RIPOSTE
EXTRA!
by RIP RENSE |
|
STEIN'S MONSTROUS REMARKS
1/27/06
Joel
Stein, the little sitcom writer who has a weekly political column on
the L.A. Times op-ed page(!), needs to resign or be fired.
This is the only way the
Times editorial pages can maintain the slightest veneer of dignity, if not
credibility. In the past few years, the pages have schizophrenically gone
from namby-pamby middle-of-the-road to Michael Kinsley-left to namby-pamby
conservative.
With Little Joey, they
have gone namby-Pampers.
For non-L.A. readers,
Stein wrote a
Jan 24. column in which he said that he does not “support the troops” in
Iraq. That unlike pacifist wusses, (his thoughtful words), he has the guts to
come out and admit it. Here, so help me, is an excerpt:
“And being against the
war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the
pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the
one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts
with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade
afterward.”
To his credit, he did not
end this august reflection with “nah nah nah nanny goat.”
Stein needs to vacate
the Times not because he does not “support the troops.” He is free to
declare whatever he likes until "President" Bush dictates otherwise, and
apparently, he is free to declare it on the op-ed page of one of the
nation’s leading fourth estate voices.
That’s the problem. The
Times has hired and touted a person whose skills at analyzing, judging,
evaluating major issues would get him an A-plus on any high school newspaper
in the country. And in a lot of trouble with the principal.
Well, that’s just part of
the problem. The other part is that Stein has a reputation, at least in some
quarters, for being a venal,
self-promoting provocateur huckster. Instead of shedding light, he merely
wants it shed on him. As in spotlight. Here is the salient comment from L.A. blogger
Tabloid Baby:
“But Stein is an old
person’s idea of young person’s point of view, so he managed to get a spot
in Time magazine, and when Michael Kinsley took over and tried to “hip up”
the L.A. Times editorial pages, a Sunday column there. It was the most
useless, irrelevant and, well, “snarky,” LA Times column since Chicago
sports writer Mike Downey temporarily moved to, then lost, the coveted page
2 spot....
“The reaction has been
scripted and played out many times before....He writes the columns, the
right wing dunderheads stand on their bully pulpits and denounce him, the
paper is flooded with letters, calls and emails and subscriptions are
canceled, and Joel Stein gets to report that he’s received death threats.
He’ll show up on TV, he’ll get on the lecture circuit-- heck, he might even
sell a script in Hollywood.”
I don’t know Stein, I
am delighted to say, but I believe every bit of Tabloid Baby’s
characterization. It isn’t hard, considering the transparent gimmickry of
Stein’s puerile “I don’t support the troops” column. Has he been on “Larry
King Live” yet?
But let's assume that
this thirtysomething (he's that old?) really means everything he
blurted, and “examine” some of his “points.”
First, it is beyond this
man’s imagination that someone might oppose the Iraq war and still have good
wishes for
the men and women who are fighting it on behalf of this government. This is
just the prevalent kind of black-and-white, right-or-wrong, us-vs.-them
thinking that has reduced discourse entirely to dissing. It sells.
Well, I oppose the war,
and support the troops. I hope every one of those people comes home without
a scratch. I say this for reasons of compassion and pragmatism---and even
patriotism. They have been hired to do a job, and I want them ready, willing,
and able to do it. Call me an old-fashioned wuss, instead of a pacifist one,
but I still think that countries need those silly old armies and navies and air
forces to protect them. That includes protecting Stein, in order that he may
roam around in search of sitcom-writing jobs, the lecture circuit, his own
talk show. Or even to write snot-nosed commentaries denouncing “the troops.”
So I support every poor damn middle-aged National Guard soldier who should not even be in
Iraq, as he or she hands out toys and books to kids in schools. Every shaved
headed Army cracker listening to System of a Down at night and waking up to
prowl 120-degree bombed-out streets in search of “insurgents.” Every amputee
getting shafted by the government, rotting at home somewhere, wondering what
in the hell happened. I don’t support those who commit atrocities, but who
does? These things are part of every war.
But not “supporting the
troops” is really the least grating part of Stein’s bush league (pun
intended) polemic. He does not merely suggest that they should not be spat
upon when returning home (his generous words), he---get this---blames them
for the entire Iraq mess:
“But blaming the
president is a little too easy,” he types. “The truth is that people who
pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders
or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be
inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying.”
