The Dedgradation of the American Dialogue

[Riot]

Death at the Holocaust Museum and the Degradation of the American Dialogue
By Michael Rowe June 11, 2009

Ann Coulter, the self-described "conservative Christian" right-wing talking head, is much on my mind as I contemplate the horrifying images that came out of Washington from the Holocaust Museum, where white supremacist James von Brunn opened fire in an attempted mass-murder of Jews. His killing spree was cut short by security guard Stephen Tyrone Jones who put himself in the line of fire and died so others might live.

I am remembering an October 2007 segment of the Donny Deutsch Show where Coulter asserted that America would be better off if everyone was Christian and that "the Jews" merely needed to be "perfected" through conversion.

Coulter has made her fortune by generating, fanning, and nurturing hatred and contempt for a variety of people, including liberals, Democrats, gays, foreign nationals, 9/11 widows, feminists, single mothers, Muslims, and any other group she could throw to her disenfranchised readership as shark bait.

To Coulter, referring to Jews as "imperfect" on a talk show hosted by an observant Jewish host must have seemed like just another day at the office. Coulter shook her blond hair and tittered, as though waiting to be found witty, charming, and adorably irascible. Oh Ann, you minx! You're just pushing everyone's buttons, aren't you? Shame on you, you dead-sexy fascist pin-up. Stop teasing. You don't really mean that. I mean, not really, right? Right?

Deutsch, clearly appalled, pointed out that the comment was not only patently absurd, but also hateful. Coulter giggled. A gold crucifix gleamed against her bony clavicle. "No," she said, "it's not hateful at all."

This week, nearly two years later, James von Brunn, driven by his own twisted version of Coulter's publicly-proclaimed perspectives regarding the "imperfection" of Jews, entered the Holocaust Museum in Washington and put them into action, with tragic and deadly consequences.

Much the same thing happened on May 31st when Scott Roeder entered the Reformation Lutheran Church during Sunday services and slaughtered abortion provider provider Dr. George Tiller. Media analysts continue to explore a possible continuum between Tiller's murder and FOX host Bill O'Reilly's well-documented on-air tirades against the doctor, whom he repeatedly called "Tiller the Baby Killer." O'Reilly broadcast his vendetta to millions and millions of FOX viewers already infected with evangelical superstitions and a horror of science, especially science as it applies to a woman's right to choose.

If O'Reilly had been a serious journalist or broadcaster instead of a sclerotic, chronically-aggravated right-wing rage pimp, he might have had the professional self-awareness or ethical sense to realize that he was putting George Tiller's life in danger over the more than 28 broadcasts in which he used Tiller's name. But O'Reilly, like, for Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and indeed Coulter herself (to name only the gratin of that particular food chain) is neither of those things.

As a group, they are the pop culture equivalent of necrotic carrion beetles, crawling with insectile determination from one infected open wound in the American psyche to another. The wounds include fear of race, fear of foreigners, fear of sexuality, fear of difference, hysterical religious fundamentalism, violent nationalism, and paranoia. They lay their eggs in the infected abrasion, then scuttle away. When the eggs hatch, disgorging rage and discontent, they start counting money.

When challenged on the inherently destructive nature of their enterprise, they invariably claim that their First Amendment right to free speech is being abrogated. Or, like Ann Coulter defensively does in those instances, they cite their place on the New York Times bestseller list. Or the ratings. In other words, since people buy it, watch it, or listen to it in huge numbers, it must have merit, and it must be right.

The difference between John McCain and Sarah Palin became clearest to me in the middle of the campaign last summer.

At a town hall meeting, McCain was confronted by an elderly woman who told McCain that she was a supporter of his because Obama was "an Arab." McCain was clearly uncomfortable, and it was patently obvious why. It had nothing to do with McCain's feelings about Arabs. It had to do with an old-school Republican accidentally moving the rock, and coming face to face with what actually lived beneath it. He recognized that the woman was making an unambiguously racist statement about his opponent, and he was mortified to be asked to answer it. Even though McCain famously and horribly bungled his answer ("No ma'am, he isn't. He's a decent family man.") I knew when he meant. He was addressing the intended racial slur and disavowing it, however badly.

