Blah-Vroom-Blah! versus Sympathy For the Teabaggers (or, Finding the Best Servants)

Lately I've been making more of an effort to understand those I disagree with. I'm desperately seeking opinions different than mine instead of digesting the same old media that reinforces my thoughts. I already know what I think and while insecure in some ways, I don't need to constantly be told I'm right (just that I'm beautiful.)

I think of my opinions like a champion boxer who cannot retire. He stays on top only as long as he defeats all contenders, and he must face every challenger.

Results of my quest have been mixed.

I've tried to engage people on the internet, and by "engage" I mean call them morons and get called worse. Strangely, this has not led to the thoughtful exchange I had hoped for.

Fortunately, shortly after embarking on this venture, an opportunity arose. I refer to the recent Tea Bag Parties held on Tax Day.

Having taken part in demonstrations before (mostly on behalf of animal rights) I felt kinship with the teabaggers. I knew what they were up against, even though they had Astroturf backing. If you've never taken to the streets, let me review the weird obstacles that arise when partaking in a protest.

It's not as easy as it sounds. Sure, you stand there with a sign and/or march, but it's often boring (that's one challenge) the weather isn't always friendly, and you even might get nervous, as from stage fright or public speaking.

Then there's the taunting. Knuckleheads driving by are quick to execute what I call the blah-vroom-blah. They disagree with you (judging by their hand gestures) and they scream their discontent without ever slowing down as they whip past. What they yell is invariably lost to the wind, their vehicle's engine and the Doppler effect. Apparently, to some, an exchange of ideas is best handled like fast food: quick and lousy. Thanks to the net, protest taunting options are multiplied. Now you can mock the protestors in lots of new creative ways before, during, and forever after, in multimedia. (True confession: I did some mocking on Twitter.)

Of course, the biggest challenge following a demo is getting your message(s) into the mainstream media (MSM). Sadly, most analyses from the MSM were echoes of the same crap I heard following my animal rights adventures. Some cliches: What is the message? The message just isn't clear. They need a leader. They need a single voice. What are they protesting? What are they doing out there?

I've always felt that you need to be careful not to assess the value of a message based on the skill of the messenger at presenting it. Imagine a genius with a speech impediment. His presentation is incomprehensible, but his ideas are awesome.

Yet that poor genius would be mocked by the MSM because of the snotty way pundits of all stripes assess demonstrations. If the demo isn't executed in an easy-to-report fashion, with a ready-made single message and choreographed dance numbers, they whine. As if it's even possible to gather hundreds of people in one location and have them all sing the same tune with one voice.

The MSM has not learned or perhaps simply can't cover this important facet of America. News is made for single simple messages that fit into defined areas, but with America speaking so diversely, reporting usually falls short. Though it may be true that the protest is disorganized, we need to note that inadequate reporting methods may be a bigger part of the problem.

So let's listen to the teabaggers. They are angry about taxes, angry about bank bailouts, worried about how all Obama's spending will affect future generations. These are all legit concerns. I applaud them taking it to the streets. I like to think a big demo frightens would-be dictators.

Sadly, though, they don't, and that's where I part ways with the teabaggers. I understand they are concerned, but when the Bush-Cheney Criminal Cartel was selling out America for generations in ways financial, legal and moral, teabaggers did nothing. It was only when Fox News whipped them up about Obama that they mobilized. This is disappointing.

Obama's team has repeated endlessly that anyone making less than a quarter-mil per year will see a tax decrease. Yes, Obama is spending, but he has explained his method to pay for it: tax the rich, which the general teabagger seems to also oppose.

How odd! These rugged individualist types practically have a waking wet dream while talking about making their final hopeless stand against a much larger, much more well-armed foe (always the government or some arm thereof.) Yet the same people are always willing to live at the whim of the rich. I say tax the greedy bastards!

That's the teabagger paradox: they fight against their own interests, for free, on behalf of the rich who would steal their life savings and screw them and their families in a second. The best servant is a willing one.

So even with the impossibility of adequate media coverage, can a protest accomplish anything? Well sure, it shows that people are angry enough to get out in public. For that, I commend the teabaggers. As for their no-taxes-for-the-rich stance, I'm afraid when it comes to that, I'm just going to have to say they can suck my balls.

===
Larry Nocella's novel Where Did This Come From? is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers. For more info, visit LarryNocella.com.

Liberals Coming to the Defense of Fox News?! (Reluctantly Admitting Maybe We're Not All Evil)

I miss a good argument, where my core beliefs are challenged. The current Republican Party has no new ideas with which to move the country forward and that's extremely dangerous. To get good ideas, you need lots of them to compete for the top and borrow from each other. It's another example of the GOP paying lip-service to the concept of a free market. If the market's not rigged, they can't compete, not even in the marketplace of ideas.

