So Friday on the Mike Malloy show, Mike was discussing the story about the Marines in Iraq killing innocent civilians. Doing a great job as usual, he had been contrasting the statements made by the Iraqi prime minister with the White House spin that he had been “misquoted.” For those of you who missed this one, the Iraqi prime minister said the following:
“This is a phenomenon that has become common among many of the multinational forces. No respect for citizens, smashing civilian cars and killing on a suspicion or a hunch. It’s unacceptable.”
Although Condoleezza Rice has not subsequently repudiated those words, she followed, albeit less vocally, the trajectory taken by WH spokesman, Tony Snow as evidenced by this back and forth with Helen Thomas:
Q Where does he say he was misinterpreted?
MR. SNOW: Well, unfortunately, Helen, I have just tried to — what I’m trying is to relate to you, through Ambassador Khalilzad, through me, what was told to him through an interpreter by the Prime Minister. And it becomes a little convoluted, and so I don’t want to make a real clear characterization, because it’s a little hazy to me, too. All right? What I do know is that he was misquoted, he’s looking into it. But that what he said, and when he said it, and in reaction to what is a little gauzy.
…
Q You’re not telling us what he said.
MR. SNOW: But I don’t know exactly what he said. All I’m doing is giving you the characterization I repeated through the Ambassador. I’m trying my best to be your advocate on this one. But I did not have a direct conversation with the Ambassador — I mean, with the Prime Minister. But it’s interesting to note that you have — violence against civilians has become a “daily phenomenon by many troops in the American-led coalition who did not respect the Iraqi people.” This is gauzian in and of itself. It doesn’t refer to American troops. It talks about troops in an American-led coalition, which also involves Iraqi troops. I don’t know what this means. I wish I did, and I wish I could give you clearer guidance.
Anyway, Mike was taking some calls after the segment about this little incident was finished. After commiserating with an upset New Yorker, Arnold called in.
Hurts soooo good,
WTF?
Arnold, although he was hot under the collar and probably not the picture of intellect, sounded like he was asking a reasonable question. I didn’t hear the show, so maybe Malloy already explained in detail where he got his sources, and figured he had some grounds for sarcasm. Even if he did, he took an opportunity to come across as an informed, reliable commentator and pissed on it. He pissed on it. Didn’t even let the guy finish a sentence.
I mean really. Sure, it’s sort of funny to hear him screaming gay come-ons at small-town America, but imagine how many conservatives right now are gleefully playing the very same sound byte and saying “Listen to this guy, folks! Here’s the left for you! He can’t even defend his claims, so he reverts to obscenity and immaturity. Now aren’t you glad you voted Republican?”
Malloy sounded like a complete fool. Sorry, Matt, but that clip’s an embarrassment.
CRBS,
Arnold is part of a group of individuals who seek to do one thing, and that is, destroy any arguments that are grounded in logic by instead dragging them over to emotional grounds, usually under the guise of patriotism. Arnold didn’t give a damn about the sources, and the sources are good in this story. Instead he wanted to impeach Malloy’s (and the Left’s) credibility regarding our “support of the troops,” and other such nonsense. These are the kind of people who have infiltrated all aspects of media over the past thirty or so years, and are directly responsible for the current toothlessness therein.
Malloy is a very well informed commentator, but he shows something else, and that is a willingness to fight. Whereas you would like us (more progressive individuals,) to give equal credence to those who spew absurd attacks and diversions, Malloy is able to turn the tables on those very individuals. Make no mistake, with the president (lower case p) making calls for a gay marriage amendment, it is clear that the official tactic is to deny and distract. When the Iraqi prime minister, supposedly an ally, makes statements critical of our troops in any way whatsoever (in this case pointing out that there are bad apples,) the Right goes into immediate spin control. Are you telling me that you sooner believe Tony Snow at the WH with his metaphors of “gauzian details” versus an Iraqi who is there?
