fear

You are currently browsing articles tagged fear.

The regularly-scheduled Top Ten Videos of the Year series will resume shortly. Very shortly. I promise.

FB_thread

Starting from the bottom:

  • I said foreign, you guys. People from North America aren’t frightening, because even if they’re batshit crazy, we know them. All of us know a few Michelle Bachmanns or Glenn Becks or Fred Phelpses,1 and they look like us. As do Canadians — who, moreover, are simply not threatening.
  • Castro hasn’t scared anybody for decades. Plus, he’s now like 99 years old and mostly concerned with his pipeline of black-market Depends undergarments. That brother of his who’s supposedly doing the dictatoring now is a total empty shirt. How empty? If dictators were legendary comedians, it’d be like Groucho Marx handing his role over to Zeppo.
  • Read the rest of this entry »


portrait

My man Stephen Colbert made it tough on me in 2010, in a good way. He had enough excellent moments to make selecting just one for my top ten feel almost completely arbitrary. I ultimately went with this one, from the December 16th episode of the Report, for the total force of its hypocrisy-bashing. Make sure you watch the whole clip, because he saves the coup de grâce for the last couple of lines.

My inclusion of this video rather than one of Colbert’s more ballyhooed 2010 moments (the previously-mentioned Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear and his testimony on behalf of migrant farm workers before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship and Border Security) may seem counter-intuitive. Taking the satirical brickbat to hypocrites is hardly new for him — in fact, it could be declared as his primary stock in trade since the Report began in 2005. However, Read the rest of this entry »


In the early part of 2009, American TV airwaves were polluted by a particular commercial that became known as the “Gathering Storm” ad. Made by a group calling itself the National Organization for Marriage, it was a clumsy, mendacious message of anti-gay fear-mongering. I don’t care to put the original ad here on my own blog, so if you haven’t seen or don’t immediately recall it you can fill yourself in by clicking this link.

The ad could have been a milestone of unintentional comedy were it not for the fact that so many Americans actually buy its central falsehood that same-sex marriage could impose anything whatsoever onto heterosexual marriages and families. Needless to say, the ad’s overblown, portentous bigotry practically begged to be parodied. I made calls to a few filmmaker friends with a mind toward producing one myself, but to do it right ended up being logistically impossible.

Fortunately, the popular comedy site Funny or Die soon rolled out their version, which more than filled the comedic void. Entitled “A Gaythering Storm,” it comes in at number six on my list of the top ten videos of 2009. Read the rest of this entry »


Again, an item in Ye Olde Facebook Newsfeed set me to thinking. The blurb below was posted by an old schoolmate of mine. I have anonymized her profile picture, and (obviously) blurred out her name. She still lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, where we grew up; I (in case you didn’t know) now live in Los Angeles.which-ca-city-LA-screencap

I haven’t taken the quiz, so I don’t know what questions my friend answered. She was puzzled by the result, so I’ve endeavored to develop more in-depth questionnaire to determine how temperamentally well-suited one is for L.A. residency. So here it is: Derek’s L.A.dar, v 0.5.
Read the rest of this entry »


Torturama

I never would have believed that I’d live to see the day when the United States government legislated torture. Now that I have, it makes me want to scream. Or rather, it makes me want to screed – but no one wants to read a screed, so I’ll do my best to scrape together some restraint. Easier written than done. This is a flagrant transgression of the most basic principles of American democracy, and I take it very personally.

Before Mark Foley and his dirty IM’s with teenaged boys so captivated the nation, you’ll recall that the previous week the Senate approved Bush’s euphemistically-named Military Commissions Act by a 65-34 margin. The House then voted 250-170 to approve the senate version. So there it is, America: the latest return on the taxes you paid out for your representatives’ salaries, the “We Can Torture if We Want To, We Can Leave Your Friends Behind” Act of 2006.

