JULY 7 / What is it about libs and fantasies of beating people up?

THE HOUSTON Chronicle's fantasy of violence first bubbled to the surface in February.

We don't do public floggings in this country. If we did, all those high-flying CEOs who conferred $18 billion in bonuses on themselves and their colleagues while snapping up hundreds of billions in federal bailouts might find themselves in line for an old-fashioned thrashing, judging by the public's deep and righteous anger over this. And they just might deserve one.

. . . .

A parting thought: If there are loopholes . . . in Obama's plan, as some say, CEOs would be well-advised to ignore them. Doing otherwise might just make American taxpayers angry enough to bring back public floggings.

(Editorial, "Obama's vox populi," Houston Chronicle, February 6, 2009)

Next came an op-ed column in February. Syndicated columnist Froma Harrop fantasized about shooting people who disagree with her about Social Security.

As John Wayne said in Chisum, "Round up everybody that can ride a horse or pull a trigger. Let's break out some Winchesters.

That's how I feel every time someone calls for "saving Social Security."

. . . .

Telling lies about Social Security is a First Amendment right. But if hearing them makes us want to saddle up the horses, that's the way it's gonna be.

(Froma Harrop, "The Old Folks Are Doing OK," creators.com, February __, 2009, reprinted in the Chronicle on February __, 2009) (Unca's righteous takedown here.)

Now Leonard Pitts, Jr., is hot to break some bones.

Next time some politician goes before the cameras with his figurative pants down around his metaphorical ankles and says, "I made a mistake," let's form a mob and drag him from the podium. You bring the lanterns, I'll bring the pitchforks.

(Leonard Pitts, Jr., "It's time to retire 'mistake' excuse" (online: "'I made a mistake' excuse getting flimsier by the minute"), Houston Chronicle, July 7, 2009)

All of these are jokes, of course.

Ha, ha, ha.

But it's a form of humor that reveals the writers' moral and imaginative poverty, their underlying rage, and, frankly, their instability.

Balanced people don't joke about beating or shooting people.

And balanced newspaper editors don't run editorials or columns by people who joke about beating or shooting people.

* * *

Rush often says many libs are filled with rage -- for example, Bush derangement syndrome -- and he's right.

The anger starts, I think, with liberals' good intentions, their sense of righteousness. To turn their wonderful ideas into policies, they need the rest of us to give them our money, do as they say, and be ecstatic about it. ("Please sir, may I have another!")  

When we balk, they don't accept that our opposition might be moral ("It'll do more harm than good") or pragmatic ("It won't work"). Rather, they see us as bad people, deserving of scorn. And too often their scorn  expresses itself publicly through these periodic dreams of beating and shooting their ideological adversaries.

This taste for mayhem, even if only through humor, contradicts their vision of their own loveliness.

As does the left's infatuation with actual killers, such as Che Guevera.  

* * *

A natural comeback: A lot of conservatives suffer excesses of rage too.

Fair enough.

When that rage is expressed in equally inappropriate ways, they're equally wrong.

* * *

How about this from the subhead to Mr. Pitts's column?

Leonard Pitts Jr. says Gov. Mark Sanford . . . is just the latest philandering officeholder to trot out this old saw.

"Trot out this old saw?"

Anyone ever seen a saw trot?

To be fair, the "saw" in this usage is not the tool that cuts wood. "Saw" here is from Old English and means, loosely, "a saying." Technically, I suppose, an old saying can be trotted out. 

But since most readers don't know the derivation of "saw," a  wise editor would have avoided the awkward usage.

I charge Class C misdemeanor journalistic malpractice. Not as serious as the Class A felony malpractice of joking about beating people up, but malpractice nevertheless.

UPDATE: Thanks for the link from blogHouston.

 

Comments

[FilioScotia]

You're right about Pitts being one of those who fantasize violent acts against those he criticized. He is wrong to write that way.

I was just agreeing with his growing revulsion toward horndog politicians who think saying "I made a mistake" is the same as taking responsibility for their moral failure.

My signature "FilioScotia" is old Latin for "Son of Scotland." I am of Scottish descent on both sides of my family.

So there.

[UNCA D: There, indeed. Thanks.]

[FilioScotia]

I AGREE with everything you say about libs and their penchant for fantasizing about using violence to enforce their views. However, I take exception to your belief that most readers don't know the derivation of the word "saw" the way Leonard Pitts used it.

To believe that, you must believe that "most readers" are as ignorant as those Washington, D.C., semi-literates who flew into a rage a few years ago when someone used the word "niggardly" to correctly describe the inadequate funding a city-run program was getting. True to form, they took his use of that word as a racist slur.

As I recall, it took several weeks for someone with a little more education to convince them that "niggardly" doesn't mean what they thought it means.

My point is that I think people who read articles on the op-ed page are more literate than you give them credit for.

[UNCA D: And my point was not about the readers; it was about the editor who wrote the subhead. Combining "trotted out" and "saw" in the same figure of speech was awkward, potentially confusing (even if only for a few), and unintentionally funny. It could have been done better.]

I think you were determined to find something in Pitts's article to complain about, and that was the best you could do.

[UNCA D: I wish I hadn't put in the "saw" comment in the post. It was an afterthought and not really worth the bother. But I was most certainly not determined to find something in Mr. Pitts's column to complain about. His indecent use of violent imagery jumped out and demanded comment. The best I could do was clearly not the "saw" comment; it was pointing out Mr. Pitts's inappropriate attempt at humor based on imagined violence.]

Don't get me wrong. I almost never agree with Pitts's opinions, but every now and then he gets it right and he was right on target in that particular piece.

[UNCA D: Mr. Pitts's main point was valid. His rhetorical device -- imagined violence against those he criticized -- was entirely wrong. It put him in a morally inferior position to those he criticized and undermined his thesis.

[FilioScotia is a lovely screen name. What does it mean?]