In that moment, I felt deeply for my Republican friends who, on some level, must also be experiencing the embarrassment and discontent of recognizing that their party had been hijacked by racists and religious fanatics who derided education and achievement as "elitist."

Sarah "Screw the Political Correctness" Palin, on the other hand, seemed right at home. She marched into those same crowds grinning and winking, and "Yoo betcha-ing" like she was onstage at the Miss Alaska pageant. While her supporters waved watermelon slices and stuffed monkeys, Palin talked about who the "real Americans" were, and who was "palling around with terrorists." She refused to address the blatant racism of her fans, or address the obvious exploitation of Obama's middle name, Hussein, and the implication she herself was making with her "terrorist" comments.

She was, after all, playing to the accurately-named Republican "base," the same crowd to whom George Bush had sold his second presidential term by pandering to their darkest and most cowardly aspect. This time out it was fear of gay marriage and adoption, carefully tended fear of another 9/11, fear of more fallout from a war they still didn't believe he'd lied about.

One can almost appreciate the horrible honesty of the racists among the McCain-Palin supporters who were able to admit what the others obfuscated: that they didn't want a black man in the White House. Certain videos from their rallies are deeply disturbing. They showcase the seething racism of her most ardent followers.

History has already recorded their obsession with Obama's origins, his religious background, and his citizenship, which remains an obsession among them today.

Obama's citizenship was reportedly also something of an obsession for von Brunn, and likely very much on his mind when he walked into the museum and opened fire to make a statement about what "his" America ought to look like. I have no trouble imagining which radio stations he listened to, or which pundits best represented his baseline political ideology. And why. Even FOX's Shep Smith has said he's disturbed by the escalating virulence and menace of the anti-Obama emails the station is receiving.

There was a time when decency, even honor, was an essential part of the American dialogue in its most ideal form, and part of its very identity. There was a time when our culture would have recoiled in horror at the vituperation flowing unchecked from radios, televisions, and the Internet, instead of applauding it as "common sense," "free speech," or "mavericky," or "a spin-free zone."

There was a time when intellectual honesty was not considered unpatriotic; when compassion for, and understanding of, your fellow man was a sign of strength, not weakness. There was a time when the phrase Have you no shame? meant something, and the First Amendment was not used as toilet paper to wipe up the excremental verbal degradation of vulnerable segments of the American population. A time when it was expected that citizens would understand the difference between free speech and irresponsible speech.

There is no Environmental Protection Agency to measure hate pollution in national dialogue, and no mechanism in place to warn us when the poisonous rage spewed into the national consciousness by shock-jocks, poisonous television pundits, megachurch leaders, and oh-so-subtle politicians, has reached dangerously toxic levels.

No, there is only the result: widows, orphans, collective grief, and an absolute refusal on the part of our loudest, coarsest voices to take any responsibility for their part in the carnage.

[Cannon Shell]

Seriously, a deranged 80 year old guy shoots a security guard and it Ann Coulter or Sarah Palins fault? What about Bush? Doesnt he also have something to do with it too? Did they start the KKK too? Typical liberal bs trying to blame someone else for the issues of the accused.

[gales0678]

chuck i 'll tell you it's bad , i asked my aunt who has transformed herself into a liberal what happened to al queda after 9/11 - i asked her did they go into retirement or was it something that GWB did to slow them down / prevent future attacks ... her answer (probably derived from some ny times story ) was that it had nothing to do with bush going after them , they weren't in retirement either , they just out of the goodness of there heart decided to suspend operations against the US because the saudi king warned them he would take away osma's $$$ from the oil rigs in Saudi Arabia that he collects

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by gales0678

chuck i 'll tell you it's bad , i asked my aunt who has transformed herself into a liberal what happened to al queda after 9/11 - i asked her did they go into retirement or was it something that GWB did to slow them down / prevent future attacks ... her answer (probably derived from some ny times story ) was that it had nothing to do with bush going after them , they weren't in retirement either , they just out of the goodness of there heart decided to suspend operations against the US because the saudi king warned them he would take away osma's $$$ from the oil rigs in Saudi Arabia that he collects

This is a particularly ridiculous line.

