This past week, on October 14th of 2010, the Liberal Blogs would fill the
Internet with prose of “indignant glee” – as a notably odd,
bi-polar combo that many conservatives frequently engage in, but only my
fellow liberals have truly mastered.
The controversy would unfold on the ABC daytime program of the frivolous,
‘The View’ – designed by Barbara Walters to make the female
side of the Pringles-chomping unengaged feel … engaged. And, in that
endeavor, it would – to its credit – offer a period of relief from
the other waking hours more commonly occupied and depleted with impulse purchases
by way of The Home Shopping Network.
But all Hell would break loose when guest, Bill O’Reilly, as part of
a larger discussion that included the planned mosque near the 9-11 site,
opined that “Muslims killed us on 9-11”.
Technically … Bill O’Reilly was factually correct. The
terrorists were, indeed, Muslims. They also were all of brunette coloring
– as well as of male gender, in addition. But do take a quick moment
to note, however, that O’Reilly said that “Muslims killed us”
– and not “The Muslims killed us”. Again, on a technical
and academic level – that’s a notable point of distinction. But
while the former was spoken … the latter was heard. And, in what
may be regarded as ill-advised and careless words, there was the oblique
implication that The Towers fell at the hands of the Muslim faith, itself,
at the core of its thesis, as interpreted.
But this isn’t the point. It’s the background. The setup.
I’ve often had to remind my ‘Liberal Fellows’ that I am –
yes – a fellow liberal, but I am an objectivist first, no matter
how sarcastically I often couch my final and considered appraisals. And
objectivity – true to form – will, over time, displease all. But
I sometimes seem to usher the greatest “disappointment” –
sometimes maniacal in its manifestation – within the tribe of my own
liberal brethren who generally allow no more than an off-script tolerance
of 0.1%.
But this particular consideration, presented here, doesn’t favor
Bill O’Reilly. And, moreover, it doesn’t favor Whoopi Goldberg
or Joy Behar of ‘The View’ as it relates to their indignation –
whether real or affected – concerning O’Reilly’s remark. Read
on …
First, let’s get a couple of personal perspectives out of the way …
I’ve already been on record stating that the proposed mosque near the
9-11 site should not only be allowed, but – by all rights – it
has to be permitted. Whether popular or not (and the technical majority
do currently disfavor the selected location, as O’Reilly correctly stated),
it doesn’t matter. As often told, the US Constitution was created more
for the protection of the unpopular, than it was for the fashionable. Case
closed. Done.
As to the parties involved in this particular controversy … Bill
O’Reilly is what he is: A blue collar Levittown kid, with a stern
father, who got his daily dose of Catholicism at Chaminade, and joined friends
from Mastic at Jones Beach on the weekends. Those not entirely familiar with
Long Island culture may not ‘get it’ – or what certain
sociological combinations can beget, but Bill O’Reilly is but one such
product of a particular mix. And the potential of next-generation enlightenment
is sometimes trumped by the incessantly ringing bell of Pavlov conditioning.
Whether putting forth words of implied bigotry or xenophobia … or misogyny,
these are often quite inadvertent, without consciously hateful intent –
and often wholly unrecognized by the perpetuator, themselves. I’ve likely
encountered over a hundred of them in my lifetime. Evil, no. Of an ilk, yes.
I’m not making excuses for O’Reilly, mind you. I’m merely
indicating that I “recognize him”. In the Levittown of the 1950s
and 60s, in which O’Reilly was raised – and formulated, he’d
be termed as … ‘regular guy’. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Joy Behar: I find her to be generally likeable and, while I don’t
watch ‘The View’, I think Behar has done an admirable job with
her own light – if not sugar-free interview show on the HLN network,
of what I’ve seen. Perhaps she merely seems personable and marginally
refreshing after the hour of Nancy Grace that precedes her.
Whoopi Goldberg: Reasonably articulate in the general sense, I suppose
– yet doesn’t communicate arguments or support positions particularly
well. Frequently shy on the details, but still remains steadfast in her
puddle-deep understanding of the issues, nevertheless. Highly dependent on
the visceral, with little reliance on veracity. Internalized audience
participation in the two-dimensional ‘View’ is encouraged.
But the issue being debated among these three Couch-ateers centered around
O’Reilly’s “Muslims killed us” remark. With that, Whoopi
Goldberg would shoot back – with argumentative cunning, “that’s
fucking bullshit”. But that was just the warm-up. For Goldberg would
next launch an additional counter-attack, frequently used by my fellow liberals
the world over …
“What religion was Mr. McVeigh?” … Yes, the argumentatively
crippling implication that the Oklahoma bombing, triggered by Timothy McVeigh,
was executed by … a Christian. Save one nagging detail …
He wasn’t.
While raised as a Catholic in his childhood, by his own admission in a
‘Time’ magazine interview, he had left the Catholic faith –
along with Christianity – many years before and, moreover, would cite
himself as an agnostic – at best – in ‘The Guardian’.
He additionally professed that the universe was “guided by natural
law”, energized by a “universal, higher power” – the
closest, according to McVeigh, to “a God”, of some sort. Or, said
another way, his ‘faith perspective’ would be rather reminiscent
of what is commonly associated with … well … liberals, such as
myself.
Yes, the most cursory and casual of fact-checking by Goldberg –
among other liberals – would have revealed this. But they just wanted
to know – or assume – enough about McVeigh to invoke his name in
a hopelessly flawed and profoundly erroneous counter-argument, at its core.
Good thing that O’Reilly wasn’t apparently privy to the details,
either – or Goldberg could have been road-kill in the space of time
it took you to read the above paragraph.
