Don Imus Should Keep Talking

It has been said that people who listen to radio commentary shows are more educated and better informed than the general population. Being that the demographic is made up of, in large part, white males over the age of 50 I can see how the numbers crunch out in that direction. However, with that acknowledgment I think it is also fair to characterize the population of talk radio listeners in another way: Self indulgent bullies. They seem to cheer and respond to those they feel have the “courage” that they lack to ridicule others. They reward their heroes with big ratings numbers and large advertising contracts.
Don Imus, Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern aren't the only ones making lots of money by simply spouting unqualified insults and rancor on the airwaves. These men were hired to get attention and provide a platform for big companies to sell stuff. As long as no one is complaining, these broadcast companies and the advertisers that do business with them could care less about what these shock jocks say. There is no better way to soften a persons mind to the suggestive power of advertising than to tell him that he is great and everyone else is so, so stupid. Imus's talent was for making others feel lousy and his audience feel good. This was his gift and the gift of all successful shock jocks. The money is made from the misery of anyone that is not them. CBS broadcasting company, Staples Inc., Proctor and Gamble, none of these companies seemed to mind that the system worked this way. After all, for them it worked pretty well. None of these companies cared who Imus insulted and slandered during his radio show until someone finally said: Enough.
The infamous line that cost Imus his job was not the worst thing he had ever said on the air. After hearing the full text of the comment I was underwhelmed in its offensiveness. Ridiculing others has been elevated to such a staple of social commentary and entertainment in general that I hardly notice it anymore. Was Imus really guilty of flagrant racism or was he just running out of creative ways to belittle people in general? I really can't be sure anymore. It still mystifies me how in the din of course language and ridicules that pass regularly on the radio, that this one statement rose to become a topic of general outrage. The fact that the women of Rutgers University, of which the jab was intended handled themselves with dignity and intelligence certainly drew a stark contrast between Imus and civility.
However, it is for this contrast that Don Imus should be left on the air. CBS only fired Imus after advertisers started to pull out, not because they themselves were morally outraged. A two week vacation, I mean suspension, was the original penalty Imus faced for his actions. A conversation has been started and Imus, the man at the center, no longer has to participate. Having Imus fired lets him, CBS, and the sponsors of his show off the hook. Now Al Sharpton is getting death threats from Imus listeners. Without his radio show, Imus has no venue to right what he has done wrong and heal those that he has hurt. If Imus was the voice of the racist then racist have lost a voice in the conversation. Is that a good thing? If they are unable to feel heard in the public forum they will start, as they already have, to turn to violent ways of expressing themselves. Better to let Imus annoy us with his chatter than push the ideas he represents off the table of discourse. Wouldn't it be better to leave him on the air where he could be reasoned with, challenged and ultimately ignored.
Don Imus leading a conversation on the radio about how we should all get along and be nice to each other would be very dull radio listening. However, CBS and the Imus sponsors have a responsibility to fund just such a conversation that they instigated for their own profit. Imus was an employee serving at the request of a corporate machine hungry for his opinion. A sacrifice of market share would truly be an act of social conscience and responsibility. Firing Don Imus and ending sponsorship of his show are not acts of moral outrage, it's just good business.