Obama's citizenship was reportedly also something of an obsession for von Brunn, and likely very much on his mind when he walked into the museum and opened fire to make a statement about what "his" America ought to look like

So he knows what was on this nuts mind?

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

This is a particularly ridiculous line.

Obama's citizenship was reportedly also something of an obsession for von Brunn, and likely very much on his mind when he walked into the museum and opened fire to make a statement about what "his" America ought to look like

So he knows what was on this nuts mind?

"The Holocaust is a lie. Obama was created by Jews. Obama does what Jew owners tell him to do. Jews captured America's money. Jews control the mass media. The First Amendment is abrogated -- henceforth. ...," an excerpt said.

Found in his car..and probably on his mind I would think.

[timmgirvan]

the article was a degradation of American dialogue! The premise is ridiculous. but par for the course with the lunatic left media. Come on,Riot, I thought you were all about ...... integrity?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GBBob

"The Holocaust is a lie. Obama was created by Jews. Obama does what Jew owners tell him to do. Jews captured America's money. Jews control the mass media. The First Amendment is abrogated -- henceforth. ...," an excerpt said.

Found in his car..and probably on his mind I would think.

What does his citizenship have to do the rantings of a madman? Did Fox news make this guy insane? Is the right now denying the Holocaust too? Irans president has many times in public forums so maybe he should take some of the blame too, though I doubt he would mind. This is a clear case of the sensationalistic "journalism" the writer is complaining about. Tying the views of nutjobs to political pundits is a stretch. Free speech is fine unless you dont agree with it? It is a real stretch to say that psychos are killing people because of Bill O'Reilley. Nutcases have been killing people long before Foxnews came about. Just think of the reaction that JFK's death in modern terms would have caused? Surely Rush would have been to blame for inciting Oswald.

[ArlJim78]

Its really pathetic how some people jump at the chance to try to score political points, even on the back of a tragedy. that piece below is not even worth replying to it is so dishonest and full of holes and inconsistencies. America does have issues with the degradation of the dialogue, and intellectual honesty, but the piece by Mr Howe is a perfect example of what IS wrong.

the 89 year old nutcase who murdered the guard yesterday, among many other paranoid ideas, spoke out against Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, Rupert Murdoch, was obviously anti-semetic, felt George Bush was in on the 9/11 conspiracy, apparently had the address of the conservative Weekly Standard on him, and felt socialism was the best form of government; and this somehow makes him a product of the the right wing, Ann Couter, and Sarah Palin? That is pretty sad.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Seriously, a deranged 80 year old guy shoots a security guard and it Ann Coulter or Sarah Palins fault? What about Bush? Doesnt he also have something to do with it too? Did they start the KKK too? Typical liberal bs trying to blame someone else for the issues of the accused.

Maybe you could not view it in such a superficial, knee-jerk, black-white/right-left/blame point of view?

I think alot of that article is a bit exaggerated, but the part below is right on, and is the reason why I posted it.

What do you think about the below, the POINT of the article?

"There was a time when decency, even honor, was an essential part of the American dialogue in its most ideal form, and part of its very identity. There was a time when our culture would have recoiled in horror at the vituperation flowing unchecked from radios, televisions, and the Internet, instead of applauding it as "common sense," "free speech," or "mavericky," or "a spin-free zone."

