Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 163 Editor's Choice: 12
-
Fake masculinity, past, present, and future
[Read the article: Chris Matthews on Fred Thompson's sexiness and smells]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I served in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam "war." I lucked out, getting sent to Germany instead. I also was a boy scout, learned all the knots, and got an NRA medal for marksmanship. I even made it into the boy scout secret society "Order of the Arrow." I was a hunter for many years until I became a vegetarian and got tired of killing. I also have worked as a farm laborer, driving such tractors as the John Deere 4020. I was a plumber for several years, and installed TV cable for one inglorious year, climbing utility poles. I wired houses for a while, and did some commercial wiring.
In none of these activities did I feel especially manly. They were just fun, done to make money, get satisfaction for a job well done, and in the case of the Army, something done to get it over with. We made it kind of like a modern-day M*A*S*H, goofing off whenever possible, opposing the war, and doing things that gave us illegal smiles, as John Prine would put it. I can't remember anyone from that time who was obsessed with their "masculinity." Actually, one "C.O." was a little weird. He got two haircuts a week, and took great care to look "strack" in his uniform. Starched fatigues, highly polished boots, sleeves perfectly rolled up slightly above the elbow. He also was an idiot, unfit for command, of which he was finally relieved.
With Rush Limbaugh, it's pretty easy to understand. He's a completely false human being, a court jester, a fop, a fool in every sense of the word. It's actually a form of hell, being him. He has to get up every morning and be the same Rush Limbaugh he was the previous day. Sisyphus would be awed.
With Joe Lieberman it's a little more complicated. Somehow he regressed from being a freedom rider to this hollow human being. There are two key factors in his descent: the "lost" election of 2000 (and probably 2006 election), and his extreme identity with the State of "Israel." The "Jewish" state was born in fanaticism, and has only gotten more fanatical in the years since. To be an ardent supporter of "Israel" requires taking on some of that fanaticism.
Then there is his physical appearance. This may be the greatest factor. He looks and sounds like a clerk in some Dickens novel. Or someone who got pushed around a lot when he was growing up. Given all these factors, it is on the level of psychosis to appear on nationwide television advocating the murder of possibly millions of people. We should hound him silly. It's what he deserves, and what is called for. Eventually, maybe the people of Connecticut will have had enough of him.
One thing to keep in mind is that this masculinity obsession wasn't always with us. Antecedents precede consequences, cause precedes effect, and before precedes after. Times will change. Rush Limbaugh will reach his crescendo as he gets older, his health fails, and his audience declines. If we are fool enough to start another war, the masculinity obsession will reach a mass crescendo, coinciding with the consequences of imperial hubris. Our military is now aware of the limits to international adventureism, and is not likely very eager to seek new adventures. So many different forces are converging at once, it is unclear what will come next. One thing is for sure, though. The future is not bright for fake men.
-
Straying from the script
[Read the article: Richard Cohen's brilliant (and unintentional) exposé of our media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This column is worthy of a Pulitzer Prize. Once again Glenn Greenwald has captured the essence of our criminal elite, this time the media Mafia.
I have been saying since before the "Iraq" invasion that the Bush regime is a criminal operation, and to entirely deaf ears to this day. People would rather hate Bush than look at the true nature of his administration. I'm beginning to get a clear understanding of why this is so.
It is because of ego. Saying the Bush regime is a criminal gang is a conversation breaker. Too many times I have been in discussions with "liberals," and have brought up the subject of the Bush gang as a criminal organization, and the response has been no response, but a continuance of the litany of Bush's crimes. What these conversations are are one-upping contests, the "liberal" know-it-alls feverishly reciting their encyclopedic knowledge of Bush's incompetence, arrogance, mendacity and lawlessness. To actually say that this president is a criminal sociopath is to stray from the script.
In other words, "liberals" are as authoritarian as their "conservative" counterparts. They are completely dependent on the perceptions and opinions of their chosen hierarchy. There are exceptions, of course, but I can count on three fingers the people I have had real conversations with about the nature of the Bush regime.
With more writers like Glenn Greenwald, Eric Boehlert, and others, maybe the herd dialogue will change. Let's hope so.