I can’t even begin to calculate how frequently the argumentative prowess
of my own liberal tribe has been entirely dependent on the lucky-starred
life-blood of many conservatives being even more ignorant and ill-read than
they are. But encounter a conservative who has done their homework and …
you’re toast.
Point of fact – and I get no pleasure from saying this – there
are liberals among us who have successfully gotten away with slaughtering
the truth, shy of actual details … simply because conservatives
weren’t on their toes in several instances. The discussion here is but
of only one example.
But okay … let’s give you some breathing room, and say that McVeigh
was an active Christian at the time of the bombing in Oklahoma. As
a comparative, tit-for-tat argument, you still lose …
For,
as it relates to motive – no matter how perversely interpreted, as one
may argue – the Muslim faith nevertheless played a principle motivational
role in 9-11. With McVeigh – as our newly anointed and conveniently
revived Christian – there would be no “Praise to Jesus”,
just seconds prior to detonation. There was no ‘larger plan’ to
“advance the cause” of Christianity. No matter how deranged in
its interpretation and application, the Muslim faith was the centerpiece
of the 9-11 terrorists. It is for this reason that many Americans
– even if unfairly, even if incorrectly – associate and identify
9-11 with the Muslim faith, and those who practice it. And therein …
is the difference.
But given this notable distinction, there is no ‘equivalency
factor’ between 9-11 and Oklahoma, outside of both being a terrorist
attack with an agenda. If this hadn’t been debated on ‘The View’,
but was instead a topic among two college debate teams, whichever college
advanced the Whoopi Goldberg argument would have absolutely lost the contest
– no question. Don’t take my word for it. Any college debate coach
or team captain would tell you the very same thing, even if hailing from
the most liberal of colleges or universities.
Even Joy Behar – on her evening program – couldn’t get Jesse
Ventura to agree with her on citing the O’Reilly’s remark as being
an example of “hate speech”, as she had assessed. And Bill Maher
– on his ‘Real Time’ program – was also unable to sign
on to such, wondering “what the big deal” was.
But back to ‘The View’, there Whoopi Goldberg was, clearly
ready for a continued, ‘fucking bullshit’ fight with
O’Reilly … until … until she glanced up to see that her own,
‘Oh, my God’ indignation was about to be trumped and upstaged
by Joy Behar, readying to walk off the stage in protest. With that, Goldberg
would have little choice but to fall silent and join Behar in the walk-off
…
You see, in certain liberal circles there’s a mystical belief that one
can elevate one’s own stature within the liberal community by being
more outraged than the next guy … or girl. There’s a fierce
competition among liberals to be the most indignant of the
tribesmen. For those who have already seen a clip of the O’Reilly
confrontation on ‘The View’, that’s precisely what you were
bearing witness to. At that very moment, it was no longer a contest with
O’Reilly. It was between Goldberg and Behar – no matter how
‘chummy in solidarity’ they may have seemed in their in-unison,
waddling Walkathon. Trust me on this one. As a longtime and continued member
of the liberal community, I’ve seen it more times than I can
possibly recount. It’s where reason, often lacking intellect,
becomes subordinate to theatrical posturing. And in that competitive escalation
… lives bullshit.
So no, I don’t celebrate the “owning of O’Reilly” (a
current term of popular culture), as many would perceive it. I see the
confrontation as an embarrassingly incompetent and cowardly moment for liberals.
This, as Bill O’Reilly left no additional impression – whether
good or bad, depending on allegiance – relative to when he first
walked in the door. A net zero-sum walk-away, versus a negative-two walk-out.
Not that either Goldberg or Behar would ever see it as such, mind you. For
liberalism has its patches of egomaniacal self-delusion every bit as strong
as the O’Reilly ilk on The Right.
I offer these appraisals not to embarrass my fellow liberals, understand.
I do it for a greater good: To point out the vulnerabilities of my own liberal
ilk, when they’re not particularly well versed or schooled.
Yes, I know that there are several of the liberal camp who regard me as a
turncoat whenever I “go all objective” on them. When I point out
the folly of their feeble arguments – and do so with actual specifics.
Truly … these wanna-be, suburban, wash ‘n wear, lounge chair liberals
– on both sides of the pond – throw a royal shit-fit – without
having even once actually worked those liberal trenches. For them, liberalism
is a fashion statement. These, in fact, are the very ones who occupy much
of their time trying to “out-outrage” one another as the perceived,
easy-path shortcut to stature. The very genre I spoke of earlier.
But some of us have actually done our homework – endured the
tedium of actual fact-checking ... and without the exclusive
reliance of chronically-liberal sources where no game of telephone can
possibly have an accurate outcome, with self-serving folklore legends
being whispered ear to ear – especially when the information is flawed
at its source. And no, I don’t care that the Right Wing does
the same thing. And I don’t care about FOX News. That’s
them. But this is my fucking house. I’ve lived in it for
a long time – and I really don’t need amateur handymen working
on it, no matter how well-intentioned their quick and sloppy work.
For,
as it relates to motive – no matter how perversely interpreted, as one
may argue – the Muslim faith nevertheless played a principle motivational
role in 9-11. With McVeigh – as our newly anointed and conveniently
revived Christian – there would be no “Praise to Jesus”,
just seconds prior to detonation. There was no ‘larger plan’ to
“advance the cause” of Christianity. No matter how deranged in
its interpretation and application, the Muslim faith was the centerpiece
of the 9-11 terrorists. It is for this reason that many Americans
– even if unfairly, even if incorrectly – associate and identify
9-11 with the Muslim faith, and those who practice it. And therein …
is the difference.
