It's Always the Media's Fault

Trump may have a point when he recently blamed the media for the angry rhetoric that perhaps prompted some domestic terrorist to try to kill 10 Democrats. Makes some sense. It works like this.

Trump repeatedly says violent, incendiary things. 

The media report about the violent, incendiary things Trump says. 

The American public listening to the media hear about the violent, incendiary things Trump says. 

Some unstable person hearing the violent, incendiary things Trump has said, as reported by the media, decides to take matters into his own hands. 

If the media didn't report the violent, incendiary things Trump says, then maybe this unstable person would never realize that he should be so angry at Democrats. 

Without the media to carry Trump's message, this unstable person would never, ever hear Trump's violent, incendiary language. That is, unless this person was one of the thousands who go to Trump's rallies to hear the president's violent, incendiary language in person. Or unless he follows Trump on Twitter.

But, no, that can't be it. Surely it's the fault of the messenger, not the source of the violent, incendiary message itself.

Old School Trolling

Over the past couple of years, I’ve gotten a bit obsessed with American politics, perhaps to an unhealthy degree. This has led me to take a stab now and then at profound (cough, cough) political commentary, with postings of my opinionated thoughts on this humble blog. And, even worse, I've gotten carried away with clogging my Facebook page with unwelcome political observations, no doubt alienating some people along the way with all my poisonous liberal hogwash.

Maybe it’s a trap that men of a certain age, and uncertain maturity, fall into. But, in my defense, I come by it honestly. In some ways, I have a history of this sort of thing. I was dabbling in the same kind of political trolling some 35 years ago, well before the dawn of the Internet.

Back then, I was part of the university community centered around Athens, Georgia. That’s a way of saying that I was no longer a student, but hadn’t been able to force myself to leave the comforting, liberal milieu of that small, hip college town (the home of R.E.M.!).

For a couple of years at the beginning of the 80s, I had found work as a lab technician at various University of Georgia laboratories, putting my degree in zoology to some use before basically abandoning it forever when I moved to Finland.

As I spent most of my time on campus, almost as if I’d never left school, I was still fairly immersed in university life. That also meant religiously reading the daily student newspaper, The Red and Black. Not only that, I felt compelled to express my opinions on the politics of the day by dashing off the occasional snarky letter to the paper’s editors.

Somewhat surprisingly, all (or at least most) were published. I still have the clippings – a fact that says something about how pleased I must have been with myself over these pre-PC (as in “Personal Computer”) incarnations of trolling.

Here they are, in all their dated glory: 

Interesting to note that Phyllis Schlafy, a long-time anti-feminist, died only recently.

This was in response to some guy making outlandish and feverish claims in the paper about the “dangers” American society faced from “Communists, Jews and queers”. I had a lot of fun with that one.  

As I recall, the KKK was trying to establish a chapter on campus at the time, a move that was hotly debated, and they were trying to make themselves sound more palatable to student types. (And I guess "video recorders" were a big thing back then.)

My ex-roommate, who was still living in the apartment I had just moved out of, started getting a series of silent phone calls after this one was published.

Ah, those were the days.

The Parable of the Selfish "Hero"?

There are so many strange little stories coming out of the US presidential race that it’s hard to keep up with them all. However, one involving Ben Carson has stood out in my mind.

In the wake of the fairly recent school shooting in Oregon on October 1^st, Carson, the soft-spoken ex-neurosurgeon and Christian patriot, made some news by offering his advice on how not to get shot. I say “fairly recent school shooting”, since there have been at least three others in the ensuing three-odd weeks, though none as deadly.

In his reaction to the Umpqua Community College shooting spree in which nine people were killed and eight wounded, Carson instructed future victims of such tragedies to be proactive. He said that rather than waiting to be gunned down, the students in Oregon should have rushed the shooter.

On the face of it, this advice makes sense, but was seen by some people as being insensitive, as basically accusing the victims of being too passive. Others have suggested that in extreme-stress situations, such as facing an active shooter, humans often react differently than someone sitting comfortably in a TV studio might think they should. Even if that someone is a famed brain surgeon.

