Leno, Carlin, and Coulter

So Leno explains his decision to let Ann Coulter use his show as a stage for her excretions by saying simply that he'll let anyone on his show to say what they think. Somehow I doubt it. I doubt he would have David Duke on. I doubt he would have some white supremacist from the Oregon woods. I doubt he would have a Muslim fundamentalist who advocates terrorism.

Coulter's fecal emissions are similar to those of these others, and are similarly dangerous -- insisting that her political opponents are traitors who would undermine the nation and endanger our physical security, and who therefore should be smashed. That sort of propaganda is not simply vile. It is dangerous. If believed, such ideas make peaceful coexistence of political opponents impossible. The prominent airing of shit like that is an important part of what turned Rwanda from a more or less normal poor nation into a nightmare.

Leno and the rest of the big media outlets indulge this shit-tongued tramp largely, I think, because Coulter is physically attractive in a lizardly sort of way. Such tolerance is repulsive and shameful, but we've gotten used to it. What surprises me, though, is that George Carlin was on the show and treated Coulter as if she were a decent person. It takes a lot, in my book, for a person to be worthy of being shunned and berated. But there are such people. You don't shake Saddam Hussein's hand. You don't have dinner with a serial rapist. And you don't smile at Ann Coulter. When she opens her mouth you turn away and tell her to close it, because of the stench. You don't smile into the hole of an outhouse. Ann Coulter is a tramp with a tongue of excrement.

I'm disappointed in Carlin. His treatment of Coulter as an ordinary person, worthy of ordinary civility and respect, was not nice or civil or restrained. It was either foolish or cowardly.

Letter: To NPR, re. "Strict Constructionism"

A friend of mine forwarded this note to NPR, with permission for me to publish it:

Just listening to David Wellna's story on the Miers nomination.

We heard a clip of Sen. Jeff Sessions saying that Miers understands that the courts are bound by the law, just as the executive and the legislative are.

Then David Wellna said, "That sort of deference to the constitution is called 'strict constructionism.'"

Wellna thereby adopted and promoted the chief PR talking point of the right wing: The alternative to Bork/Scalia/Thomas is a judge who doesn't care about the law, but who just decides according to his personal beliefs about the underlying issue. If the judge likes abortion, he'll say there's a constitutional right to it, without regard to the law.

Wellna apparently doesn't know understand the debate. *Every* judge, *every* "judicial philosophy" believes that judges are bound by the law. The disagreement is over how a judge decides what the law means. Many laws -- particularly many constitutional provisions -- are general, vague, ambiguous, and open to widely varying reasonable interpretations. Strict constructionists say they look to the original public meaning of the texts. So, for instance, they read about what five or ten men took the phrase "equal protection of the law" to mean when the 14th Amendment was passed more than a century ago. It is fair to say that "strict constructionists" defer both to the text of the constitution and to the judge's understanding of what was widely believed in 1868 -- not a very reliable kind of guesswork.

Other schools of thought hold that the meaning of the grand generalities like "equal protection of the law" should take their specific meaning from the evolving understanding of the society of what, in this case, "equality" or "equal protection" means. Many people think that the authors of the Constitution understood and intended that the grand generalities would be interpreted and applied in this way. We think this approach to the Constitution is not only more democratic -- easing the counter-majoritarian problem of a fundamental social compact that is all but unalterable by the society currently working under it -- but also more faithful to the very idea of a fundamental social compact and to the intention of the Founders. It is fair to say that "strict constructionists" defer both to the text of the constitution and to the judge's understanding of what was widely believed today -- a kind of guesswork, to be sure, but more reliable than the alternative. (

If Mr. Wellna is to report this issue, he should learn more about it than can be gleaned from op-eds written by right-wing agitators.

Comment: Remembrance of 9/11

I think we’re getting to the point where public grief over 9/11 becomes a maudlin cult of grief. For the fourth anniversary of 9/11 today, the major tv networks broadcast an hours-long reading of the names of the 9/11 victims.

It is hard to say this. Those who lost loved ones have permanent losses and permanent grief. It is no one else’s business how they grieve. There is a sort of community of 9/11 victims, and if they feel a need or find comfort in remembering and mourning together, then they should do it.

