Environmentalist David Roberts posted at GristMill yesterday. His post is titled, "24 Sucks." Along with the comments at the end, this is a superb example of the height of Leftist thinking. He begins this way:
For the first few seasons of 24, I kept trying to get into it -- I'd watch the first three or four episodes and give up. I dropped by for an episode or two this season, and it confirmed my initial impression, which is:
24 reflects a warped, adolescent view of violence and human nature. It reeks of macho fantasies, born of insecurity, entitlement, and above all fear. No problem arises on the show that cannot be solved with more force, more brutality. Anyone attempting to mitigate that brutality is an effete, naive bureaucrat. In the world of 24, torture is always necessary, and it always works.
It is a show for a nation of terrified crybabies who want Daddy to keep them safe, and it both reflects and accelerates the degradation of our national character. It's a genuinely malign force.
Keep in mind, I don't watch 24. I don't know what channel or what night it's on. Laura Ingraham loves the show, and so does Hugh Hewitt. Based on Roberts's assessment, 24 must be a right-winger's show. But the Left doesn't seem satisfied to let the Right have a show to watch. Instead of politely ignoring a show that doesn't appeal to them, the Left must demonize that show, as in, "It's a genuinely malign force."
As for "a nation of terrified crybabies who want Daddy to keep them safe," that sounds suspiciously like those on the Left who want "Daddy," in the form of the UN or the Democrat Party, to keep them safe from Global Warming, smokers, meat-eaters, Christians, and the American military.
Roberts quotes Matt Yglesias with this:
...an almost childlike faith in the competence, honesty, and efficacy of the federal bureaucracy insofar as that bureaucracy is tasked with dishing out lethal force that they would never in a million years ascribe to, say, the people in charge of the Endangered Species Act.
Funny, but you could turn that sentence around and have it be true about the Left. Like this:
"...an almost childlike faith in the competence, honesty, and efficacy of the federal bureaucracy insofar as that bureaucracy is the people in charge of the Endangered Species Act, that they would never in a million years ascribe to, say, those people tasked with dishing out lethal force."
Self-blinders must be standard-issue for Lefties.
Roberts has this in his conclusion:
The horror of it all is that the lessons of history could not be clearer: force backfires. Violence sparks more violence. Brutality degrades both the brutal and brutalized.
The horror is that Roberts has not learned the lessons of history. Force stopped Hitler. For good. Force stopped Japanese imperialism. For good. And it was the occupation of the American military in those places, coupled with nation-building, that got Germany and Japan their stable governments with strong economies.
Down in the comments, Mike F has this to say:
One thing I'd like to point out is that Jack Bauer is simply Dirty Harry updated for the post 9/11 era. In the 1970s, the enemy wasn't Islamic terrorism but street thugs whose crimes were abetted, if not encouraged, by bleeding heart judges, defense lawyers and lawmakers. A spate of movies appeared during the 1970s and early 1980s that celebrated vigilantes like Harry who cared more about keeping the streets safe than protecting criminals' civil liberties. (emphasis added)
I guess Mike F sums up the difference between the Right and the Left with that last statement. And that's why the Left should just change the channel when 24 comes on. Heaven knows the Right has already perfected the act of channel-changing over objectionable programs.
But obviously the Left isn't content to leave a few crumbs on TV for the Right to watch. They want to expunge all shows that aren't to their taste, because those shows are "genuinely malign."
6 comments:
Brilliant post.
"As for "a nation of terrified crybabies who want Daddy to keep them safe," that sounds suspiciously like those on the Left who want "Daddy," in the form of the UN or the Democrat Party, to keep them safe..."
This is our Skyepuppy at her best!
As a "24" watcher, I love your comments.
The horror is that Roberts has not learned the lessons of history. Force stopped Hitler. For good. Force stopped Japanese imperialism. For good. And it was the occupation of the American military in those places, coupled with nation-building, that got Germany and Japan their stable governments with strong economies.
