Talk Radio Wants War in Iran
When I talk about inciting violence on the radio it was often focused on individuals as well as groups. Stories about individuals as targets of violence was something that people could grasp as just plain wrong. But equally disturbing is the constant drum beat to use violence as the first and ONLY option in dealing with all foreign policy issues. Violence is THE knee jerk reaction of neocons and talk radio hosts. It makes them feel "manly".
Do they not feel the impact of this war? They must not.
Why else would they want to whip up the people for yet another war?
I'm getting really sick of this "who is a real man?" question. Calling Edwards "The Breck" girl as a slur. (I wonder how many overweight balding pundits would love to have Edward's good hair and looks?) And how would a "real man" respond to a hostage crisis?
They will bring up Jimmy Carter and misrepresent what happened and HOW it happened and WHO did what when. They will forget the REAL role their god Ronnie played in that affair.
It really is all about THEIR "masculinity" or their idea of what it takes to be a man. People who think that bombing people is the right response to any situation are not strong.
Do you care more about getting the 15 people out of harms way or do you care more about "looking weak"? Do they care more about "sending a message" than saving the messenger?
And WHO are you afraid of calling you a coward? Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity? People who have never served, who have to use chemicals to get it up and get off?
You want to prove you are strong and SMART? Figure out a way to get them out without getting into another war. That is what a real man does.
A real man worries less about what Chris Matthews thinks of him and more about the lives of his troops. A real man cares more about effective action that being called weak by some entertainer.
Only the people who are REALLY insecure care more about the opinions of some chattering class than real lives.
Do they not feel the impact of this war? They must not.
Why else would they want to whip up the people for yet another war?
I'm getting really sick of this "who is a real man?" question. Calling Edwards "The Breck" girl as a slur. (I wonder how many overweight balding pundits would love to have Edward's good hair and looks?) And how would a "real man" respond to a hostage crisis?
They will bring up Jimmy Carter and misrepresent what happened and HOW it happened and WHO did what when. They will forget the REAL role their god Ronnie played in that affair.
It really is all about THEIR "masculinity" or their idea of what it takes to be a man. People who think that bombing people is the right response to any situation are not strong.
Do you care more about getting the 15 people out of harms way or do you care more about "looking weak"? Do they care more about "sending a message" than saving the messenger?
What if you knew that you had a solution that would make you look weak to the pundits but would definitely guarantee that those people would live AND you wouldn't have to deal with all the mess that a bombing run would start? Would you take it?
And WHO are you afraid of calling you a coward? Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity? People who have never served, who have to use chemicals to get it up and get off?
You want to prove you are strong and SMART? Figure out a way to get them out without getting into another war. That is what a real man does.
A real man worries less about what Chris Matthews thinks of him and more about the lives of his troops. A real man cares more about effective action that being called weak by some entertainer.
Only the people who are REALLY insecure care more about the opinions of some chattering class than real lives.
Labels: Bush, hate, right-wing, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, talk radio, War with Iran
8 Comments:
oh god this morning some crazy general mcinerny was on ksfo talking about how in 48 hours he'd bomb 2500 targets in iran and the people would rise up in revolt and that would be that, simple as pie. the only thing he forgot to mention was his precious bodily fluids.
For whatever reason I was letting some thoughts roll around in my head today re: hate versus respect, negative political advertising, and whatnot...perhaps because I've seen a number of in-depth pieces about Karl Rove recently...
Anyway, my own conjecture is that hate-talk-radio, negative political ads, etc., are at least in large part "successful" because they're a lot "easier" than the converse. For instance: every person is flawed to some extent. It's incredibly easy to bark about these flaws, and set someone up as an object of ridicule, as opposed to the opposite: expressing support or at least respect for someone, which then sort of requires you to come up with a defense for the inevitable flaws that will be brought up.
Shoot, even Team Bush's strongest supporters really spend a lot more of their time in attack-mode, gliding from enemy to enemy with virtually every breath...which exposes another aspect of hate: very little committment is required. For that matter, very little of ANYTHING is required, which probably suits the hatemongers just fine: deep down, I'd guess a LOT of them are deeply flawed individuals.
Their obsession with John Edwards, for instance, speaks volumes...and I use the word "obsession" deliberately: I think they're quite jealous of his good looks, and, if they allow themselves to think a bit, his successful career and loving family.
To indulge in a bit of their forte, I'll suggest as well that their strident rhetoric seems to spew forth in inverse proportion to tangible action...althouth, considering some of the more egregious verbiage, maybe that's a GOOD thing.
Totally with you Michael.
Unfortunately, real journalism requires reader/listner/viewer participation. You have to think about what you're consuming and parse it.
Hate radio needs no nuance, no sublety. They just bellow out loud, all the time, like a field full of moon-struck calves.
Unfortunately it's clear that the Alabaster Asylum is filled with men who regard this moon-calf mooing as a sound base for policy decisions (and the wingnutosphere is vastly overpopulated by fat rich white men with real or perceived potency problems--Michelle Malkin being one exception that proves the rule).
Thank the FSM that the Democratic congress appears to be beginning to flex its muscles a little. Just think positive and hope the perjury indictments and the impeachment motion come quickly.
I've had a post rattling around in my brain for a while that goes something like this:
Have you ever noticed that none of the right-wing moronosphere or pundits ever say anything good about America? It's always 'liberals/Dems bad!' but, for all their purported love of the nation, they never say anything positive. Odd...
A quick glance at some of their book titles and blog plonk has proven my point, thus far, but I suppose I'll have to do some actual research to see if it really bears out.
And I've long suspected that their greatest fear is someone questioning their manliness. And, evidently in their minds, manliness is manifested by violence, real or rhetorical.
Tom: I'll have to check that out.
Just what we need, another war.
Michael: Yep. Attack mode is their default position and they of course say, 'See the Democrats are FOR anything!' You want to understand who their minds work?
With them it's always opposite day.
They are the oncs who hate so accuse the left of being haters.
And if they can't find hate they make it up! Melanie Morgan really wanted to say that there was hate pooring out of my site, but that was mostly her own voice played back where the hate was shown.
Metro: As we start to see indictments watch how quickly their supporters will abandon them.
Suddenly they are all about being CONSERVATIVE and not republican's because as Glenn Greenwald points out, that the republican party can fail and they can say "It's because they weren't conservative enough." That observation is never challenged and it gives them an out.
Ripley; Controversy sells.
They want books like Itchy and Scratchy.
"They fight and bite and fight and fight and bite. Fight, fight, fight, bite, bite, bite. The Itchy and scratchy show!!!"
And the appropriate reaction to the books should be to laugh at them, but after the think tanks buy 100,000 copies to be used as stocking stuffers they become "best sellers" and impact the world of the 'serious journalist' so they do a story on the topic. The guy goes on the radio and TV shows and spreads his nonsense. Pretty good investment for the people who are paying his salary.
Don't want another war?
We'll learn ya, to go after our brave boys Cheney, Bush, and Rove might be more than you can stomach. The right wing can shut down Congress again like they did with anthrax, if they get uppity.
This post has been removed by the author.
They could lose this terribly unhealthy obsession with masculinity, by the way. That's about 4/5 of their problem right there.
Post a Comment
<< Home