The Embarrassment of the Pelosi Trip

Nanci Pelosi's visit to Syria last week sent the world a mixed message of American foreign policy. By opening dialogs and having conversations with heads of state that the Bush administration has cut off from any such discourse, Pelosi has made the world less certain of America's collective intentions in the world. This may be the most valuable aspect of the Speaker's trip. She has sent a powerful message to the rest of the world that the Bush doctrine is not America's doctrine. His arrogance is not America's arrogance and there is now enough political will opposing his policies that action to repair the damage is now being taken.
It is very unfortunate that two American foreign policy initiatives must compete in the diplomatic world for attention. It's an embarrassment that the President says one thing and Pelosi has to come along and do another. It's a terrible way to conduct ones self as the most powerful nation in the world. Embarrassing or not, Bush's intractable, arrogant, and aggressive policies have made it necessary.
The rest of the world must be assured that come 2008 America will take it's head out of the sand or from where ever it's been hiding and engage our neighbors in a more civilized manner. The awkwardness and confusion that the Pelosi trip brings is only another example of how every choice toward a new direction carries serious down sides. Our diplomatic position isn't strong enough anymore to tell Syria to renounce terrorism before we will talk to them. We don't carry the diplomatic leverage to stop Iran from developing nuclear capabilities. These are both tragic outcomes of America's diminished image and moral authority in the world. The pretense that it is otherwise is no longer fooling anyone, except ourselves.
Dick Cheney continued to claim last week that Al Qaida was working with Saddam Hussein before the 2003 invasion, despite pentagon reports recently released and the 9/11 commission's clear statements to the contrary. It's these, the sky is not blue, denials that make trips like Pelosi's necessary. The Bush administration's policy view has gone beyond ideological stubbornness to a kind of madness. Those in highest levels of the administration have been infected with a blindness of fact that goes beyond anything this country has seen in generations.
Democrats have, as the opposition party, been duty bound to represent another point of view than that given by the President. They have not always fulfilled this role well. The lack of voice from across the isle is in part responsible for the mess we are in today. However, the President has now cut himself off from the very ideals of his party. Smaller governmental intrusion, more humble foreign policy are staples of Republican thought. I no longer know who the President thinks he is representing. It is certainly not Democratic ideals nor is it Republican. The President is still part of the Republican family, even if he no longer acts like one. It is up to those of his party, leadership and constituency alike to preform an intervention in order to stop the madness.
This intervention must take place for the good of the Republican party. The image of the party as the stewards of common sense and American values has taken a hard beating as of late. The Republican trait of loyalty has played an important part of their support for the President. This is certainly understandable. How many Democrats supported Clinton through his scandals even while opposing his actions. However as the administrations actions become less in keeping with Republican ideals, the less Republican they become. The sooner we can begin to speak to the world with one voice, the louder our virtues will be heard throughout the world.

Blood Runs Deep

No Persians were depicted being killed in the recently released movie: 300. No Greeks or Spartans were depicted as heroic figures of tragic sacrifice. 300 Spartans did hold the advancing “Persian” army at the battle of Thermopylae, along with 900 supporting personnel that rarely get mentioned in history books or Hollywood movies. Stories were not written in the time of 480 BC to capture for posterity the facts of an event. Cicero and Herodotus were far more interested in making their tribe of people look great and everyone else look lousy. The story of the 300 is very ancient propaganda. If Cicero were alive he would claim the movie version depicts events exactly the way he remembered it. Cicero I should mention lived 370 years after the battle and was Roman not Greek but I'm sure he believed it happened just the way he wrote it.
The question being asked today is why this 2500 year old war propaganda story is making such an impact in the minds of the modern viewer. The 300 has been called vapid, violent comic book drivel by critics and columnists. However, people from a wide demographic are going to see this film. The political and social media is talking about the film as an allegory to the war on terror. The cultural advisor to the Iranian President called the movie: “part of a comprehensive U.S. Psychological warfare aimed at Iranian culture.” Is it possible that they are all right? That underneath this violent and simple story shot on blue screen, there is potent cultural symbolism being expressed.
Xerxes was a Persian king. Iran is at the center of what was the Persian empire. Xerxes however was never 12 feet tall as depicted in the film nor were elephants 35 feet tall in the year 480. Persians didn't file there teeth and call themselves immortal. The Spartans for their part were not protectors of democratic freedom and liberty as the film depicts and you can't climb a crumbling rock cliff side with a 40 pound red cape in your underwear. Those that claim that this movie is a mindless comic book romp are half right. The invading army are the “bad guys” the few defenders are the “good guys.” Each person within this fictional structure is now free to identify with whoever they want to.
Allegory is a tricky narrative device. Depending on who's point of view a story is interpreted it can mean many things to many people. If the 300 is not intended as accurate representation of a historical event then it must be symbolic of something deeper. Those that claim that the 300 is a allegory of the war in Iraq and a cultural struggle against modern Islam terror (Islam was founded almost 1200 years after the battle of Thermopylae) I would say they are half right. U.S. Marines that have seen the movie in Iraq have reportedly embraced the figures of Spartan soldiers fighting a desperate battle. I can certainly understand the identification with the clearly heroic figures in the film. However, Iraqi insurgents and terrorist might also identify with the same warriors. They see themselves taking on the greatest nation in the world with few men and less equipment. And of course it is the United States that invaded their country. Using the symbolic model of the movie couldn't an argument be made from either perspective being the ones wearing the red capes. King Leonidas, the heroic leader of the Spartans also scoffed at religion and actively discarded infants and people that didn't measure up to his ideal. Who does that represent? Us? Or them?
This bloody film, inspired by Frank Miller has sparked an examination of ourselves and of the world we live. It has inspired thoughts of heroism and sacrifice. This movie continues to generate ideas and conversation around the world. That having been said, it is possible that we might have to give a little more respect to silly comic book movies.