(The title of this post pertains to this great movie, by the way, about a vastly superior writer to the one critiqued as follows.)As I noted earlier, Kathleen Parker of the Orlando Sentinel has been one busy little freeper bee, as it were, buzzing all over the place and stinging with disinformation-laced invective.
Before she sounded off on Imus, though, she decided to have a literary fit of sorts over the capture of the 15 British sailors and marines by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.
Now there is no way I will defend Ahmadinejad; he’s a kook who has been granted influence on the world stage because President Brainless decided to marginalize Khatami and other Iranians who could be moderate and work in concert with us first by his stupid declaration of that country as part of the “axis of evil,” and second, by the illegal invasion of Iraq; anyone beyond the age of approximately five years old could see that the war would be a boon to the Shi’ites who dominate the Iranian theocracy in the long run.
However, Parker waxes apoplectic in her column because Ahmadinejad was placed in a position where he could be perceived to show “mercy” to his captives by releasing them, and again, our actions in that region have ended up propping up this guy (and of course, Parker doesn’t even bother to acknowledge the argument that diplomacy played a part in the release of the captives and is thus a more beneficial, adult strategy than declaring unilateral war).
And Parker saves her fiercest rants for “the West” which has, in her view, “diminished motherhood so that women can pretend to be men.” And as Parker extends this line of thinking to all women (and positing somehow that male rape is preferable in combat to female rape…I don’t even want to imagine what is in Parker’s mind here), she offers us this…
At the point when our men can stand by unfazed while American servicewomen are raped and tortured, then we will have no cause to fight any war. We will have already lost.I have a couple of points I’d like to make, and before I get to the first one, I’d like to quote Parker again here…
Positioning women to become pawns of propaganda, meanwhile, is called aiding and abetting the enemy.
But let's assume for the sake of argument that women, despite all evidence to the contrary, are as capable as men in any battle. If our goal is to prevail, then shouldn't we also consider other ramifications of putting women in combat and/or in positions of risk?So what are you saying then, Parker? That women in the military shouldn’t be allowed to fight in combat? Is it less important to allow them the opportunity to serve as they see fit, fully knowledgeable of the risks and in a manner commensurate with their skill and training, than it is to hold them back lest they be made “useful to our enemies” for propaganda reasons?
Those ramifications include women's unequal vulnerability to rape and injury, as well as cultural attitudes toward women that may enhance their exposure to punishment or, alternatively, make them useful to our enemies.
I’ll tell you what, then; read about the courageous women who have served this country in the name of George W. Bush’s War For LiesTM and paid the ultimate price as a result here. Maybe if you do, it will begin to occur to you how insulting your words are to our fine service people who share your gender.
And speaking of Dubya, I’d like to come back to your closing sentence…
Positioning women to become pawns of propaganda, meanwhile, is called aiding and abetting the enemy.If so, then Bushco is guilty as charged, and most of our corporate media, collectively, are unindicted co-conspirators (and the unraveling of the story of Pfc. Jessica Lynch is Exhibit A in support of that argument, as noted here).
So Mrs. Parker can rail against Ahmadinejad’s propagandistic farce with the British crew (which some have argued is a payback for our treatment of Iranian diplomats in Iraq – yes, some of that umbrage may be equally contrived, but we should have been prepared for Ahmadinejad’s nutty response), but when it comes to “adults (who) are too dim, brainwashed, or ideologically driven to see what’s obvious,” she should try looking long and hard in the mirror before she decides to write her next column.
2 comments:
as you know, i follow you regularly, and i just as regularly see you wracked by the idiocy of columnists... you rarely fail to provide an intelligent, reasoned perspective, but, speaking entirely for myself, i have to ask why do you bother getting your knickers in such a twist... i've been reading morons like mrs. parker since, back in the 60s, i discovered the editorial page in my hometown rag, the colorado springs gazette telegraph, a paper so far right and ayn rand-ish that they've actually been known to come out against things like fire departments and public works like highways and bridges... my thought is, who the hell cares...? opinions are like assholes, as the saying goes, everybody has one... yeah, these people exercise some degree of influence but i see them more as verbal masturbators than anything else... i reserve my focus and energy for those who have actual power behind their opinions, power of the DANGEROUS variety like satan's doppelgänger, karl, or his friend, darth... let these people talk and write themselves into utter exhaustion... as mr. miyagi might say, acknowledgment and resistance only makes them more powerful...
I should say thanks at the outset for checking in as often as you do, and I apologize because I've been a bit derelict this week in returning the favor, but rest assured that I will; I had an absolutely crappy Internet connection today - should probably call Ted Stevens to get those tubes fixed :-).
Yes, you make an excellent point about attacking the source of the evil as opposed to the acolytes who are merely its media enablers, such as Mrs. Parker. I want to point out a couple of things, though, speaking only for myself.
First, though none of us would have ever wanted to see any of the events of the last six-plus years transpire had we the choice to do anything more to stop them other than vote for somebody else besides Dubya, I believe that, as long as those events have taken place, that a whirlwind has been unleashed, so to speak, that is growing as we communicate and will grow ever greater over time. And the byproduct of that whirlwind (which, again, has transpired primarily due to what is in essence the slaughter of much of an entire generation of Americans in Iraq) is going to result in much greater engagement in our politics and communications with one another - I may be stone nuts, but for better or worse, this is what I believe (and we'll see just how much the Democrats capitalize on this versus the Repugs). The status quo of liberal vs. conservative was good enough when we were all fat, dumb and happy during those supposedly scandal-ridden Clinton years and before (with DLC "Democrats" just sort of going along with the Repugs being energized and carping all the way). However, since the wingers were finally able to get what they want and they made an absolute and utter hash of things, we're all in the process of picking up the pieces and trying to put the puzzle back together, but no one knows what it will look like yet (even though what Brian Williams just said was outrageous, for example, I think the comment was a reflection of the fact that he knows that too).
And I believe that affects the media also; it was acceptable for people to just read the drivel of Parker, Jack Kelly, Clifford May, Victor Davis Hanson and just sort of go along, but the fact is that (as we know) an entire generation is slowly coming to power in this country that won't give a damn about newspapers and most magazines also (that's both good and bad), and they'll download everything to their devices (and maybe if we're lucky, they'll download content from our blogs too). They're not going to care about professional know-it-alls like the people I just mentioned, and if I can do anything to chip away at their credibility by refuting their right-wing boilerplate and hasten the blessed day when they will no longer matter, I am only too happy to do it.
Also, on a more personal level, I should note that I was educated in college to be a journalist, though I really haven't pursued that path professionally for a lot of different reasons (freelance writing for local weekly newspapers is about as far as I got with that). I respect the craft, and I get angry when I see people who abuse it - sorry, but it just gets me in my gut. Also, I know of people from my college years and now who write great stories - heroic in a way, actually, not to get too melodramatic - and I have also seen the great personal and professional prices they have paid to get the information they need to write those stories...I really would rather not get into that in greater detail than that. And I know a lot of the characters I just mentioned are on the payroll of one foundation or another and don't have to worry about where their next hot meal will come from, so I can't imagine how they could comprehend a burden like that.
Still, though, I'll try to be judicious about going after the primary targets versus the secondary ones. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
Post a Comment