"There was a time when intellectual honesty was not considered unpatriotic; when compassion for, and understanding of, your fellow man was a sign of strength, not weakness. There was a time when the phrase Have you no shame? meant something, and the First Amendment was not used as toilet paper to wipe up the excremental verbal degradation of vulnerable segments of the American population. A time when it was expected that citizens would understand the difference between free speech and irresponsible speech. "

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Maybe you could not view it in such a superficial, knee-jerk, black-white/right-left/blame point of view?

I think alot of that article is a bit exaggerated, but the part below is right on, and is the reason why I posted it.

What do you think about the below, the POINT of the article?

"There was a time when decency, even honor, was an essential part of the American dialogue in its most ideal form, and part of its very identity. There was a time when our culture would have recoiled in horror at the vituperation flowing unchecked from radios, televisions, and the Internet, instead of applauding it as "common sense," "free speech," or "mavericky," or "a spin-free zone."

"There was a time when intellectual honesty was not considered unpatriotic; when compassion for, and understanding of, your fellow man was a sign of strength, not weakness. There was a time when the phrase Have you no shame? meant something, and the First Amendment was not used as toilet paper to wipe up the excremental verbal degradation of vulnerable segments of the American population. A time when it was expected that citizens would understand the difference between free speech and irresponsible speech. "

I agree with some of that part except it is wrapped around the message that somehow only Conservative views are radicalized. This is hardly a plea for sanity. It is a totally partisan column found on a totally partisan website. Just saying a few things about our society that are unfortunately true doesn't hide the true intent of the writer which is to cast stones at the right using horrible tragedies as a baseline. Of course you can continue to think that this is a middle of the road viewpoint and that you arent a liberal too.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I agree with some of that part except it is wrapped around the message that somehow only Conservative views are radicalized. This is hardly a plea for sanity. It is a totally partisan column found on a totally partisan website. Just saying a few things about our society that are unfortunately true doesn't hide the true intent of the writer which is to cast stones at the right using horrible tragedies as a baseline. Of course you can continue to think that this is a middle of the road viewpoint and that you arent a liberal too.

Sigh ... okay, once again, can you try to ignore the wrapper, and casting it as right-left, black-white argument, and look at the meat, the point of the article?

Can you leave politics out of it, and ignore that part, and talk about the point of it?

And again, you really have to stop making imaginary crap up out of thin air regarding other people. I obviously don't think this is a middle of the road viewpoint, as you might notice that in the message you are answering I already said I think much of the article is exaggerated. And sorry, I'm not a liberal, either.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Sigh ... okay, once again, can you try to ignore the wrapper, and casting it as right-left, black-white argument, and look at the meat, the point of the article?

Can you leave politics out of it, and ignore that part, and talk about the point of it?

And again, you really have to stop making imaginary crap up out of thin air regarding other people. I obviously don't think this is a middle of the road viewpoint, as you might notice that in the message you are answering I already said I think much of the article is exaggerated. And sorry, I'm not a liberal, either.

The point of the article is to take shots at the GOP. If you cant see that...

Why would i leave politics out of an article that clearly is political? The writer isnt lamenting the degradation of American dialogue. he is lamenting the GOP's dialogue. Perhaps if he had included one of the Msnbc nut jobs in there too i could take his points as non political in nature.

If the article is slanted politically by your own admission, why would i "leave the politics out of it"?

And you are not only a liberal...you are a flaming liberal.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Maybe you could not view it in such a superficial, knee-jerk, black-white/right-left/blame point of view?

I think alot of that article is a bit exaggerated, but the part below is right on, and is the reason why I posted it.

What do you think about the below, the POINT of the article?

"There was a time when decency, even honor, was an essential part of the American dialogue in its most ideal form, and part of its very identity. There was a time when our culture would have recoiled in horror at the vituperation flowing unchecked from radios, televisions, and the Internet, instead of applauding it as "common sense," "free speech," or "mavericky," or "a spin-free zone."

