then a new edition came out about 10 or 12 years ago with a forward by Lewis Lapham, just now retiring as editor of Harper's Magazine. Now it all makes sense, perfect sense to me, in fact. I honestly can't remember what I was thinking a generation back, but I found his basic argument about how tools shape our lives to be lucid and actually enjoyable to read.

I have posted a lot on a very small internet board, and I have tried to explicate what I've gotten from Understanding Media -- and it is quite frustrating. Almost nobody buys any part of my spiel on the death of the printed page. . . .

Oh, well.

Thanks for reading my little essay -- it is very long for this medium, but I cut it to the bone in terms of what lessons those films teach when considered at a single whack. I also omited any discussion of EdTV and Wag the Dog which both fit nicely into this running narrative on mass communication.

I am enough of a Capra-esque cockeyed optimist to believe that this insight about the meaningless of the content of television will someday blossom into a general paradigm shift, and TV thereby become as obsolete at the horse as the organizing framework for civilization.

Hope springs.

[LuckyLib]

49. It's all about the show. And the show tells you what, how, when

and where to think (or not think). And since "college educated, articulate, professional people who were apparently taught how to form complicated, even graceful sentences, who are knowledgeable about their own field of expertise, but who, for some reason, never learned the basics of critical thinking" form great heaps of the voting populace, they're ripe for the taking. And are they ever being taken.

[Indy_Dem_Defender]

98. Great post CLW and so true

After returning to college after a 5 year absence I was surprised that 90% of the student body fall under the category you just described. The professors can't grade work based on critical thinking or thought, due to it being a opinion that can be debated when it comes to the course grade. So the college overemphasizes grammar creating a student body without any original thoughts; everyone is suppose to write a bunch of mindless work with good grammar and cited sources. I was horrified by this when I received some of my first couple of papers back receiving an F and a D, because my grammar wasn't "College Level" supposedly. I am extremely mad that way the system operates I can write a well thought out paper on a subject and receive a lower letter grade than some mindless idiot who writes a uninformed bland paper with good grammar. I can back that up by when I have talked to classmates who have gotten higher grades on work and they came off as dumbasses with no knowledge when we had a group study session for the final exam.

[laundry_queen]

50. Great reply to a great post! n/t

[AverageJoe]

63. Very astute and well expressed post

You are absolutely correct: Television completely shapes body politic in contemporary America and television is an agent of totalitarian control.

George Orwell understood the danger of media control back in the 1940s and tried to warn us with 1984. Ray Bradbury described it in the 1950s with Fahrenheit 411. Media critic Neil Postman wrote on this topic more than once.

I wish I could see a solution to the mess we're in, but I just don't. So many Americans are uneducated, unthinking, ignorant, and uncaring of anything outside their own backyard. The glass teat nurses their prejudices and fears. Unenlightened self-interest is our prime directive.

[libbygurl]

30. Oh, so beautifully expressed. Thank you. n/t

[Jazz2006]

31. Excellent essay - K&R

And welcome to DU!

:hi:

[ariellyn]

36. Ditto. nt

[applegrove]

33. Well done!

[Scout1071]

34. I'm glad they sent out Mary Matalin. She's so warm and fuzzy,

I mean, if you are looking to soften Ann's image, why not send Mary?

I think it's hilarious. They sent Cruella to defend Ann. The only woman meaner than Ann.

[femrap]

37. Excellent post....you explained a phenomenon

that I have experienced yet could not name.

Welcome to DU....looking forward to hearing more.

[TwentyFive]

40. From a fellow San Franciscan - Thank you for posting.

I KNOW that blank stare you refer to. Silent but deadly...and a favorite right wing tactic.

If they don't "understand" your position, it gets them out of defending the undefensible. And worse, if they "have no idea what you're talking about" well, they can just dismiss you as paranoid. Case closed...and back to their denial.

[spacelady]

41. I would have liked to see the reaction had Coulter called them

"harpies" on 9/12/01 The buffer of time blunts the masses.

Edit to add: and the message.

[lyonn]

42. Welcome Pamela!

This was great. Blank stares. You have explained so well what we all have gone through when trying to explain to people why george is a big problem when it comes to our country's safety and welfare. When Coulter started her tour it occurred to me that this is the beginning of the dumbing down, swift boating, smearing campaign for November. Same song, second verse.

