9 January 2003
NITWITS
Nitwits on Usenet are an on-going phenomenon, but imminent war with Iraq has brought more than the usual share of them crawling out of the woodwork.
For example, a friend of mine mentioned that he had read comments by the new governor of Minnesota regarding the need for more prisons (a standard Republican political strategy). He then came across an on-line comment "from some nitwit saying 'We should institute the death penalty in order to reduce the prison population.'" Population control with a genocidal twist. Not a new idea, but one that isn't any more appropriate in the 21st-century than in the 20th.
In response, my friend posted a very nice, agreeable note back, saying he thought that was a great idea, and asking how can we make it happen. What crimes must we make capital offenses to include enough people to reduce the prison population? How can we streamline the justice system to reduce the lag between conviction and execution? I suggested making jaywalking and check-bouncing capital offenses. However, I should take caution: there seems to be a thin line between sarcasm and public policy these days.
My own recent "nitwit" story involves a couple twits on Usenet. The topic was a possible U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. The first twit suggested that, should violent opposition to the U.S. military presence arise in Iraq, our armed forces make it clear we mean business by "killing 100 Iraqis for every American killed by the opposition -- look how well it worked for the Nazis in Czechoslovakia." Another twit, expressing his view that Americans should silence any opposition to Bush's war plans, cited Oliver North as a fine example of an American patriot and that he "did a great service for our country." As shocking as these comments are, they're not atypical for Usenet. The relative anonymity of this forum allows for outrageous comments such as these.
Far more amazing and amusing was the howling objections the Twits had to any criticism of these ridiculous comments. Twit #1 replied, "You've fallen back on the reliable strategy of ad-hominem attacks, apparently hoping to turn the entire thread into a flamefest rather than have ideas you don't agree with discussed rationally." I replied that there is nothing "rational" about allowing U.S. armed forces to massacre innocent people.
Twit #2 (the Ollie North fan) said, "Amazing how the internet can anonymously turn anyone into a schoolyard bully. You're trying to call me out, but I'm not interested. I lost interest in this thread shortly after it started." First off, if there's any analogy to a schoolyard bully, it better suits Ollie North, who helped bankroll the murder of women and children in Nicaragua and El Salvador.
Second, it is easy to see why these cowards "lost interest," since almost no one offered support for their extremist positions. As my friend put it, "They lost interest because someone was disagreeing with them. Most 'dialogues' today are right-wing circle jerks and the mildest questioning enrages them." Losing interest, running away, and blaming others for one's own problems is a popular sport these days, especially among Republicans. Trent Lott ran away (i.e., resigned as Senate Majority Leader) and then tried to blame "anti-Christian" fanatics for his political downfall. And there's still at least a 50/50 chance that Bush will simply "declare victory" on Iraq and lose interest in that little problem without going to war (though that seems less likely as time goes on). So much for the "party of personal responsibility."
But as silly as these comments are, they nonetheless reflect a disturbing trend in the political discourse in this country. Not only is such patently racist and militarist claptrap openly expressed, but these bonehead notions are demanded to be taken seriously.
Nope. That ain't gonna happen.
Such attitudes, though still thankfully in the minority, are the by-product of an American public opinion that sees Junior Bush's sabre-rattling as "protecting us from evildoers," instead of what it really is: Vainglorious militarism and a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein (as Bush was quoted about Hussein last September, "He tried to kill my daddy."). Recent polls also indicate that a majority of Americans believe Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks, suggesting that the U.S. propaganda campaign against Hussein and the Iraqi people is having the desired effect.
But demonizing the Iraqi people, as well as Arabs in general (Palestinians, in particular) is also providing political cover for a variety of militarists, fascists and racists, allowing them to slither out from under their rocks and infect the political dialog with their poisonous hatred. And that's only the start: Despite President Junior's tongue-wagging to the contrary, if and when the shooting starts and should there be heavy U.S. casualties, anti-Arab racism will increase sharply, as it already has ("U.S. Muslims Suffer Backlash", BBC News, 19 November 2002). This sort of racism will not only be tolerated, but will indeed be necessary in order to sustain both an invasion and a lengthy (and likely very bloody) occupation of Iraq. To quote talk show host and right-wing lunatic, Michael Savage, "We need racist stereotypes right now of our enemy in order to encourage our warriors to kill the enemy." ( S.F. Chronicle).
War might still be avoided, but only of people of conscience work hard to keep it from happening -- "by any means necessary," to paraphrase Malcolm X. A victory for the nitwits would be a defeat for us all.