Today’s NY Times Op Ed piece by Rich, “Truthiness 101: From Frey to Alito” (reprinted in full by Nevada Thunder) will be his last for a few months:
To my readers: Starting next week, I will be on a book leave, writing nonfiction about our post-9/11 fictions. See you in the spring.
Ah, me. What will I do without my regular infusion of Rich? Maureen Dowd may be the funnier pundit, but Rich is the more accurate marksman of the two.
Today, he draws parallels between faux memoirist James Frey and faux salt-of-the-earth, regular guy Sam Alito. He begins with an allusion to Stephen Colbert’s neologism, truthiness (thank heavens Rich knows the proper attribution for this word!) and moves on into more serious turf:
It’s when truthiness moves beyond the realm of entertainment that it’s a potential peril. As Seth Mnookin, a rehab alumnus, has written in Slate, the macho portrayal of drug abuse in “Pieces†could deter readers battling actual addictions from seeking help. Ms. Winfrey’s blithe re-endorsement of the book is less laughable once you start to imagine some Holocaust denier using her imprimatur to discount Elie Wiesel’s incarceration at Auschwitz in her next book club selection, “Night.â€
In reality, some bright lights out there really are suggesting that Wiesel’s dark, haunting Night is a fabrication. Let’s all thank Oprah (never thought I’d write that) for drawing attention to one of the best Holocaust memoirs ever written. But, back to Rich.
What’s remarkable is how much fictionalization plays a role in almost every national debate. Even after a big humbug is exposed as blatantly as Professor Marvel in “The Wizard of Oz†– FEMA’s heck of a job in New Orleans, for instance – we remain ready and eager to be duped by the next tall tale. It’s as if the country is living in a permanent state of suspension of disbelief.
He continues with an analysis of the fictionalization of Sam Alito’s history by Republicans and Democrats alike — even by Alito himself. For the fiction-writers in my crowd, however, Rich’s most resonant message comes early on (emphasis mine):
Democrats who go berserk at their every political defeat still don’t understand this. They fault the public for not listening to their facts and arguments, as though facts and arguments would make a difference, even if the Democrats were coherent. It’s the power of the story that always counts first, and the selling of it that comes second. Accuracy is optional.
Propaganda, that’s what it’s all about. Remember Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will? I can imagine Hitler (an unofficial executive producer of the film, according to Wikipedia) briefing Riefenstahl during the film’s creation: “Give ’em a story they can believe in.”
Fascism does not emerge from a vacuum. It thrives on nationalistic sentiment, which in turn depends on powerful and convincing propaganda. Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and George W. Bush wouldn’t exist if there weren’t widespread hunger for their message: that we are Number One, that we stand for freedom worldwide, that we are beset by foes on all sides, that the enemy lives among us. People want to believe.
But the message of Bush, O’Reilly, and Limbaugh is not for all Americans. As the recent ‘War on Christmas’ proves, it’s not Americans who are beset on all sides, but Christian Americans, and, I would argue, White Christian Americans. Those of us who are not Christian, or who are gay, Liberal, or have the wrong pigmentation, are left wondering: Whose country is this?
Hitler manipulated the German nation with the tools of fear and hate for many years before becoming its Führer. He had a simple message for his people: you are great, superior to all others; what keeps you down are those who are different. The Jews. The gays. Socialists, Liberals, Communists. Foes that live among us.
It has become unfashionable to draw parallels between the rise of Nazism and present day America. Some folks think it’s a non-starter, something which silences further debate (see Law, Godwin’s). I think it’s a conversation we must have if we are to avoid any further movement into Nationalist America.
For example, we should consider whether September 11, 2001 was our Reichstag Fire. Let’s ignore the many domestic conspiracy theories, and assume the official version of events is wholly accurate. Nevertheless, 9/11 led to the Patriot Act, our version of the Reichstag Fire Decree.
As a Jewish kid growing up in the 60s and 70s, I lived and breathed the Holocaust. I was taught — no, that’s putting it lightly. I was lectured to, berated, shaken like a rag doll, and made to never forget that we must never forget. Remember Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Can’t happen in America? Remember the Japanese internment camps. Remember Guantanamo.
My wife, Karen, has a chilling angle on all of this: the Nazi analogy is inappropriate because Bush’s America isn’t all that different from business as usual. Compare President John Adams’s Alien and Sedition Acts to President Bush’s recent actions; we haven’t come very far since 1798. Add to that our record vis a vis American Indians, immigrant Asians in the West, slavery, post-Civil War oppression of black Americans, and the abuses under Joseph McCarthy, and Bush & Co. begin to take their appropriate place in American history.
