No matter which yapping reich winger you listen to - Rush, Hannity, Savage, whoever - you'll find certain themes surfacing again and again. These themes, like much of what these guys have to say, feature heaping helpings of monkey shit. Join me on a journey through the fever swamp of neoconservative talk radio: I listen so you don't have to!
#1:
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the new HITLER!"
Please. Here, have a wet nap, you're frothing a little. This shameless propaganda is designed to bamboozle us into another pointless war but it doesn't withstand even the slightest scrutiny. Look, I'm not suggesting Ahmadinejad is a swell guy - as a head of state, he's probably a major dick. But the new Hitler? Godwinned!
Lew Rockwell pegs him here:
Exactly. Here are some questions for the neocons spouting this "new Hitler" nonsense:
Again, I'm not suggesting Ahmadinejad is a good guy. I'm suggesting that hyperbole is ruining any sense of balance or proportion in the debate. Ahmadinejad has real failings, but enough with the overheated Hitler comparisons. The Nazis aspired to genocide and world domination and very nearly succeeded. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, is the tinhorn leader of a third world nation that can't possibly threaten the U.S. Where is the validity in the "Hitler" comparisons?
#2:
"Our military servicepeople are heroes! How dare you be so unpatriotic as to criticize their courage and sacrifice! They are above reproach!"
Um, no. They're human, which means - as with any collection of people - they are prone to abuse power and use deadly force indiscriminately. Sometimes they do terrible, terrible things to innocent people. The abuses at Abu Ghraib were terrifying and humiliating experiences for the prisoners; not at all like frat hazing, Rush. The point is that reich-wing radio hosts love the military so much that they'll excuse just about any savagery it commits. But why sanctify the soldier? The training is intended to stamp out humanity and individuality, foment hatred for the "other," and hone the killer instinct. We shouldn't be surprised when soldiers murder, rape, and destroy but that doesn't mean we should defend this.
For the final word and some much needed perspective on the military, we look to one of history's great philosophers, the late Bill Hicks:
#1:
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the new HITLER!"
Please. Here, have a wet nap, you're frothing a little. This shameless propaganda is designed to bamboozle us into another pointless war but it doesn't withstand even the slightest scrutiny. Look, I'm not suggesting Ahmadinejad is a swell guy - as a head of state, he's probably a major dick. But the new Hitler? Godwinned!
Lew Rockwell pegs him here:
But the elected Ahmadinejad, though a crazed Keynesian and other things, is no dictator, let alone a totalitarian one. He has far less power than Bush, for example, and is not even commander-in-chief of the Iranian military. And the notion that third-world Iran is a threat to nuclear powers America and Israel is laughable. Of course, so was the notion that Saddam Hussein was going to nuke the Bronx, but the booboisie believed it, thanks to the intellectuals who toed the line.
Exactly. Here are some questions for the neocons spouting this "new Hitler" nonsense:
- Would a "new Hitler" meet with a group of rabbis in New York in order to accept the gift of what looks to be, I dunno, a miniature Stanley Cup?
- Would a "new Hitler" permit 25,000 Jews to live and worship peacefully in his country?
- Would a "new Hitler" actually come off as somewhat rational in an interview with an argumentative Western journalist?
Again, I'm not suggesting Ahmadinejad is a good guy. I'm suggesting that hyperbole is ruining any sense of balance or proportion in the debate. Ahmadinejad has real failings, but enough with the overheated Hitler comparisons. The Nazis aspired to genocide and world domination and very nearly succeeded. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, is the tinhorn leader of a third world nation that can't possibly threaten the U.S. Where is the validity in the "Hitler" comparisons?
#2:
"Our military servicepeople are heroes! How dare you be so unpatriotic as to criticize their courage and sacrifice! They are above reproach!"
Um, no. They're human, which means - as with any collection of people - they are prone to abuse power and use deadly force indiscriminately. Sometimes they do terrible, terrible things to innocent people. The abuses at Abu Ghraib were terrifying and humiliating experiences for the prisoners; not at all like frat hazing, Rush. The point is that reich-wing radio hosts love the military so much that they'll excuse just about any savagery it commits. But why sanctify the soldier? The training is intended to stamp out humanity and individuality, foment hatred for the "other," and hone the killer instinct. We shouldn't be surprised when soldiers murder, rape, and destroy but that doesn't mean we should defend this.
For the final word and some much needed perspective on the military, we look to one of history's great philosophers, the late Bill Hicks:
1 comment:
Awesome. Just awesome.
Post a Comment