No, Malloy succeeded in making a mockery of Arnold’s (and all like him) tactic of bait and switch. If you listen to Malloy regularly, he often allows right wing callers to come on and proves time and time again that none of them can make a coherent and respectful point about any issue of import without resulting to base character assassination. Malloy’s response highlights the wool which is constantly being pulled over our eyes, and by refuting Arnold, makes it very clear that we will neither loose sight of the true issues nor allow our credibility to be impeached due to our dissent.
You think I believe in giving equal credence to those who spew absurd attacks and diversions? Are you kidding? Most of the time I spent on the Daily Jolt went into talking to Arnolds of one stripe or another, whose idea of debating was to do exactly what you said: cloud the issue with emotion-ridden sermons on racism, patriotism, and morality. I didn’t hesitate to tell them how foolish their arguments were, and I got rid of the ones whose absurd attacks violated the forum guidelines. I do recall one forum member who advocated equal credence for absurd attacks, though 😉 Maybe he’s had a change of heart.
Although I didn’t suffer fools gladly, I did answer their points. Even when I knew where they were going – which I usually did, because they were rarely diverse in their logic – I still addressed whatever crap they brought up. They weren’t listening, but there were other forum readers who followed these discussions, and reverting to factless posturing would have devalued my points. What’s going to sound more respect-worthy to the casual reader, raving about how I’m a terrorist commie who hates America, or rationally pointing out why the war in Iraq is indefensible? The ignorant frat boy who I’m replying to doesn’t give a damn, obviously, but my opinions will be that much more palatable to everyone else.
Bottom line: if you sound sensible, your ideas sound sensible. If you sound like a fool, your ideas sound foolish, even if you’re actually right. Fighting idiocy with idiocy is only impressive to those aren’t going to change their opinions. Seems to me that the people we need to be reaching are those who don’t quite trust either side. Did Malloy sound like he represented a reasonable, supportable ideology? Not in that call.
I don’t dispute the value of vicious mockery – it’s the basis for most good political cartoons. However, there’s also something to be said for allowing idiots to shame themselves. Arnold might well have done a marvelous job of demonstrating how silly his notions really are, and he certainly would have done a more convincing job of it than Malloy did. “I want to kiss you, Arnold! I’m a terrorist! I rape babies!” Yeah, that really made Arnold look pretty lame. His grandkids are probably going to receive CDs of that broadcast the day they reach voting age.
That wasn’t a refutation, dude. That was crapping in your hands and throwing it.
WD,
I spent a little time listening to your boy malloy and thought it was interesting, though not something I plan to keep listening to. I tend to stay away from political commenters on both sides as they tend to expound their point of view without the ability to see the other side of the aisle. The beauty of a discussion is that of people sitting down and discussing things in a meaningful way. People like Al Frankin, Bill O’ Reilly, James Carrville, and Hannity and Combs play out a type of theatre where few real points of discussion can really occur.
That being said, the value of discourse in our nation seems to have lost its way. We have lost ourselves as we cannot even seem to sit down and have a simple discussion of issues anymore. These days every issue seems to be supercharged with emotion. It seems that it is near impossible for anyone to sit down and rationally discuss any issues. That I think that came around with the advent of politics becoming entertainment instead of informative. Instead of hearing two people discuss the pros of their side while verbally parrying with the opponents side, we have shouting, interrupring, and dergoatory commentary. We have “shock jocks” that have moved from sensationalistic material to political material. And what saddens me the most, is the youth of the United States. They either don’t care for politics or get their politics from very questionable sources such as MTV and Comedy Central. Sadly, i don’t see things improving, and that really saddens me.
Big Tex:
Mike Malloy blends informed opinion with some fun moments. The difference between a Malloy and a Bill O’Reiley is that the former talks from a basis of fact whereas the later from a basis of opinion. Now, although I’ll agree that discourse, especially political discourse, has been dumbed down in the US, I will not hang my head in an “aw shucks” manner. Why? Simply because the right wing is responsible for the current state of affairs. We have a president who is incoherent yet he was able to call Kerry out as being too academic. The Republican party has allowed itself to pander to the basest instincts still well alive among large segments of the American population, namely racism and xenophobia. Right wing crazies, like O’Reiley (though he certainly isn’t the first and won’t be the last,) pander to these emotions by injecting fear into the discourse in order to distract people from real issues. And frankly, as overly PC Dems (admitted,) we have kowtowed to these bellicose fools, and given them a platform against which there is no defense on a more civilized level. So now progressives are creating an alternative discourse; Air America radio and the “netroots” make clear that we don’t have to play into the hands of O’Reiley types. The rest is satire. So, Tex, though I agree that America has been dumbed down and distracted, its clear where the blame lies. And… if I must chose, I’d take a Comedy Central viewer’s opinion over a Fox News watcher’s any day.