"There was a time when intellectual honesty was not considered unpatriotic; when compassion for, and understanding of, your fellow man was a sign of strength, not weakness. There was a time when the phrase Have you no shame? meant something, and the First Amendment was not used as toilet paper to wipe up the excremental verbal degradation of vulnerable segments of the American population. A time when it was expected that citizens would understand the difference between free speech and irresponsible speech. "

I will agree 100% with this point. Sadly, we'll never see a return to a civility such as this!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

I will agree 100% with this point. Sadly, we'll never see a return to a civility such as this!

And I agree completely with Timmgirvan except the part that we cannot return to that - we can! The internet will make it more difficult, though, not less.

[mclem0822]

Originally Posted by Riot

Death at the Holocaust Museum and the Degradation of the American Dialogue
By Michael Rowe June 11, 2009

Ann Coulter, the self-described "conservative Christian" right-wing talking head, is much on my mind as I contemplate the horrifying images that came out of Washington from the Holocaust Museum, where white supremacist James von Brunn opened fire in an attempted mass-murder of Jews. His killing spree was cut short by security guard Stephen Tyrone Jones who put himself in the line of fire and died so others might live.

I am remembering an October 2007 segment of the Donny Deutsch Show where Coulter asserted that America would be better off if everyone was Christian and that "the Jews" merely needed to be "perfected" through conversion.

Coulter has made her fortune by generating, fanning, and nurturing hatred and contempt for a variety of people, including liberals, Democrats, gays, foreign nationals, 9/11 widows, feminists, single mothers, Muslims, and any other group she could throw to her disenfranchised readership as shark bait.

To Coulter, referring to Jews as "imperfect" on a talk show hosted by an observant Jewish host must have seemed like just another day at the office. Coulter shook her blond hair and tittered, as though waiting to be found witty, charming, and adorably irascible. Oh Ann, you minx! You're just pushing everyone's buttons, aren't you? Shame on you, you dead-sexy fascist pin-up. Stop teasing. You don't really mean that. I mean, not really, right? Right?

Deutsch, clearly appalled, pointed out that the comment was not only patently absurd, but also hateful. Coulter giggled. A gold crucifix gleamed against her bony clavicle. "No," she said, "it's not hateful at all."

This week, nearly two years later, James von Brunn, driven by his own twisted version of Coulter's publicly-proclaimed perspectives regarding the "imperfection" of Jews, entered the Holocaust Museum in Washington and put them into action, with tragic and deadly consequences.

Much the same thing happened on May 31st when Scott Roeder entered the Reformation Lutheran Church during Sunday services and slaughtered abortion provider provider Dr. George Tiller. Media analysts continue to explore a possible continuum between Tiller's murder and FOX host Bill O'Reilly's well-documented on-air tirades against the doctor, whom he repeatedly called "Tiller the Baby Killer." O'Reilly broadcast his vendetta to millions and millions of FOX viewers already infected with evangelical superstitions and a horror of science, especially science as it applies to a woman's right to choose.

If O'Reilly had been a serious journalist or broadcaster instead of a sclerotic, chronically-aggravated right-wing rage pimp, he might have had the professional self-awareness or ethical sense to realize that he was putting George Tiller's life in danger over the more than 28 broadcasts in which he used Tiller's name. But O'Reilly, like, for Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and indeed Coulter herself (to name only the gratin of that particular food chain) is neither of those things.

As a group, they are the pop culture equivalent of necrotic carrion beetles, crawling with insectile determination from one infected open wound in the American psyche to another. The wounds include fear of race, fear of foreigners, fear of sexuality, fear of difference, hysterical religious fundamentalism, violent nationalism, and paranoia. They lay their eggs in the infected abrasion, then scuttle away. When the eggs hatch, disgorging rage and discontent, they start counting money.

When challenged on the inherently destructive nature of their enterprise, they invariably claim that their First Amendment right to free speech is being abrogated. Or, like Ann Coulter defensively does in those instances, they cite their place on the New York Times bestseller list. Or the ratings. In other words, since people buy it, watch it, or listen to it in huge numbers, it must have merit, and it must be right.