Will the Dems running for office get it after years of the same routine ridiculing them, that is the problem.

[Dystopian]

44. BRILLIANT~ K/R N/T

[tomreedtoon]

46. Is this any relation to the "thousand yard stare" in Nam?

I just saw "Full Metal Jacket" again, and one of the craziest guys in the Vietnam section talked about the "thousand yard stare." He said that it belonged only to those people who had been in combat.

This is the same lunatic that sprayed innocent, unarmed civilians from a copter, saying "The ones that run are Viet Cong. The ones that don't move are disciplined Viet Cong."

In other words, the "thousand yard stare" belongs to those people so frightened and homicidal that they go out looking for something to kill, whether hostile or not. Which seems to pretty much jibe with Coulter.

[Control-Z]

48. Oh, yeah.

I know that stare. Far too well.

[Octafish]

52. Outstanding post. Should wipe more than a few smirks off the empty stares.

Multiplying stupidity is the name of their game. It's how they rule.

It’s about multiplying those empty stares. It’s about taking American discourse into an even lower level, one in which both common sense, common decency and even the basic verities of how language works are deliberately discarded, allowing the likes of Mary Matalin and Lou Dobbs, and Sean Hannity and, a few weeks down the road, Tucker Carlson (trust me, he’ll get over it), to defend the indefensible.

The advertising age has taught us that the first idea into a head is harder to remove -- even if false -- than later, true ideas. Case in point, Coke vs. Pepsi. Going from memory: It takes about $40 to get a high school kid to like one over the other. It takes about $500 bucks to get kids who already have a preference to switch from one to another. With Rove and their ilk, substitute lie for Coke.

PS: A most hearty welcome to DU, Pamela Troy.

[LouisianaLiberal]

53. Very well done. And welcome.

Recommended. Please consider putting your thoughts in the form of a book, or at least expanding them in some form that will allow wider dissemination of your post.

[Armstead]

55. Saw her on TV in a bookstore

She was at a booksigning the day the flap happened.

The crowd of Coulter worshippers applauded when she repeated her spew against the 9-11 widows.

[immoderate]

56. Great stuff. Great writing.

Welcome to DU.

This should be on the Huffington Post.

--IMM

[ginnyinWI]

57. While trying to energize their party, they are splitting it.

Moderate Repubs are having none of this. And the more frantic the Far Right acts, the more they will alienate traditional Repubs who, up until this point, have looked the other way and voted for * as the best of the choices available. Some jumped ship earlier, of course, and voted for Kerry--I personally know some of these. But now it's even more hard to miss the frenetic, hate-filled rhetoric, the bigotry, and the blind allegance to Dear Leader exhibited by the radical right wing of the GOP.

[lolly]

59. I wonder, though

Ginny, I'd like to agree with you, that "moderate repubs are having none of this," but I'm frankly not seeing a lot of outrage and denunciation from "moderate" repubs.

Sure, Tucker Carlson and Ricky Sanitorium have publically disagreed with her comments, but has there been a groundswell of demand for republicans to publically renounce her? I agree with what the original poster said. Within a few weeks or even a few more days, Coulter's screed will be "mainstreamed," just part of the "conversation," moving the bar another giant step towards fascism. Her defenders--Matalin et al--will flood the airwaves, and the few who do remain to call her out for her hatred will be portrayed as "politically correct" nannies and "doctrinaire liberals."

I hope I'm wrong--but that's how these things seem to play out again and again.

btw--are there any real "moderate repubs" left? If you're voting for a party that is certifiably fascist, you're not a moderate anymore.

[ginnyinWI]

66. well, some of them were already gone in 2004

Like my father in law--a moderate who says, "I didn't leave my party, my party left ME!" And he voted for Kerry.
And I think another bunch gave it up after Katrina--and regretted their votes for * the second time around. Otherwise how to explain that * is at 30%? All he has left is his far rw base. The rest are moderate Repubs, Indies and Dems.

[TomInTib]

58. First thing I have read this morning. And it will be the last, as well.

This is so well thought out that I am just going to turn off my computer and ride with this one for the rest of the day.