My question is about public ritual. The public mourning, four years on, has taken on the aspect of forced piety. We didn’t do this over the Oklahoma City bombings, or the Columbine High School shooting, or any other nation-searing tragedy. I doubt we did it over Pearl Harbor, though I don’t know.

I recognize that 9/11 was unique and has a special place in our memory. Even so, while the historical singularity of 9/11 imbues the deaths of that day with distinctive significance, the ritual of obligatory pious grief is disproportionate.

National tragedies can be remembered. The sorrow, however, need not be puffed up into the organizing principle of a national cult of grief. We don’t need to trot the victims of 9/11 out for the sake of patriotic correctness. Let them rest in peace.

Attempted Parody: In Response to Hurricane, Bush Signals Invasion of Iran

Washington (AP)

Speaking from a picnic site at a golf course near his vacation spot in Crawford, Texas, President Bush today indicated that America is likely to invade Iran, in response to hurricane Katrina.

“Everything is different now,” the President said. “This hurricane has taught us the painful lesson that we are no longer fighting individual nation-states. Our enemies are scattered around the world, and they gain shelter and support from many sources.”

The hurricane, the President said, “has Iran’s fingerprints all over it.” Before returning to his pork sandwich, the President added, “We’re gonna deal with them. They’ve nearly destroyed a great American city (New Orleans). Payback is gonna be hell.”

Attempted Parody: Right-Wing Religious Group Call God "Cruel & Stupid"

Philadelphia (AP)

The right-wing religious group Repent America issued a statement today declaring that God is “cruel and stupid.” The group announced that it is now opposed to God.

The group’s statement began by stating the points on which the group agrees with, and supports, God. “God hates fags,” the statement said. “God hates fags so much that he destroyed virtually the entire city of New Orleans.” “We hate fags, too, but it was deeply unjust of God to attack the entire city, just because of the fags,” the statement said.

“We have held our tongues for years,” the statement went on, “but the time has come to speak frankly: God has a long history of striking out indiscriminately when He is provoked by sin. If He is all-powerful and all-knowing, he ought to be able to punish just the fags. There was no reason to destroy the houses, businesses, and even lives, of the good Christians trying to live Godly lives in New Orleans and Mississippi. God’s history of indiscriminate attacks has led us, finally, to one inescapable conclusion: God is a cruel and stupid tyrant.”

The statement announced that, after an alliance of many years, the group is breaking with God. “With deep regret and heavy hearts, we announce today that we no longer support God. We continue to agree with and to support God on particular issues, such as hating fags. But we can no longer ally ourselves with God.”

Attempted Parody: Preachers Blame Hurricane on Republicans

Colorado Springs (AP)

The Reverend James Dobson stated today that God is using hurricane Katrina to punish southern states that voted for George Bush.  “God is talking to us in a very loud voice,” Dobson said.  “God is punishing us for electing a man who doesn’t care about climate change.” 

The Reverend Pat Robertson, in a tearful statement on his 700 Club television program, said “God is telling me that we have sinned.  God is telling me that he is punishing us for re-electing President Bush.”  Weeping, Robertson cried, “I repent, O Lord, I repent.”

The Reverend Jerry Falwell, speaking from his pulpit in Lynchburg, Virginia, in a special “Repentence Wednesday” service, exhorted his congregation to repent for voting for President Bush.  “We have sinned, friends,” Falwell said.  “God has taken us to the whipping shed.  If we don’t repent, it’s going to be one hurricane after another.”

President Bush was golfing near his vacation home in Crawford, Texas, and could not be reached for comment.

Comment: On Civility - Pt. 1

I will make some remarks here about my own occasional incivilities, because I suspect that my own experience is fairly common. I don’t mean this as an exercise either in navel-gazing or in navel-exhibitionism.

I just watched Jon Stewart interview Rick Santorum on The Daily Show. It was a very friendly affair, though Stewart challenged him in a serious way on some basic points. There was a palpable desire on the part of both guys to like the other guy and to be seen as likable, differences notwithstanding.

As posts in this blog demonstrate, I am inclined at times to offer cutting, insulting criticism. This comes from frustration, anger, whatever. I have a fairly high tolerance for this sort of thing, whether I’m on the giving or the receiving end.