What is enlightening is that Carson, currently number two in the GOP race, does have some experience in facing someone with a gun. Following the kerfuffle over his remarks, Carson related a story from thirty years ago of how he himself had the barrel of a gun jammed in his ribs by an armed robber. He said it was no big deal.

It happened in Baltimore in a Popeye’s fast-food restaurant, where Carson was presumably a customer. As Carson has told the story, an armed man held a gun to him until Carson helpfully pointed out that the robber should be threatening the restaurant's cashier, not a mere patron like himself. Carson explained, no doubt patiently and with a wry smile, “I believe that you want the guy behind the counter”.

The robber apologized for his mistake and proceeded (perhaps sheepishly) to force the hapless restaurant worker at gunpoint to clear out the cash register.

To say this all sounds a bit off-kilter is not the least of it.

Imagine someone, intending to rob a fast-food joint, walks in and threatens the first customer he sees waiting in line to order his meal of Handcrafted Spicy Tenders. Maybe we can assume that the would-be robber had, in fact, never been in a fast-food restaurant. Maybe he didn’t realize how a retail business works and – unlike Willie Sutton – had no clue where the money actually was. The man’s potential for a life of crime at this point would have suffered an unfortunate setback, if not for the sage advice of the good Dr. Carson that he should instead stick up the cashier, or as Carson has phrased it the “appropriate person”.

The entire scenario sounds unreal. What’s more, reporters have not been able to find any official record of this particular robbery ever taking place. When confronted with this fact, a Carson spokesperson speculated that perhaps the police didn’t file a report. Right. Popeye’s must be a very forgiving corporation if it doesn’t require some kind of official paperwork to explain the disappearance of a whole day’s worth of receipts. With a laid-back work environment like that it's perhaps a nice place to work, though maybe prone to get robbed often, not least by its own employees. In other words, the notion of no police report being filed doesn’t ring true.

To my mind, it’s much easier to believe Carson’s little narrative never happen, or at least that it didn't happen the way he "remembers" it. It's called stretching the truth, and many a public figure has been caught out doing it (see Brian Williams, Hillary Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump, etc.). 

Now, of course, a narrative doesn’t have to be true to be “true”. I went to Sunday School enough to know that Jesus supposedly told many stories that were not likely true, but had a moral point to them. I’m talking about parables, such as the Parable of the Talents, which apparently illustrates the moral of compounding interest rates and investing through the tale of a servant who came to ruin by burying money in the ground rather than plowing it back into the economy. (The same moral was put to music in “Mary Poppins”, though in that case it was portrayed in a negative light compared to the simple joy of “feeding the birds”).

Maybe Ben Carson sees his Popeye’s story as a parable, not factually true, but serving a larger purpose. The trouble with that generous interpretation is the moral to Carson’s story can be summed up this way: “When faced with a dangerous criminal, it’s best to redirect the danger away from yourself towards someone else.” The Parable of the Selfish Non-hero?

It’s baffling why someone running for president would trot out such an unflattering story, even if it were true, especially if it were true. Maybe he really believes it. Or maybe he sees no reason to let reality stand in the way of a good story, even if the story's not truly that good.  

Photo courtesy Gage Skidmore.

Desperate Politicians

As an American living abroad, I probably see the political goings on in the States differently than I would if I lived there.  Hopefully, that means viewing current events with a lot less of the “noise” that surrounds everything Congress or the President does.  Take, for example, the time Congress saw fit to rename the French fries served in its lunchrooms.  In the wisdom of Congress, the deep-fried potato slices, introduced to America by Francophile Thomas Jefferson, were rechristened “Freedom Fries” - a provocative demonstration, if there ever was one, of America's anger over the gall of our Gallic friends not to get hopelessly bogged down in a senseless war. 

I recall at the time being embarrassed for my countrymen and thinking how idiotic this must have looked to everyone outside the States (and to be fair, also to a great many people living there). 

And here we are again.  The drama playing out now in Washington over the debt ceiling looks to me, far from the onslaught of 24-hour cable news, maybe even more bizarre than Americans must find it.  I would hate to try to explain it to any of my Finnish friends curious enough to ask what it’s all about (thankfully, no one has). 

Here we have the Republican-controled house threatening not to honor the debts incurred by the budget that they approved a few months before.  That is, not without concessions from Obama on further reductions in …  Wait a moment.