Pamela Troy, if you ever get North across the Bay to Tiburon let me know. I owe you a few drinks or lunch for this one.

I'm keeping this to send all over the place.

[ninkasi]

60. Absolutely wonderful post, Pamela

I'd like to join the others in welcoming you to DU. Yes, I know it well, that empty stare. Conservatives freeze for a little bit, as if waiting for the truth slide off of them, unable to find a chink in their armor. Once their beliefs remain intact, then, and only then, do they speak, able by then to accuse whoever tried to get them to listen to the truth. When they speak, they question, with great indignation, the audacity of anybody daring to challenge the words or actions, no mater how vile, or disgusting, of one of their own.

I had an extremely upsetting conversation recently with a friend of many years, who told me that she was not able to "let herself believe" the fact that Bush lied to get us into a war in Iraq, that we were torturing prisoners there, that the Republicans were stealing the country blind. I gave several facts which have come to light, and after telling me she just couldn't let herself believe, I saw the stare. After that, after whatever inner gear she had used to rearrange the facts I had given, she commented that no, she did not want to discuss the reality of what the Bush administration is doing to our country. Regardless of facts, it upset her too much to consider something contrary to her beliefs, which she has held for many years.

She was able to shut the truth out, in order to keep from upsetting herself, because that would require a whole new view of life, and she was already comfortable with what she believed, so why upset herself? Why, indeed? She was willing to let the country continue it's transformation into a dictatorship, run by an ignorant, corrupt man, because she didn't want her own feelings be challenged.

[B3Nut]

93. Not everyone has the ability or will to face

a paradigm shift. It's a realization that the things you held to, the things you believed, might not be true after all. It can be especially unsettling to face those realizations when one is unsure of what to replace those beliefs with. Uncertainty is highly disturbing to many people. It can often entail a complete overhaul and rebuilding of one's worldview, and that takes time and effort, especially when one's worldview has been constructed entirely out of simplistic platitudes and unproven assertions. Some choose instead to hold to their wrong ideas and dismiss anything contrary out of hand, lest the resulting cognitive dissonance becomes unbearable.

I suppose it is not unlike Don Quixote's encounter with the Knight of the Mirrors, where he is forced to actually see himself as he actually is. "Drown! Drown in the mirrors!"

Americans believe they are in posession of a fabulous golden helmet of much worth, when in reality it is a beat-up old shaving bowl.

Todd in Beerbratistan

[Protagoras]

61. McCarthy was once ask "Have You No Sense of Decency?"

Today we don't just need to ask this of Ann Coulter (because we already have that answer), we need to ask it of the Country.

[datasuspect]

62. welcome aboard

thanks.

[Demeter]

64. I Think It's More Than PR and Brainwashing, Though

The Whackjobs (for lack of a better collective term) fulfill some basic need in this society.

I wonder if it isn't the need to shuck responsibility: the lure of eternal adolescence, to always let Mom and Dad do the housework, the bill-paying, the voting and volunteering, the daily grind, while the parasitical get to lay around the house, swilling junk food, watching MTV and American Idol, wasting time and money in the pursuit of mindless pleasures and following the herd.

When the Crash comes, and people are starving and dying on the streets, perhaps this will change. Or through Social Darwinism, the parasites will simply die out.

[AverageJoe]

65. Another welcome, Pamela

Thank you for your excellent post. :applause::patriot::applause:

[FantasticFlan]

68. best bit:

"deliberate obtuseness is the only defense that can be mustered for the policies and practices of the current administration"

been thinking that for a while

[a la izquierda]

69. Do any teachers out there...

get this stare? I surely do. I've mentioned this before, but I am a graduate teaching assistant at a large, red-state university (for the sake of my job, I will keep quiet on which one). My field of study is pre-1865 US history and periodically, in order to get concepts through my students thick skulls, I try to make them relevant to today. This is particularly useful in political discussions. My problem is NOT my students' political beliefs-it can't be or I can't be impartial when I grade. My problem is, however, the fact that many, many of my students are spoon-fed idiotology (err, ideology) by their parents or preachers and give no careful thought to what they're being told. Thinking critically does not seem to be high on the priority list for many of my students-getting a nice new car or a coach bag is, however. So, unfortunately, unless America does something to educate young people in logic and rhetoric, critical thinking and fair assessment of facts, the Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh crew will continue to find rabid audiences: what these guys write does not require serious thought, it does, however, require brainwashed idiocy. When a good chunk of the middle and southern parts of this country find no value in critical thought, those in America who do will face an uphill battle.