What the hell has become of us? How is this possible? Have they lost their minds, are they MAD, are they absolutely batshit INSANE??? I thought that even members of Congress weren’t SO devoid of conscience as to wave this through. Senator John McCain, a victim of torture as a POW during the Vietnam War, the guy who pushed through the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to ensure that the U.S. would not itself perpetuate such atrocities, now has caved to the Bush Administration’s insistence on permitting the CIA to act as judge, jury and torturer for “unlawful enemy combatants.” Why? Because he wants to be President in 2008, so he can’t allow himself to become the guy who punted the midterm elections to the Democrats in ’06. So what does he have to say for himself? Some mealymouthed crap about how he’s “confident” that the worst torture methods will probably not be used, or something like that. Pfft! If he still had the keys to his old “Straight Talk Express” bus, maybe he could just say, “Call me a hypocrite, call me a flip-flopper, call me a partisan douchebag – just don’t call me soft on terrorism!”

The central fallacy is that this measure is going to make us safer. We’ve all heard the approved Republican pro-torture talking points parroted into microphones up and down Capitol Hill: “these interrogation techniques have prevented further terrorist attacks,” “the war on terror is a totally different kind of war, so we have to do totally different things to win it,” “those opposing this legislation are against giving the President the tools he needs to win the war on terror,” and of course the Dick Cheney Fear-a-palooza Special, “these are terrorists, they’re coming to kill you and your family, they don’t care about your rights, so why do you care about theirs?”

Each of these are nothing but different shades of horseshit. First of all, from a purely practical standpoint there are many, many statements for the record by experienced military interrogators who state flatly that torture doesn’t work. The statements and information it produces are deeply unreliable, and it endangers American soldiers in the event of their capture. It’s very easy for the Bush administration to claim that they’d beaten information out of captives that had enabled them to foil planned terrorist attacks, since any specific details that would prove or disprove the claims are kept classified.

This is not a “totally different kind of war.” Terrorism is not new, and in fact it’s not even war – it’s crime. We’ve responded to these large-scale crimes by waging military war. The resulting condition of asymmetric war is attended by reams of historical precedent. I’ll give them credit for accuracy on one thing, though: the Bush administration is indeed using a completely, um, different set of tactics to conduct this war, to put it politely.

We in America HAVE all of the tools we need to win the war on terror. We have the capability to hunt down and capture or kill the terrorists that attacked us. Amidst the swell of international good will toward the United States in the wake of September 11, shoring up our foreign alliances could have served to isolate the terrorists and grease the springs of the imminent mousetrap operation (as it were). Instead, Bush and his ship of fools belittled the U.N., denigrated long-standing allies, and demonstrated all manner of reckless incompetence. I remember awhile back when the White House sound bites du jour included lines about “winning Iraqi hearts and minds.” Three years on, we’ve announced our intention to settle for kicking clueless Arab goatherders in the testicles. It might not win too many hearts or minds, but it plays well at election time and makes Bush, Dick and Rummy feel like tough guys. The Bush administration has often expressed a cavalier disregard for other nations’ opinions of the United States, including his hyperbolic straw man line from the 2004 election campaign about how he would “refuse to ask for a permission slip from foreign countries to protect America.” In fact, he should care what other countries think of us. He should care a lot. The world is smaller now than ever, more and more institutions are “global,” and no country is an island unto itself.

To defeat the people that perpetrated atrocities against us, I think it’s important for our nation to conduct ourselves non-atrociously. This may seem obvious to the point of being patronizing, but it bears pointing out in light of the “terrorists don’t respect our rights, so we don’t respect theirs” argument. Lowering ourselves to Al Qaida-level human rights practices is not only morally indefensible, but self-defeating in the extreme.

At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined… with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a Trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

Abraham Lincoln
January 27, 1838

For America to prevail, we need to be better than our enemies are: more just, more free, more beneficient. We need to demonstrate again why we are the world’s leading democracy. We need to lead by example, relying upon the best moral qualities of our society and our nation.