It was a pretty cool movie, but I'm not talking about that... I'm asking for help.
While driving home from class the other night I was disappointed to be reminded that the two local NPR stations I could reach offered music for middle-aged white guys in place of the news or talk I was hoping to find. The one station played mostly old Stax titles with the occasional Elvis Costello??? thrown in. The other was Mama Jazz... 6 nights a week... 8 to midnight. Being a middle-aged white guy, I like both of those offerings most of the time, but for some reason, I was really hoping for some evening news type of fare or maybe a discussion of some current topic by experts in the field. It was then that it dawned on my to flip over to the AM dial. There's always talk over there.
After locating about twenty "local" sports shows from Chicago to Florida - physical range remains one of the coolest things about AM radio - I managed to find The Savage Report. I figured what the heck, at least it was talk. I'm open to other people's opinions. It had been a while since I'd had my intelligence insulted anyway. I picked a great night. He was ranting about the treatment of dogs in China. Noting that if our PETA and other animal rights people were as true to their cause as they claimed, they'd stop pretending to protest here in the states, "where it's easy" and head on over to China to stop this horrible abuse. I quickly remembered why I don't bother listening to anything other than sports on AM radio anymore. First of all, since when does Savage acknowledge anyone or anything's rights outside of America. He must be going pinko on us. Second, is it OK if we apply this rationale to the righteous right who normally camp out in AM land?
As fate would have it, the next morning's NPR Morning Edition featured a story about forced abortions in China. Most people know that Chinese families are allowed to abort girls since they're only allowed one child per family. This story focused on what happens when this rule is ignored. Rural families who farm to survive often exceed the one child per household rule. Many get away with it since they're so remotely located and often interact very little with others, government or otherwise. But when the government gets wind of the violations they send out med students to perform mandatory in-home abortions if they catch you in time. You can imagine the "success rate" of these inexperienced students performing in these conditions. I couldn't have asked for a better application of Savage Logic. I could just hear his voice saying, "if these abortion protestors were true to their cause, they wouldn't bother protesting here in the states where it's easy..." The sad part of applying his logic is that it points out how much more desperately such protest is needed in China than it is here. According to ChristianityToday.com, 70% of Americans believe some form of abortion should be legal, but in China, and I'm just guessing here, no one wants to be told they have to have an abortion! And now, ladies and gentlemen, Michael Savage champions human rights in China! Freaky.
So why then did 2 of 6 major advertisers specifically tell MSNBC they didn't want to run their ads during Savage's TV debut? Who wouldn't want to back this champion of human rights? And why did the other 4 tell MSNBC not to run their ads during his show in the future after his debut? Give this man a break. But the translation help I need most now is this: how will Savage and the rest of the right spin this into some kind of liberal media censorship? Isn't "let the market prevail" a mantra of the right? And wouldn't this represent true market rule? I wonder what it is about the vitriol Savage spews that couldn't withstand the light of television... and worse yet, why does it still exist even in the dark of AM radio nights? Who listens to this guy anyway and why? Even the grumpy old Bill O'reilly manages to mix a little common sense in with his curmudgeonly criticism of people who think for themselves. Anyway... I don't even remember what needed to be translated here, but it had something to do with how Savage wanted people to think and how I translated it initially. I knew I must have messed something up in that translation.
Here's the other one: Bush's support of the UAE port security contract strikes me as a step in developing a partnership with our middle eastern neighbors. I like that idea. In fact, it's the first thing he's said or done consistent with the "spread democracy" justification for the war that I've seen or heard yet. If spreading democracy all over the Arab world was really the objective (and I only doubt that because it was the second or third reason given AND because there seem to be much more effective ways of doing it than flat out invasion/forced regime change) then this partnership is actually a natural extension of that idea. So either he meant it in the first place, and the contract is phase two, or he was lying and now he's covering his ass.
Either way, I like the move. Partnership stands a far better chance of protecting Americans and American interests than world domination. No matter how big and bad the Goliath, there's always a terrorist Davy with a sling and some rocks. Pissing the world off, severing ties with allies, providing radicals with a live-fire training facility hasn't been making many of us feel all that much more secure. Putting people on the payroll usually makes them much more amenable to the cause.
So here's where the translation trouble lies: if Congress and the Right were so game for this administration's moves so far, then why the sudden lack of support for the logical next step? (Granted, congress wasn't THAT supportive of the war in the first place. They said we'll give you the power to declare IF you MUST... and that MUST still hasn't been proven to many peoples' satisfaction, but apparently no one cares about that anymore) Is it because ignorant Americans think this is a war against Arabs? Don't they realize it's to help Arabs? What better way to show that than to trust them with the contract to manage our ports? OK, translate that.
And now, a word from a great Republican:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. (Teddy Roosevelt, 1918)
3 comments:
Here's what I haven't heard enough about the ports thing. Managing ports likely means access to things like architectural plans, traffic route maps, wiring diagrams, etc...and in electronic form in all probability. It's not the folks who run the business that worry me, but the folks who might be able to hack the networks in the UAE to use that info. The vulnerability is the port - but it's the network port I am talking about...
I think I just read the reasons we shouldn't be in Iraq (they don't want us or democracy) AND the reason Bush shouldn't be president (religion and politics are diametrically opposed).
WOW!
As far as the electronic threat, the bad guys will get what they want regardless of the company name or the language on the computer or server. Our stuff ain't all that secure either... ask those guys in that room in the Watergate... and that was before hi-tech.
I'm not terribly concerned with China as a subject of anything other than Wal-Mart and GM partnerships... I only mentioned it cuz Savage did. I'm all for evil English teachers spreading critical thinking skills (a key part of language instruction) in the form of alternative viewpoints though!
Later fellas.
I really should have clarified that. People of faith are welcome to apply. We've had many presidents who successfully balanced their personal beliefs, desires, faiths, etc. with the greater good. During the last two elections, the "liberal media" allowed this to be called "flip-flopping." This putting the needs of the nation ahead of one's own used to be called successful leadership.
What I meant was people who intend to make their faith the national faith need not apply. People who believe their faith alone makes them a better candidate need not apply. People who think religion = law (like in most Arab countries) need not apply. People who degrade their faith by using it as a soundbite or as campaign fodder need not apply. And, most importantly, people who do all of that then act in ways that contradict their faith get re-elected. No, wait, that's not what I meant either!
Post a Comment