CRBS:
Your points about equal credence, in response to the public forum you administered, are well intentioned but ultimately inconsequential. Whereas the forum was indeed public and de-centralized, the Malloy program is not. As the host, he sets the tone, and that is clear from the beginning – there is no pretense that all will be treated equally. Although I agree that it is of the utmost importance to make strong and logical arguments to bolster our positions, whatever they may be, there is a limit to reasoning with those who do not heed reason. Anyway, Malloy usually presses people like Arnold by stopping their rants and demanding facts – this instance was, as you said, viscous mockery. Frankly, if we don’t allow ourselves that, well, we remain what we are, a party that stands for little and is constantly railroaded. No, no apologies for vicious mockery – and, by the way, Colbert was funny, very.
Working Definition(I just realized what a long name that is!)
I think you might have your blinders on. The fact is that both sides are guilty of blowing things out of proproation in terms of reporting news. Your last comment makes it sound as if the right is completley to blame for all things going on and that the left were led by their gullible noses. Please. The real problem is that people are afraid to say what they think becuase they don’t want to be labled an unpleasant term by the PC police. The PC police has gotten compleltey out of hand and I place that blame squarly on the left.
You comment that Right “has allowed itself to pander to the basest instincts still well alive among large segments of the American population, namely racism…” I would compeletely disagree with that statement of yours. The only people that talk about racism are people on the left. For all the good that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr did, his follower Jesse Jackson constantly panders to the left on the smallest of issues. He figurativly goes hunting for mice with an elephant gun. He continually thumps the drum of racism when it clearly is the farthest thing from the truth in most instances. Ever hear about Packer football coach Ray Rhodes? Jesse Jackson thought his firing was due to the fact that Rhodes was a balck coach. How about a brawl in a high school football stadium between students. The students were suspended and Jackson filed a lawsuit claiming it was racial (Decatur, IL). Both of these examples clearly proved that he was dead wrong on the issue. He has become a caricature of himself and his cause. While I am not ignorant enough to say that racism does not exsist in this country, why is it that the left is constantlty promoting it and finding new ways to define it? The subdivision of America and racism…interesting isn’t it? Who is really Pimping racisim here?
And here is something else I have never understood. People on the left draw attention to race all of the time. Ie “Isn’t that impressive! He is the first African American to…” I don’t give a damn about his race, I care if he can do the job. Get the best person qualified for the job. I have seen people on the left thump their chest and proudly proclaim how much they “dont see race or color” and then comment how proud they are of the first African American whatever.
And here is something else I don’t get in this PC world: African American. Can you possibly be anymore offense? Think about that term for a moment: African-American. Whenerver you see a black person you are suppsoed to think “African American”. This is extremely offensive becuase you are making two drastic assumptions. 1) The person may not be AMERICAN! To think that the only Black people in the world live here in the US is ridiculous. That logic implies that the person is African becuase Africa is the only place where they possibly could come from. What about Haiti, India, Trinidad, Dominican Republic, Brazil, Australia, Jamaica, etc. 2) Are all people from the African subcontinent alike? Is a person from Egypt the same as a person from The Congo? Are you saying that all of Africa is the same? Last time I checked I saw a very diverse population that has a plethora of culture and diversity. The term “African American” is a close minded term and should be abolished. Sadly, the PC world thinks its what we should be thinking and saying.
These views do not represent the opinions of the left, right or middle. They represent the views of people who think like me. People who are tired, pissed, and angry at a lot of things. A group of people who are no longer clearly identifable with political party. I am Big Tex and I speak for myself as an individual and do not tow any political lines.