I think you're missing his point. The use of violence certainly stopped Hitler and the Japanese Empire in their tracks, but it didn't eradicate violence itself from the world--that's what he's saying. (Besides, he's probably thinking of Iraq.)
As for "a nation of terrified crybabies who want Daddy to keep them safe," that sounds suspiciously like those on the Left who want "Daddy," in the form of the UN or the Democrat Party, to keep them safe from Global Warming, smokers, meat-eaters, Christians, and the American military.
Tu quoque (a.k.a. "I know you are so what am I?").
But obviously the Left isn't content to leave a few crumbs on TV for the Right to watch. They want to expunge all shows that aren't to their taste, because those shows are "genuinely malign."
Give me a break! How is merely expressing an opinion on a TV show tantamount to an attempt to get it axed?
Arthur,
I think you're missing his point. The use of violence... didn't eradicate violence itself from the world
I believe you got his point backwards. He said nothing about eradicating violence altogether, which is what you're saying. Roberts argued that the use of violence will only increase violence. But I gave two examples where the effective, decisive use of force truly stopped the use of violence by two aggressor nations.
Germany and Japan have been peaceful countries for 65 years, and it's only because Britain and America fought them until they surrendered and then America stayed to help them rebuild.
If we had met Hitler's aggression with non-violence, what would Europe look like today? No, Roberts's argument doesn't hold water, and neither does yours.
(Yes, I realize he was probably talking about Iraq, but our efforts there are less decisive. WWII is a better example for discussing principles. If we can't agree that what Hitler did was bad and that our stopping him was right, then there's no point in taking the discussion to Iraq.)
Tu quoque
Exactly! That's what I said in response to Roberts saying the right is a bunch of crybabies, only I didn't use the Latin. Thanks for the language lesson.
How is merely expressing an opinion on a TV show tantamount to an attempt to get it axed?
I went back and reread his post, and you're right. He didn't call for the show to be axed. My bad.
Still, the way he describes the show ("a toxic stew," "a deeply anti-democratic mentality," "anti-love," and of course my favorite, "genuinely malign"), it sounds much worse than cigarette commercials, which were pulled from the airwaves eons ago.
Thanks for stopping by. It's enjoyable to engage in reasoned debate. Some people who disagree with me are no more articulate than, "You're a stupid idiot," and where's the fun in discussing that?
Oops. Make that, "Germany and Japan have been peaceful countries for 60+ years."
Roberts argued that the use of violence will only increase violence. But I gave two examples where the effective, decisive use of force truly stopped the use of violence by two aggressor nations.
OK. I think he really has Iraq in mind--but if that is the case he should have made it more explicit. Hasty generalisations like "violence leads to increased violence" can make one look silly.
Exactly! That's what I said in response to Roberts saying the right is a bunch of crybabies, only I didn't use the Latin. Thanks for the language lesson.
Actually, I was applying the "tu quoque" label to your argument. If the best rebuttal to his "Righties are crybabies because they rely on the government for x" that you can give is "Lefties are crybabies because they rely on the government for y," the perhaps you ought to consider the possibility of crybaby tendencies on both sides. (That is, perhaps the "crybaby" tendency itself is the problem, regardless of the extent to which it may be manifested by the Left or the Right.)
Still, the way he describes the show ("a toxic stew," "a deeply anti-democratic mentality," "anti-love," and of course my favorite, "genuinely malign"), it sounds much worse than cigarette commercials, which were pulled from the airwaves eons ago.
Well, he doesn't like the show. There's always the channel switch on the remote.
Thanks for stopping by. It's enjoyable to engage in reasoned debate.
I heartily agree.
Arthur,
perhaps you ought to consider the possibility of crybaby tendencies on both sides
My point (Yes, I knew your "tu quoque" was directed at me) was that perhaps Roberts ought to consider the possibility of crybaby tendencies on both sides. He seems to be wearing blinders that only allow him to see the faults of people on the Right but not those of people on the Left. Pity. The faultlines run both ways...
Post a Comment