The difference between John McCain and Sarah Palin became clearest to me in the middle of the campaign last summer.

At a town hall meeting, McCain was confronted by an elderly woman who told McCain that she was a supporter of his because Obama was "an Arab." McCain was clearly uncomfortable, and it was patently obvious why. It had nothing to do with McCain's feelings about Arabs. It had to do with an old-school Republican accidentally moving the rock, and coming face to face with what actually lived beneath it. He recognized that the woman was making an unambiguously racist statement about his opponent, and he was mortified to be asked to answer it. Even though McCain famously and horribly bungled his answer ("No ma'am, he isn't. He's a decent family man.") I knew when he meant. He was addressing the intended racial slur and disavowing it, however badly.

In that moment, I felt deeply for my Republican friends who, on some level, must also be experiencing the embarrassment and discontent of recognizing that their party had been hijacked by racists and religious fanatics who derided education and achievement as "elitist."

Sarah "Screw the Political Correctness" Palin, on the other hand, seemed right at home. She marched into those same crowds grinning and winking, and "Yoo betcha-ing" like she was onstage at the Miss Alaska pageant. While her supporters waved watermelon slices and stuffed monkeys, Palin talked about who the "real Americans" were, and who was "palling around with terrorists." She refused to address the blatant racism of her fans, or address the obvious exploitation of Obama's middle name, Hussein, and the implication she herself was making with her "terrorist" comments.

She was, after all, playing to the accurately-named Republican "base," the same crowd to whom George Bush had sold his second presidential term by pandering to their darkest and most cowardly aspect. This time out it was fear of gay marriage and adoption, carefully tended fear of another 9/11, fear of more fallout from a war they still didn't believe he'd lied about.

One can almost appreciate the horrible honesty of the racists among the McCain-Palin supporters who were able to admit what the others obfuscated: that they didn't want a black man in the White House. Certain videos from their rallies are deeply disturbing. They showcase the seething racism of her most ardent followers.

History has already recorded their obsession with Obama's origins, his religious background, and his citizenship, which remains an obsession among them today.

Obama's citizenship was reportedly also something of an obsession for von Brunn, and likely very much on his mind when he walked into the museum and opened fire to make a statement about what "his" America ought to look like. I have no trouble imagining which radio stations he listened to, or which pundits best represented his baseline political ideology. And why. Even FOX's Shep Smith has said he's disturbed by the escalating virulence and menace of the anti-Obama emails the station is receiving.

There was a time when decency, even honor, was an essential part of the American dialogue in its most ideal form, and part of its very identity. There was a time when our culture would have recoiled in horror at the vituperation flowing unchecked from radios, televisions, and the Internet, instead of applauding it as "common sense," "free speech," or "mavericky," or "a spin-free zone."

There was a time when intellectual honesty was not considered unpatriotic; when compassion for, and understanding of, your fellow man was a sign of strength, not weakness. There was a time when the phrase Have you no shame? meant something, and the First Amendment was not used as toilet paper to wipe up the excremental verbal degradation of vulnerable segments of the American population. A time when it was expected that citizens would understand the difference between free speech and irresponsible speech.

There is no Environmental Protection Agency to measure hate pollution in national dialogue, and no mechanism in place to warn us when the poisonous rage spewed into the national consciousness by shock-jocks, poisonous television pundits, megachurch leaders, and oh-so-subtle politicians, has reached dangerously toxic levels.

No, there is only the result: widows, orphans, collective grief, and an absolute refusal on the part of our loudest, coarsest voices to take any responsibility for their part in the carnage.

You make a ton of good points Riot. I feel like Scum like the Von Brunn who are already totally disturbed, doesn't need any added fuel to his fire! Whether the ilk highlighted above are trying to sell books, or keep their 50 million a year radio gig, they do spread hate! Under the freedom of speech they have the right to air their collective views. However, with that freedom of speech comes responsibility for the words they use, a resposibility which these right-wing kooks (among others), could care less about!