Funny that the people always complaining that others are unpatriotic commit a kind of treason. By being short on any decent ideas, they are making the USA vulnerable. We'll end up with only one world instead of the best of both.

As a writer, I'm a big First Amendment fan, I love the clash of thoughts provided by free speech and I like Voltaire's quote: I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it.

So it gives me a strange feeling as I am compelled to defend Fox News. The feeling is like finding a woman attractive, only to find out she's a male transvestite. Is this where I note that's the voice of experience or should I just leave that out?

As you likely know (or can easily guess) I think Fox News is a total joke. I honestly can't see any good coming from spending every second of airtime feeding on people's fears, but Fox certainly has the right to do so for fun and profit. I suppose I should also entertain the remote possibility that their reporters are sincere in their perpetual rage over superficial things and not just because there's always a market for anger reinforcement.

That said, I have to take issue with a criticism has been leveled against them by Media Matters, a group I respect as much as I disrespect Fox News. Media Matters always includes their sources with links and audio and video clips. They perform their own research projects and assemble data-heavy reports. They are top-notch journalists and analysts, and save me the time of logging every B.S. thing said by the Fox News team.

As much as I love Media Matters and their commentator, Eric Boehlert, I couldn't help but twinge when I read his article, Glenn Beck and the Rise of Fox News' militia media. (Link.) The column cites many situations in which Fox stokes the militia mentality, that anti-social behavior that presents itself as severely pro-freedom but always ends in a child-molesting micro-mini dictatorship. Boehlert notes that a man named Jim Adkisson shot and killed people in a church. Boehlert then writes this:

When investigators went to Adkisson's home in search of a motive, as well as evidence for the pending trial, they found copies of Savage's Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, Let Freedom Ring by Sean Hannity, and The O'Reilly Factor, by Fox News' Bill O'Reilly. They also came across what was supposed to have been Adkisson's suicide note: a handwritten, four-page manifesto explaining his murderous actions. The one-word answer for his deed? Hate. The three-word answer? He hated liberals.

That's the part that set off my liberalism, because it sounded exactly like agenda-driven accusations I've heard my whole life. Whenever someone goes crazy and kills people, the police search their home and find a number of things. Depending on what mailing lists you are on, you will find the cause of the murder. If a group is worried about music, they focus on the CDs with gothic lyrics (almost always Marilyn Manson.) If the group is active in alerting parents to videogame content, they will focus on the videogames found (almost always Grand Theft Auto.) In this case, Media Matters was focused on Fox News, so that was the source.

Now you could say the case of Adkisson is a bit different because in addition to finding Fox News reading material, there's the suicide note manifesto echoing that material's sentiments.

But the media focuses on action, not inaction. Meaning, we have to remember that there are millions of people who watch Fox but haven't shot people. (Gag. Millions?)

Sadly, yes. Millions of Fox News fans, despite being told that Liberals are evil, have enough human decency not to harm others. Millions of people, despite listening to vicious goth lyrics, have not gone on a shooting spree. Millions of video gaming kids (and pseudo-adults like myself) despite having access to Grand Theft Auto IV, have enough human decency not to run over several hookers, throw a grenade at a hot dog stand and then fly a helicopter into a river.

I think it says something. Despite all the hysteria about media, it might actually be much less potent than anyone believes. Millions and millions of people watch heinously violent stuff all the time. They - I should say we - We enjoy it. Yet the huge massive majority of us have never killed anyone in real life. Most of us are downright kind-hearted.

The common denominator between killers is not their media diet. The common denominator is closer to being access to guns, but even more common than that, to paraphrase Chris Rock: "Whatever happened to just being crazy?"

I believe Fox News is bad for America and humanity, because they keep people ignorant and prey on people's fears of a world always changing beyond their control. I cannot stress enough how I think Fox News is a negative influence, but I don't think it is correct to imply that they were a cause of this or any shooting. They were as much a part of Adkisson killing people as anything else in the rancid soup of his brain.

Fox News doesn't make people shoot people. Music doesn't make people shoot people. Videogames don't make people shoot people. Even guns don't make people shoot people. People shoot people because they're crazy and cruel and deranged.

In summary: Is Fox News responsible for the deaths of those people? No, but it does not immediately follow that Fox is in any way superior to a steaming pile of llama poop.

===
Larry Nocella's novel Where Did This Come From? is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers. For more info, visit LarryNocella.com.