Unfortunately, Americans are poorly educated in American history, never mind world history. It is no accident that our children’s education lags way behind other developed nations.
It makes it that much easier to write propaganda.
D.
Technorati tags: truthiness, propaganda, fascism, Frank Rich, Elie Wiesel, Holocaust, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh,
Hitler, Nazism, Reichstag, Bush
The lovely and Demented Michelle is giving away two signed copies of Maureen McHugh’s Mothers and Other Monsters. Hurry on over and throw your name into the virtual hat.
Thanks to Blue Gal for cluing me in that the faux Alan Rickman and Mel Gibson now have competition from the Pope himself. Go, Joey the Ratz! Think I’ll ask Professor Snape to go say hi, and Bare Rump, too, if she’s up to it. (Note added: done and done. They both replied to His Holiness’s Holy Sweat post.)
In the last few days, Fanatic Cook has written several fine posts about the value of omega-3 fatty acids and the hazards of getting them from fish, mercury levels in fish and shellfish, and alternate sources of omega-3s. Since one of my New Years resolutions is to lose weight and eat healthier, I greatly appreciated Fanatic’s posts.
As long as I’m in “public service announcement” mode, please be on the lookout for the following wanted criminal. If you decide to attempt a citizen’s arrest, please be warned: he doesn’t go anywhere without a small army of dark-suited thugs.
From glassgiant.com.
D.
. . . the kind that come in links.
Pat brings us a spectacular link from the Space Telescope Science Institute/ESA. So many beautiful images here, I don’t know where to begin. Make sure you check out the Cat’s Eye Nebula. Here’s the Orion Nebula (per the site, okay for public use provided we give attribution to STSci/ESA):
In case you missed yesterday’s discussion in the comments, Mel Gibson is threatening to sue Mel Gibson. Head on over there and offer your support — and advice, too, if you happen to be a lawyer. Jesus’ General has lent a helping hand by reprinting a letter from an Angel of the Lord (Avenging, First Class) to the real Mel. Seems Jesus is none too happy with The Passion, and when Jesus is unhappy . . .
firedoglake gives us the latest in Bill O’Reilly photoshopping goodness. Think Chippendale’s.
Have you missed the fuss over Kate O’Beirne’s book, Women Who Make the World Worse? Ms. (I just know she would love that Ms.) O’Beirne’s diatribe against feminism is taking it in the pink lace panties over at Amazon thanks to the efforts of Jesus’ General, Crooks and Liars, firedoglake, and others. Even the New York Times Book Review (Ana Marie Cox in the January 15 NYTBR) slammed her book, although politely:
Feminism isn’t always pretty (see: underarm hair). Without it, however, Kate O’Beirne would have been unlikely to have this book published — and most women would not have their own money to waste on it.
Guess I should try and get some work done today. Don’t forget to watch Jon Stewart’s and Ed Helms’s taint routine over at Crooks and Liars, and if you missed my post yesterday on Fractales, scroll down a few centimeters and keep reading.
D.
The Seattle Times has a huge feature, including student essays, civil rights quizzes, and a time line.
Better, though — shorter, punchier, and more moving — is ReddHedd’s tribute at firedoglake. Read it.
It’s impossible for me to disconnect my liberal-self from my writer-self, and so, as I read firedoglake’s quotes from Dr. King, I can’t help but admire the strength and beauty of MLK’s writing. Parallelism is a powerful tool. I can only think of one other writer who lives on in this ethereal plane: Winston Churchill, who used parallelism, command of the language, and wit to make his point.
D.
“Defamer” at Yahoo! News reports, “Bloody Mary” Episode Ensures South Park Guys a Bungalow in Hell:
Perhaps the most outrageous and offensive South Park episode of all time (and that’s really saying something), “Bloody Mary,” which first aired Dec. 7 as this season’s finale, was pulled from the network schedule last night.
Its plot involves a statue of the Virgin Mary, which appears to be miraculously bleeding from its rectum.
Pope Benedict XVI is called in to investigate, and upon discovering the statue is instead hemorrhaging from its vagina, says, ahem, “A chick bleeding out her vagina is no miracle. Chicks bleed out their vaginas all the time.”
Quoting from the E Online article,
Somewhat predictably, the Catholic League was incensed by the satirical portrayal of the Virgin Mary and the pope and by the fact that the episode aired on the day before the Catholic Church celebrated its Feast of the Immaculate Conception.