Oh, I see. All the dead overgrown
kids from East L.A., Newark, St. Paul---yes, they are responsible. All the
grandfathers in the National Guard being blown up by car bombs, all the
gung-ho high school grads from the Midwest who couldn’t get jobs and joined
the Marines, and yes, all the dedicated career soldiers---they’re to blame,
not Bush. Not Cheney. Not Rumsfeld. Not the Pentagon.
It was all those farm
kids from Indiana who decided to invade Iraq.
Oh my, oh my, oh my. How
does the Times justify even printing such nonsense?
Tell me: how can one be
“ultimately responsible” when one is following an order that one has sworn
to obey? This is like blaming the men who dropped the atomic bomb for
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not Harry Truman. No Truman, no bomb drop. No Bush
and Cheney, no Iraq invasion. The fact that I am
explaining something so dirt-simple is evidence alone that the L.A. Times
needs to not support Joel Stein.
“An army of people making
individual moral choices may be inefficient,” he pronounces.
Now there’s a sentence that any 11th grade government teacher would be glad
to see. It would earn a “provocative thought!” in the margin. An army of
people making individual moral choices is not an army at all, Joey. It
is chaos. Military morality is pre-fab, ready-made, designed by leaders.
That's how it works. And
gee whiz, I think that soldiers do make moral choices, don't they? Not all soldiers who went to Vietnam
participated in the My Lai Massacre. Not every soldier in Iraq played naked
human pyramid torture bingo at Abu Ghraib. Some even informed on their
colleagues.
“An army of people
ignoring their morality is horrifying,” continues the sophomore---make that
freshman---who apparently is so intimately acquainted with our fighting
forces that he knows their morality thoroughly enough to conclude that each
soldier is acting amorally, if not immorally.
Yes, Joel Stein, sitcom
writer, has written in a major metropolitan newspaper that our military
forces should place “morality” (which he employs as an objective, not
relative, concept) ahead of following orders. Yet he admits that this would
be “inefficient.”
Right. It might just
inefficient you out of existence.
I know it's difficult,
but let's address just a few
more of this little fellow's assertions:
“The real purpose of
those(yellow) ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to
send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices other than
enduring two Wolf Blitzer shows a day. Though there should be a ribbon for
that.”
(Ho ho.)
Not only does Stein
again use the “morality” trick, employing the term as if its definition is
universally agreed upon, but now he adds the presumptive “we.” Stein, you do
not speak for me here, and as far as I know, you do not speak for all
American citizens, so who this “we” might be is a mystery. And for the
record, I didn’t vote to send these troops to war, so I feel no guilt about
it. Here’s more:
“I understand the guilt.
We know we're sending recruits to do our dirty work, and we want to seem
grateful.”
Sorry. I actually am
grateful to these people, and I pity them for being sent to do the dirty
work of cynical megalomaniacs fronting for corporate tyranny and Israel, all
the while claiming to promulgate “freedom” and “democracy.”
“After we've decided that
we made a mistake,” meanders Stein, “we don't want to blame the soldiers who
were ordered to fight. Or even our representatives, who were deceived by
false intelligence. And certainly not ourselves, who failed to object to a
war we barely understood.”
The only false
intelligence at issue here is Stein's. It is very clear that the
“false intelligence” about Iraq WMD was deliberately manipulated by the Bush administration
in order to create a pretext for going to war. This was clear even before
the war was begun, to anyone who was paying attention. There are few who dispute it today, beginning with former
U.S. ambassador to Gabon Joseph Wilson, who exposed trumped-up “yellowcake”
uranium data touted threateningly by Bush, Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice.
As for “failing to
object to a war we barely understood,” it seems that Stein does not read
the papers, including his own. Many, many people understood all too
well exactly what this war was about, also long before it was begun. One of
them was Stein's venerable predecessor, Robert Scheer, who was dismissed by the
Times after 30 years because of this very understanding (!). Many others wrote
at great length about it, and organized the largest demonstrations in world
history opposing it.
Enough. Refuting this
column point by point is just taking the bait, I realize. Generating
response is Stein’s self-aggrandizing goal, and I am reluctantly aiding him
in that pursuit. I can only hope some of that impact is undercut by my
observations here, and by one of his own:
“I know this is all easy
to say,” wrote Little Joey Stein, “for a guy who grew up with money, did
well in school and hasn't so much as served on jury duty for his country.”
Exactly.
BACK TO PAGE ONE |