[WillyT]

70. Bravo !!! - Most Excellent Post !!!

:yourock:

And welcome to DU! Glad ta have ya aboard!

:toast::bounce::hi::bounce::toast:

[Maat]

72. Excellent post.

Welcome.

[Blutodog]

73. Dehumanization of the enemy:

We shouldn't be shocked by anything Coulter and her ilk say about those they disagree with or dislike (70%) of humanity. This is part of a long term strategy to dehumanize your enemies. In germany the murder of the jews et al. didn't happen over night the Nazis prepared the German public and to some extent the world for what they did. They systematically dehumanized their enemies and then murdered them. The world was only horrorified after they LOST. We did the same thing here for 300 yrs. to Blacks and Native Americans. The difference now is the right is in the process of deligitimatizing ANYBODY that dares to challenge them and it's becoming scary. People like Coulter and her ilk are becoming more and more strident in their calls for violence against anyone they dislike. They are the ugly face of the Bu$h era filled with anger and rage even though their side holds all the power. I think Coulter and the other rottweilers of the right are held on a chain by the Matalans and the other so called respectable right wingers are a warning to us that if we don't take it they will let the dogs of war loose on us. Things are getting uglier and uglier as these bastards sense most of us aren't listening to them. They want obedience not agreement! Coulter is a right wing domanitrix and she is sticking her stilleto heel in our collective eye and grinding it with this latest hate filled tirade. The rest of the right enjoys these displays of viciousness and hatred just as much as the masses of Germans on the right loved the brownshirts and the violence they carried out in their name. This is what happens when the opposition is weak and bullies are allowed to rule the streets of America. As the Bu$h era comes to a close we can expect more and more of this kind of behavior. Violence is the stock and trade of the right it's the real core of their whole project. Ann and her kind are just extreme examples for all of us just how sick these people are. All of them.

[renate]

96. "...the rest of the right enjoys these displays of viciousness and hatred"

Unfortunately, I think you're correct; there seems to be a substantial contingent of right-wing morans who actively get off on anger and hatred. I don't think most right-wingers are that way--I think most are just, as StellaBlue brilliantly put it above, unrelentingly stupid. But some are just plain BAD.

And Pamela Troy--welcome to DU!!!! :applause:

[zippy890]

74. excellent post, very well written

and welcome to DU:hi:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

75. WELCOME TO DU!

Amazing, amazing post.

DTH

[SeloverB]

77. How dare they have an emotional argument I can't confront!

    While I agree with the premise of this article, what I
haven't heard mentioned in the Coulter debate, is that
Coulter's primary concern is that the 9/11 widows have an
EMOTIONAL argument that Coulter cannot challenge. I do believe
that Coulter is "moving the chains" with her book,
allowing conservatives to challenge even the 9/11 widows
shamelessly, but still find it interesting that Coulter's
outrage was with the 9/11 widows use of their EMOTIONAL
argument. I have believed for quite awhile that when
progressives have tried to challenge conservatives using
logic, it doesn't work, because conservatives, particularly
the religious right, use emotion, not logic to make decisions.
Conservative politicians appeal to emotion, not logic, in
their campaigns.
    How best to challenge Coulter, and her new book, without
allowing her to "move the chains"? Keep going back
to the EMOTIONAL argument! Mention the 9/11 widows innocent
children being raised without their dads. Mention our troops
families who are still becoming victims due to the loss,
handicapps due to injury, or PTSD the Iraq war has caused, and
that our troops and famlies must continue to deal with. Talk
about the Iraqi victims of this war. Talk about the innocent
children (Our troops and Iraqi) deformed in the woumb due to
thier parents exposure to depleated uranium ordinance, which
we have used extensively in two wars with Iraq.
    Keep going back to the EMOTIONAL argument. It drives them
nuts!  