The conservative group demanded an apology from Viacom, Comedy Central’s parent company, to Roman Catholics everywhere and “a pledge that this episode be permanently retired and not be made available on DVD.”
The Catholic League succeeded, apparently. We may never see this episode again.
Was it tasteless? Yeah. South Park often is. Can I see how this would offend devout Catholics? Sure, but . . . why the hell are they watching South Park in the first place? And is Defamer right that this is “Perhaps the most outrageous and offensive South Park episode of all time”?
Max from PGNX.net says it well:
South Park lambasts homosexuals, transsexuals, Scientologists, vegans, Jews, Mormons, atheists and everyone else under the sun. But suddenly the Catholics are off limits?
They’ve nailed the Catholics before; in “Red Hot Catholic Love,” Trey and Matt skewered the Church on their hypocrisy vis a vis pedophilia. But they don’t pick on the Catholics — that’s Max’s point. They pick on everyone.
My Japanese-American wife isn’t offended by the Chinpokomon episode. I’m not offended by the fact Cartman slams Kyle for being Jewish in every single episode. In “Ike’s Wee Wee”, the writers dealt with circumcision, while in “Jewbilee”, they misrepresented the whole religion. (Jews worship Moses, who appears in the sky as a spinning draedel and demands sacrifices of macaroni art.)
God Himself shows up from time to time on South Park. In case you haven’t seen Him, He looks like this:
Devout Jews (like Moslems, too, if I’m not mistaken) don’t want to see images of God (or Moses, for that matter), so any image is sacrilegious. Depicting God as a freak of genetic engineering? Well, that’s just icing on the cake.
Jesus is a regular character on the show, and (in “Red Sleigh Down”) once used automatic weapons to gun down a bunch of Iraqis who had kidnapped Santa Claus.
AND don’t forget Mr. Hanky the Christmas Poo.
There’s something in South Park to offend everyone. Is there anyone in the English-speaking universe who doesn’t already know this? I’ve been offended by them, too — not for any of their Jewish jokes, but for their occasional support of questionable political positions. (For example, if I remember correctly, their “Rainforest Schmainforest” episode got my goat.)
Usually, but not always, South Park is funny as hell. That buys them a lot of mileage in my opinion. Tasteless and humorless media deserves the fate it gets — a rapid fall into a cultural black hole. (Does anyone but me remember Joan Rivers’ movie Rabbit Test?) But if you’re funny, hey, I’ll cut you some slack.
It’s not the first thing that comes to mind when I watch South Park, but the show is also a wonderful demonstration of the First Amendment in action. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Do we really need another voice to say, “If you don’t like it, don’t watch it”?
D.
*Maureen, to answer your question: since now.
I’m just making myself more depressed.
Media Matters has posted its Most Outrageous Statements of 2005. My favorite:
Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C. Dobson: Same-sex marriage would lead to “marriage between daddies and little girls … between a man and his donkey.”
What’s your favorite?
Heart-sickening-to-the-core: This Modern World discusses the latest torture memos (via Atrios); the General captures the rot at the apple’s core with a single image.
My favorite Guerilla Woman from Tennessee has reprinted in full today’s Op-Ed piece from Paul Krugman. Here’s the punchline:
A year ago, most Americans thought Mr. Bush was honest.
A year ago, we didn’t know for sure that almost all the politicians and pundits who thundered, during the Lewinsky affair, that even the president isn’t above the law have changed their minds. But now we know when it comes to presidents who break the law, it’s O.K. if you’re a Republican.
To my US readers: write your Representatives and Senators. Use those links at the top of my sidebar — it’s easy. And don’t let ’em set cookies.
After that nauseating dive into today’s news (and I haven’t even checked Kos yet), I need a little recharge. Here is a World of Warcraft Broadway show tune for y’all. The graphics stink, but the music rocks. And if that doesn’t do it for you, check out the latest photos from Antarctica.
Oh, my! Mel Gibson has a blog. Gabriele, I’m counting on you to correct his Latin.
Now, if you’ll all please excuse me while I go put a knife in my gut . . .
D.
Full text of today’s Maureen Dowd NYT Op-Ed, Vice Axes That 70s Show, is up at The Peking Duck (thanks, PD!)