It’s hard, though, for me to take that approach toward people I know personally. In a moment of exasperation, I may still give a cutting edge to a remark – essentially for the purpose of making sure it gets through – but I am uncomfortable insulting people I know. If I knew John McCain personally, I could not have called him a “hack” as I did in a previous post. If I knew the ABC producers I wrote about a post or two ago, I could not have called them “stupid.”

This aversion extends to any sort of in-person encounter, so long as it does not begin with open hostility. Even meeting McCain for the first time, I would not call him a “hack” to his face – not out of some sort of cowardice, but simply because in-person hostility feels so different. I don’t like it, and I generally can’t bring myself to do it (though there have been exceptions). I could make the same criticism to his face, and could make it in fairly blunt terms, but I would leave off the gratuitous flourish of anger-tinged insult – which feels natural and fairly inoffensive in a mere blog posting about someone I’ve never met, who will never read what I’ve written.

This is the funny thing. I have a certain propensity for cutting language, but that coexists – or alternates with – a genuine desire to like and be liked by others, including people I disagree with.

I don’t think I’m alone in this. I think that public hostility – which oozes from blogs, newspaper columns, etc. – happens mostly when the speaker doesn’t personally know the target of the hostility. There are exceptions, of course. There is real, personal antagonism and even hatred in the world. But I suspect that most hostility, most incivility is my sort – directed at people one has never met and has no expectation of meeting.

The cutting, insulting approach does not come from the better angels of my – or anyone’s – nature. I freely acknowledge that, and I admire – even envy, to some extent – people who either lack the impulse to throw daggers or are simply more virtuous and control the impulse better than I do.

Is there, though, any place for incivility? Maybe I’m kidding myself, but I think that anger, and angry words, have an important and necessary place. Even obscenities have an important place, though one reserved for extremities.

Take Ann Coulter, for instance. The only appropriate way to speak of this woman – who freely accuses people of hating their own nation and committing treason – is with contempt, derision, and scorn. I have referred to her in this blog as “a tramp with a tongue of excrement,” and I think that is an entirely just and appropriate reference.

The graver the occasion, I think, the less acceptable any kind of unnecessary flourish of insult. A President should not use such language, I think, because it is simply below the dignity of the office. On a sort-of grave occasion like a politician’s stump speech, there might be some room for the uncivil sort of angry language, but not much. Language must fit the occasion.

Am I hinting, then, that in a forum like a mere blog anything goes? No. That’s not what I mean. But let me get back to this subject in the next post.

Comment: Who's a Christian?

Fundamentalist Christians – like fundamentalists of all stripes – think that non-fundamentalists are not true Christians. They refuse to acknowledge that a devout liberal Catholic who attends mass every week and is active in the Church is a Christian. They refuse to acknowledge that a liberal Methodist or Presbyterian or Baptist is a Christian.

The national news media frequently adopts this propagandistic language. I just saw an ABC commercial for a news program saying that “Christians have had enough” and want to move to Mississippi or some such state in sufficient numbers to control the government and secede from the Union, or some such thing.

I don’t care about the project – which seems Quixotic at best. I do care, however, about ABC’s use of “Christian,” which implies that the rest of us Christians – non-fundamentalists who do not want to move to Mississippi to create a pre-American theocracy – are not Christians.

I don’t think that the ABC producers are fundamentalist propagandists. I think they are just stupid. They don’t understand that language matters, so they don’t pay attention to language.

Comment: John McCain, Political Hack

John McCain has been turning into a hack. This morning on ABC This Week he dodges the established facts about Rovegate and makes excuses for outing a CIA agent.

McCain declined to address the established fact that Rove told a journalist that Joe Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, with weapons of mass destruction – and that this was classified information. McCain declined to say whether Rove should lose his security clearance and his job for – at least – handling classified information about a CIA agent’s identity with clear negligence.

McCain said he doesn’t know the definition of “negligence.” And he invoked the presumption of innocence in criminal prosecutions to justify keeping Rove in his job until – until what? Perhaps until he is convicted by a jury.

Additionally, McCain made the excuse for Rove that Rove’s spreading classified information about the identity of a CIA agent was OK because it was in an effort to discredit Joe Wilson’s statements that part of the case that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program was bogus.

This is sheerest hackery.

In 2000, I was impressed with McCain and would have seriously considered voting for him had he been the Republican nominee. Not any more. McCain is just another politician, willing to say whatever will help – regardless of whether it is true, he believes it, or even if you can say it with a straight face.

