buy cialis order viagra order cialis buy cheap viagra order viagra order cialis buy cialis buy generic viagra buy viagra

Paging Captain Obvious

– posted by thehim

Jim Miller is stumped:

So, here’s a challenge for our local journalists: Commit journalism. Find out the answers to those basic questions. Tell us who these “anti-war protesters” are, and what they want.

They want cupcakes, Jim. My god. I think we can forgive journalists for not assuming that their readers have the IQ of a footstool.

8 Responses to “Paging Captain Obvious”

  1. Carl Says:

    I’ve been to several protests where there’s a call and response “what do we want” and then the answer. So I imagine it isn’t too tough to do.

  2. Noble Says:

    How about this gem:

    “And if you want to be a real reporter, you might even ask them why they desire an American defeat — and a victory for the terrorists.”

    That’s gotta be a joke.

  3. Thehim Says:

    That’s gotta be a joke.

    You would think.

  4. Carl Says:

    Does he have a sense of humor?

  5. Daddy Love Says:

    I spent a bit of time asshole-tearing in that post’s comments.

    Why is it that Republicans think that Iraqis are all “terrorists?”

  6. Daddy Love Says:

    Love the title fo this post, by the way.

    Oh, and Miller refers to the Olypmia anti-war group hosting the event as ’shodowy” because he read their “About us” statement and they said they had no officers. I though he should have used their “Contact Us” link and fucking asked them himself.

  7. Paddy Mac Says:

    The Right owns patriotism (just ask them). If they want a war, then that war is patriotic, even if they refuse to fight in it themselves. Opponents of that war are unpatriotic. If soldiers who fought in that war now oppose it, then they are unpatriotic “phony soldiers”, so declared by another patriot who never fought.

    And, since the unpatriotic are dishonest (saying, for instance, that they oppose killing for oil; the Right knows that noboby ever opposes naked greed!) we must investigate them, always at their expense. If we find nothing, we keep investigating, until we bankrupt or harrass them into stopping their unpatriotism.

    This has been “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” (I’m quoting that title from memory), and it’s been around for a long, long time. Jim Miller is as unoriginal as he is insulting.

  8. N in Seattle Says:

    Yes, Paddy Mac, you’ve got the right title. Richard Hofstadter wrote the essay for Harper’s in November 1964. I don’t know anything about Jim Miller, but it’s not unlikely that that was before Captain Obvious was born.

    I remember reading the paper (and several other Hofstadter works, including his seminal 1948 The American Political Tradition) when it was fairly new, probably as a college student in the late ’60s. Many brilliant insights, more than just a few of which are still (or do I mean again?) quite applicable. Among the many such trenchant observations in The Paranoid Style:

    The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman—sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid’s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone’s will. Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing); he has a special technique for seduction (the Catholic confessional).

Leave a Reply