She hasn’t given us much new material, I’m afraid; only one interesting bit of recent history:
As attorney general, John Ashcroft clamped down on the Freedom of Information Act. For two years, the Pentagon has been sitting on a request from The Times’s Jeff Gerth to cough up a secret 500-page document prepared by Halliburton on what to do with Iraq’s oil industry – a plan it wrote several months before the invasion of Iraq, and before it got a no-bid contract to implement the plan (and overbill the U.S.)
. . . and one bit of ancient history:
Consider this: when Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, supported by President Ford, pushed a plan to have the government help develop alternative sources of energy and reduce our dependence on oil and Saudi Arabia, guess who helped scotch it?
Oy. When are the leaders of our country going to get their heads out of their oil wells?
D.
Technorati tag: dowd
Thanks to Blue Gal for pointing out GQ’s interview with Jimmy Carter (a partial transcript is available online). Quote from the beginning:
You call yourself a born-again evangelical Christian, but you draw the line at the word fundamentalist. Can you define those terms?I define fundamentalism as a group of invariably male leaders who consider themselves superior to other believers. The fundamentalists believe they have a special relationship with God. Therefore their beliefs are inherently correct, being those of God, and anyone who disagrees with them are first of all wrong, and second inferior, and in extreme cases even subhuman. Also, fundamentalists don’t relish any challenge to their positions. They believe any deviation from their own God-ordained truth is a derogation of their own responsibility. So compromise or negotiating with others, or considering the opinion of others that might be different, is a violation of their faith. It makes a great exhibition of rigidity and superiority and exclusion.
I’ve admired Jimmy Carter for a long, long time. Even though I don’t agree with him on every issue, I’ve always felt his heart was in the right place. Consistently, Carter’s actions have mirrored the teachings of his faith . . . unlike certain other politicians whose words and deed are diametrically opposed.
Harper’s Magazine is not exactly a fundamentalist-friendly place (see, for example, Jeff Sharlet’s Jesus Plus Nothing, a captivating look at the twisted version of Christianity which drives many of today’s politicians), so biblical literalists won’t be very happy with Erik Reece’s December 2005 article, Jesus without the Miracles: Jefferson’s Bible and the Gospel of Thomas. For a critique from a self-described ‘theological conservative,’ read this post at Distilled Eye.
I don’t intend to argue about the miraculous aspects of Jesus’ life and resurrection — you either believe in this as a matter of faith, or you don’t, and nothing I say will make a bit of difference. I would like to give you an outsider’s perspective. What I find most off-putting about modern American Christianity is its emphasis on the carrot-and-stick damnation/heaven, sin/salvation meme, the obsession with the miraculous aspects of Jesus’ life, and, most of all, the de-emphasis on Jesus’ ethical teachings*.
That’s where the Jeffersonian Bible comes in. Per Reece’s article, after Jefferson edited the New Testament, he was left with the following principles (quoting Reece):
Although I don’t consider myself Christian, I try my best to embrace these principles. Well, I have a lot of trouble with Do not judge others, and the Do not bear grudges thing REALLY gives me fits, but still, I see the value in these teachings.
I’d like to point out that these principles, these values, are also (to the limit of my understanding) consistent with Talmudic Judaism. But, like many Christians, modern Jews have a problem living up to the ideals of their faith. That returning violence with compassion bit — well, Israel and the United States both have a wee problem with that one, don’t they?
I find it all very depressing. Ordinary people have a hard time living up to those principles, and their politicians do far worse. It’s painfully obvious the world would be a better place if this were not so. Can a politician practice these principles and survive?
Which brings me back to Jimmy Carter. In trying to resolve the Iranian hostage crisis, he used limited force — unsuccessfully — and avoided going to war, largely because his religious/ethical beliefs told him it would be wrong to do so. (I’m basing that statement on his recent interview with Jon Stewart, by the way.) And what did America do? They voted him out of office, first chance they got, and vilified him for years to come.
It busts my chops.
D.
*I’m sure many of you can give me examples to the contrary — congregations where the ethical precepts are placed first and foremost, individuals and organiziations who really do practice what they preach. No doubt these folks are doing great work, and I don’t mean to slight them. But the politically dominant breed of American Christian (the Bushes, Dobsons, Robertsons, and Falwells of this country) not only ignores these precepts, but actively subverts them.
Photoshopping: an insidious addiction. Here’s another one for Blogenfreude:
Blogenfreude, if this doesn’t get Bill’s goat, nothing will.
D.
tags: bill o’reilly fox news o’reilly enemies list
This one is for Blogenfreude at Agitprop.
D.