Maybe it’s best to think of it all as a scene from TV, like something from a popular Hollywood sitcom set in an idealized American neighborhood of lovely homes and likeable characters who come together weekly to deal with their whacky, but entertaining, problems.  Consider, if you will, Tom and Lynette, two all-American suburbanites who have just had their kitchen completely redone: 

*   *   *    *    *

Tom and Lynette, with mugs of fresh coffee, are sitting across the counter from each other in their newly renovated kitchen, going through a stack of bills. 

“Tom, these are coming due soon,” Lynette says, pointing to the invoices.  “And we’re about to run out of cash.  We need to talk to the bank about getting that loan.”

Looking serious, Tom hesitates a bit before speaking.  “Ah, yeah, about that, Lynette.  I’ve decided we’re not going to take out the loan after all.  Not before we cut back on spending.”

Lynette is dumbfounded.  “Why not?  You know we have great credit with the bank.  They’re happy to loan us the money.”

“No, we owe too much already.”

“Which we don’t have to pay back for years.” 

“No, Lynette.  We’re spending way too much as it is.  And, you know, things have been slow at the pizza restaurant.  We don’t have enough money coming in.  We can’t keep this up.  You’re going to have to cut back on everything.” 

“Food?  Clothes?  Gas?”

“Everything.”

“The kids’ college fund.”

“Yep, even that.”

“Tom, be reasonable.  What if I took a job?  The ad agency has been begging me to come back and freelance for them.  And it's good money.”

“No, Lynette.  More income is not what we need.”

Lynette gives Tom a puzzled look.  “Come again?”

“Don’t you see, Lynette?” Tom lowers his voice, squeezing her hand.  “We can do this by living more, you know, more simply.  We don’t need two cars.  We don’t need to eat steak every week.  We don’t need to buy …”

“New golf clubs?”

“Let’s not go overboard here.”

“And, if I don’t cut back?”

Tom slaps his hand on the stack of bills between them.  “Then we don’t pay these.”

Lynette’s mouth drops.  “Tom, if we don’t pay these bills, our credit is ruined.  We’ll never get another loan.”

Tom shrugs his shoulders, “So be it.”

Lynette gives Tom a look.  “Wait a minute, am I talking to Tom or Eric?”

Tom smiles slyly.  “It might be Eric.”

You see, Tom is not a well man.  He suffers from multiple personalities that often battle with each other over big family decisions.  “Eric” is his brash, reckless personality. 

Lynette breathes a sigh of relief.  “Okay, can I talk to Tom now?”

“What about John?” says Tom, referring to the more mature, slightly more reasonable personality that briefly inhabits his mind. 

“Okay, sure.  John, what do you think about this?”

“Well, maybe you could do some work for the ad agency,” “John” answers in raspy, smoky voice.  “I guess we could use the extra money.  But we still have to cut back some.” 

“I can live with that.”

But, suddenly “Eric” is back.  “Hell, no!” he shouts.  “I’ll let us default before I let you go back to work.”

“And we’ll be ruined!” Lynette protests.

Suddenly Tom’s voice takes a shrill, high-pitched tone.  This is his “Sarah” personality.  “No so fast, there,” he says.  “Thought you could pull one over on me, didn’t ya?  It’s just a lie that we’ll be ruined.  You’re just making stuff up to try to scare me.”

Before Lynette can say another word, Tom’s voice changes once again.  “I think I have a way out.”

Lynette cocks her head to one side.  “Mitch?” she asks, referring to the name of Tom’s drab but scheming personality. 

“That’s right.  I think we could agree that you go ahead and get the bank loan, if you want.  It’s up to you.”

“And I don’t have to cut back on expenses?”

“Not if you don’t want to.  That’s up to you.”

“And you’re okay with this?”

Tom smiles.  “As long as I don’t get blamed for it later.”

Lynette raises her eyebrows.  “Huh.”

*   *   *    *    *

I only wish that following the real debt ceiling fight were this easy.  To see how this amazing bit of political theater finally does play out, please stay tuned for the gripping final episode, due to air on August 2^nd, at the latest.  Depending on how it all turns out, a special presentation of “The Great Recession, Part II” may air immediately afterward.