[A-Schwarzenegger]

78. Perhaps, but the "9-11 widows" have more than emotional argument.

Anybody who's seen them testify knows that they know
their shit about 9-11. Theyre where they are in the news
today not because of their grief and rage, but because
theyve translated their grief and rage into political knowledge
and action and speaking truth to power. The fact that they
were originally moved to such action through grief and rage
at the loss of loved ones should hardly be held against them.

[SeloverB]

83. More than emotional

   I understand that the 9/11 widows have more than their
emotional argument. Even though I haven't followed them
particularly closely, any progressive worth their strips can
argue with the facts. That's OK when we discuss amoung
ourselves, but to argue with the conservatives, we need to be
versed in THEIR EMOTION! We have to be ready to deflect THEIR
EMOTION, and turn it to our use. Only then do the facts have a
chance!
   This Coulter thing is simply a great example of what I
mean. Coulter's outrage is because she lost the EMOTIONAL
argument to the 9/11 widows! Coulter has to "move the
chains" to regain the EMOTIONAL high ground. Progressives
need to be able to fight conservatives on THEIR high ground.
Facts don't matter, until you have ACKNOWLEDGED and TURNED
THEIR EMOTION.
   I hold nothing against the 9/11 widows. My heart is with
them, and we share the same facts. 
   Keep going back to the emotional! It drives them nuts! Then
go to the facts!

[lolly]

82. Welcome to DU, Selover!

And you're right--when you don't have the facts (logos) on your side, you have to resort to pathos.

For example, anybody who questioned the association of Saddam w/9/11 was never given any facts or information to back up the connection. Instead, we were treated to heart-wrenching pictures of 9/11 victims and called traitors.

When it's the only tool you've got, and someone else makes some use out of it (or if you imagine that someone else must be using, because you can't or won't follow the logic of the argument) then I can see where the outrage comes from.

[shimmergal]

101. I agree. Coulter's outrage

was because the widows' loss gives them a moral credibility she can't match, and finds it hard to counter. The same is true of her disdain for Cindy Sheehan.

If she wants to "match" that, why doesn't she volunteer to go serve in Iraq? I'm surprised none of the commentators have asked this.

[beltanefauve]

80. The blank stare,

and, "They all do it", ("they", being politicians of all stripes) followed with a shrug. End of discussion. I get this a lot from the willfully-ignorant.

[RagAss]

84. Great post...welcome to DU....

That blank stare is begining to take on the characteristic of a scarlet letter...they are painting themselves back into the corner that they crawled out of......

[Prophet 451]

87. Bravo

There's only one tiny difference, Nigel Tuffnal doing the routine was funny, the blank stare is just frightening.

[NMMNG]

88. Critical thinking skills need to be taught in schools

Unfortunately they are not because kids are being taught how to take standardized tests to comply with NCLB. Furthermore the right-wingers don't want people with critical thinking skills because such individuals tend to analyze what they read and hear, and ask too many questions. The right-wing wants people who will simply accept what they are told and do what they are ordered to do (all for the lowest salary possible).

[a la izquierda]

91. well, then...

they should come hang out in my classes. They Republican party has a great future if it recruits my students.

[peacetalksforall]

89. We know that Repubs owe Coulter for her activism in the 90's.

She was in the middle of the elves - those who gathered and passed dirt - dirt being the data needed to be transferred between Starr, the FBI, and the foundations that were helping to trap Clinton and then to the public.

I think they thanked her enough by getting her on innumerable talk shows and by buying her books. She appears to be too unstable for a diplomatic position or they would have already given her one?

Matalin defending Coulter says plenty about Matalin.

They all eventually expose themselves as fools.

[ScreamingMeemie]

90. Just the other day I was told I didn't "get" Coulter's satire...

In any case, I don't think I want to. After all, she doesn't "really mean it"...

[ElboRuum]

99. Satire? Is that how it's being framed?!?

Well, when you have people trying to turn the idea that "words mean things" towards irrelevancy, I find the dictionary to be the most potent form of munitions with which to mount a counter-offensive.

From Merriam-Webster Online:

satire

Main Entry: sat·ire
Pronunciation: 'sa-"tIr
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin satura, satira, perhaps from (lanx) satura dish of mixed ingredients, from feminine of satur well-fed; akin to Latin satis enough -- more at SAD
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

Seems to mean to me that the only way, even casually,this could be referred to as satire is if you equated the aggrievement of widows as a vice or a folly, or if you chose to expose it as such.