Comment: American Exceptionalism and Torture

America is a great nation. I say that, as a liberal, without irony. America is a great nation.

Wherein lies our greatness?

It is not that we are, as individuals, better people than those of other nationalities, though some of us are better than some others. It is not that we, as a society, are better than other societies, though in some ways we are better than some others.

One principal source of our greatness is our commitment to a national mission of achieving nobility and pure morality. We are on-again-off-again about pursuing such ideals. There are times when we get scared of some threat, and we run around burning witches and tearing down villages. The evil and the frailty that is in humanity generally is in us – as individuals and as a society.

But we always come back to our ideals eventually. It is politically incorrect to say this, but we know that our nation was born with original sin – the sins of genocide and slavery. Our founders were great in many ways, but their hold on the land and their prosperity was at the cost of genocide perpetrated against the Indians who lived here before our founders came. We can say many things to mitigate this sin: It was a warlike time, and they were all – whites and Indians both – warlike people. But still it was genocide, and still it was sin. American prosperity was built up in large part by slaves brought here in chains. We can say many things to mitigate this sin, too: The black slaves we bought were sold to us by other blacks in Africa. But still it was slavery, and still it was sin. And apart from these great sins that lie deep in our origins, there have been many others.

And still I say that America is a great nation. For notwithstanding our sin, we have always felt the call of ideals nobler than we are ourselves. Even while burdened by the depravity that led us to believe there is nothing wrong with driving the Indians out of their land and slaughtering them occasionally, and to believe there is nothing wrong with enslaving people – even while burdened with this depravity we dreamed of a morality that was above us. And we have been trying, however fitfully, to live out the full meaning of our creeds from the beginning.

Our greatness as a nation is not in the good things we have done – though we have done many good things. It is, first and most fundamentally, in our commitment to the perfectibility of our nation – and thus, our willingness to look ourselves in the mirror and confess that we have sinned. And then to try to do better.

Now. About Abu Ghraib – and Bagram Air Force Base, and Guantanamo Bay.

Some of our people have committed wrongs in our name. They have sexually humiliated people we have swept up in military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have physically assaulted and abused these people. Some of the abuse amounts, without question, to torture. It appears that innocent people have been mercilessly beaten. It appears that some of our people have participated in, or allowed, the raping of women and little boys. Some of our people have killed detainees, with no provocation or justification.

These crimes have been committed by individuals. The responsibility, however, runs all the way to the top – at the very least, for gross negligence in failing to prevent an altogether predictable train of abuses, but almost certainly for winking at and affirmatively nudging lower-down individuals in the direction of abuse. (Our government has also – as a matter of official policy – delivered people into the hands of torturers, with no more than a chuckling assurance that the torturers will commit no torture.)

These crimes do not shock me. They are awful, but they are the products of the innate depravity of humanity. There will always be people capable of doing such things – in any organization, in any nation. I have no doubt that there are senators and congressmen capable of doing this. We know there are priests and pastors capable of it. Perhaps I am capable of it. Perhaps you are. Put a lot of human beings into a situation that fosters this evil, and some individuals in the group will commit the evil. That saddens me, but it does not shock me.

What shocks me is that some of my fellow Americans refuse to acknowledge the sin, to hold those responsible to account, and to demand action to prevent further abuses. Many Americans simply will not look this thing in the eye. They will not say, “This is shameful. Our government let it happen. Never again.” Many Americans are talking like children: “Well, you should see what Saddam Hussein did. We should be talking about Saddam Hussein. He's the real monster. Forget what we did. Look at Saddam Hussein.”

The refusal to face facts and to call a sin a sin is un-American. This refusal – not the underlying sin – is what cuts the greatness of our nation. Of course we will sin. There are many of us, and we are all human, and conditions will sometimes seem to push us to sin. What makes us great is our willingness to confess our sins and to seek redemption by avoiding further wrongs, and righting those that can be righted. And this is what many Americans are refusing to do, saying instead, “Well, look what Hitler and Stalin did. Don’t look at us.”

No. We’re Americans. That’s not how we do it here. We are trying to live out ideals that are nobler than we are ourselves. We face facts, we confess sins, and we strive to do better.

Let America be America again.