Either way, if it is truly a satire, and this is what most people miss, is that you absolutely do mean it, there is a trenchantly expressed material point that a person making when it this form of literary device is engaged.

So the next time someone comes at you with this whole "she was being satirical" angle, point out that you "get" the satire: she's belittling the aggrievement of these people, which is a particularly unforgivable offense if we have any moral fiber at all, and the only reason she said it is because these people are credible and against her point of view, as such require her attempts at discrediting... something about having been there rather than sneering from afar.

If they say, "well, she didn't mean it, whatever the word you'd use...", you respond, "then, having nothing of relevance to say, out of courtesy to those who do have something of relevance to say, she should shut the hell up... on the other hand, a bright person like yourself who now understands what she's about should stop listening, which would be just as good."

This may fail... at which point you quote them the following and casually mention how their obtuseness allows this definition to apply as fact (rather than the assumed derogatory invective)... again from our good friends at Merriam-Webster Online:

idiot

Main Entry: id·i·ot
Pronunciation: 'i-dE-&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French ydiote, from Latin idiota ignorant person, from Greek idiOtEs one in a private station, layman, ignorant person, from idios one's own, private; akin to Latin suus one's own -- more at SUICIDE
1 usually offensive : a person affected with idiocy
2 : a foolish or stupid person
- idiot adjective

Edit: Typographical error

[myrna minx]

92. Bravo. Excellent analysis. n/t

[tired of the right]

95. I ran this Coulter thing past some people on site where we discuss footbal

It has a board where politics are discussed. They are mostly conservative. I thought common decency would bring them to say that Coulter was an idiot or a bitch or something. So far all I am getting is that she is absolutely correct. And the sanctimonious bastards claim moral superiority!

[ElboRuum]

100. Conservatives...

Morality (in its most general form) begins with an undesirable act, concept, or state of existence and states that it should be corrected.

Conservative morality begins with a desirable (to them) act, concept, or state of existence, and finds justification for it.

Of course conservatives agree with Coulter. Far be it for anyone to suggest that people should allow things like real human concern, suffering, etc. to derail the intellectual certitude of the selfishly unapologetic, whose only concern is with the inward perception of moral rectitude.

[FighttheFuture]

102. Results of the PSP (Population Stupefaction Program)...

There's a reason Bu$hitCo pushes for so much Mercury, Lead, Arsenic, etc. in our air, water and food supply. Many of these are known to cause brian damage and retardation when it does not kill you outright!! Couple this with the constant garbage spewing of the mainstream media and right wing radio and the funding cuts to education with the "No Child Left Behind" cherry topper.

All part of the plan because the only way to stay in power is to keep on stupefying the sheeple while they are sheared of all their rights!


Remember what Jefferson said about an educated electorate:

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384


and many more insights at: http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1350.htm

[lilypad_567]

104. bisexual president

June 4, 2006 -- More on George W. Bush's "Sanctity of Marriage" gay marriage constitutional ban.

George W. Bush's marital problems have just taken another turn for the worse. Apparently, Mr. Bush has not only engaged in an extra-marital affair with a member of the opposite sex who is also a senior member of his Cabinet, but also a member of the same sex. WMR received the following release this morning from Leola McConnell, Democratic candidate for Governor of Nevada (who has been endorsed by WMR). McConnell is a one-time professional dominatrix.

"President Bush's speech to the nation Monday. If he doesn't say he's a gay American or at the least a bisexual one then he shouldn't be making one at all. And the notion that it would be in regards to writing bigotry into our nation's Constitution is reprehensible. Too bad it isn't me doing the rebuttal because in 1984, I watched him perform (with the enthusiasm of homosexual male who had done this many times before) a homosexual act on another man, namely Victor Ashe. Victor Ashe is the current Ambassador to the nation of Poland who should also come out like former Governor McGreevey of New Jersey and admit to being a gay American. Other homo-erotic acts were also performed by then private citizen George Bush because I performed one of them on him personally.

[Raksha]

105. This is one of the best essays I've read on DU.

I just read it for the third time! Would it be okay if I repost it on another forum if I include a link to your website?

[Pamela Troy]

106. Sure. And thanks

for the kind words!