Some Things Should Not Be Said
Consider this statement by a pundit:
[Name deleted] is a shameless bastard. Small wonder his mother killed herself. Once she discovered what a despicable soul she had spawned she apparently saw no other way out.
Now: assume that it’s true that X’s mother killed himself.
What do you think of that statement?
Do you need to know the context before you can say whether that statement is out of the civilized bounds of discourse?
Does it matter whether the pundit is Ann Coulter or Ted Rall? Does it matter whether X is someone we like or someone we hate? Should we ask ourselves whether it might be true that X’s mother really killed herself because she realized X is despicable?
If the pundit is Ann Coulter, and [name deleted] is a hateful Democrat like Ted Kennedy, or John Kerry, or Bill Clinton — is that just “talking smack”? If it’s Ted Rall talking about a great Republican, does that suddenly make it terrible?
I can answer this without needing to know the context. This is one of the most soulless, ugly things I have ever read in my life. I don’t care who said it, and I don’t care who it’s about. If someone’s mother killed herself, and you say it’s because the mother must have hated her son, you are an utterly despicable human being.
End of story.
What do you say? Leave your comment before clicking on the extended entry.
P.S. For those of you who must know the context, you can read it here.
P.P.S. Commenter Anwyn has a good point: the quote could work if it referred to one of the more genocidal maniacs of the 1900s, such as, say, Hitler or Stalin.
But as applied to, say, people whose politics you happen to disagree with — well, that seems a leetle bit different.
My initial reading of this wasn’t that a mother ‘hated’ her son. She could’ve been overwhelmed with guilt, sadness, regret. Despicable is the description used by the observer (or the speaker).
I guess a mother could commit suicide, but without a note the motive would be unknown.
Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 6/15/2006 @ 9:14 pm
It’s something one would expect from some fringe wacko on a DU or KOS thread. Or maybe in some vile email flame war between jilted lovers or something.
Any “mainstream” pundit that spouted such bile instantly loses most if not all of their credibility, IMHO.
Comment by Steve — 6/15/2006 @ 9:16 pm
Assuming it was a premeditated statement – it says a great deal about the speaker and nothing about the subject.
If it was an off-the-cuff statement, then – well, no – it still says much about the speaker; all of which is not good.
Was this person paid to say this? In other words, was it in a column or on a television show of which this person is employed? If so (IF!), then it seems like the syndicate/network should also bear the brunt of viewer/reader ire.
Now I’m going to read the rest of the story – my comments stand no matter what the politics of those involved. (Isn’t it a sad commentary that we just naturally assume that in this time in history in the U.S., a partisan Democrat/Republican will, with little provocation, casually say something like this against a political opponent?)
Comment by Abraxas — 6/15/2006 @ 9:18 pm
With today’s media, expect anything. Respect for the measured word is hard to find.
Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 6/15/2006 @ 9:22 pm
I’ve read it all now.
The author has amended this statement to (among other things) compare the subject of his ire (not to spoil the “surprise” for newcomers to this post) to Goebbels. AFTER TAKING THE TIME TO THINK ABOUT AND REVISE HIS INITIALLY EXTRAORDINARILY OFFENSIVE STATEMENT.
Oh. Oops. I guess that *did* give the game away after all…
Comment by Abraxas — 6/15/2006 @ 9:27 pm
The vile comment was uttered by the famous CIA analyst Larry Johnson. His most famous op-ed, now largely hidden behind the NY Times subscription wall is here.
Note the date !
And he is still listened to !
July 10, 2001
The Declining Terrorist Threat
By LARRY C. JOHNSON
WASHINGTON — Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.
None of these beliefs are based in fact. While many crimes are committed against Americans abroad (as at home), politically inspired terrorism, as opposed to more ordinary criminality motivated by simple greed, is not as common as most people may think.
At first glance, things do seem to be getting worse. International terrorist incidents, as reported by the State Department, increased to 423 in 2000 from 392 in 1999. Recently, Americans were shaken by Filipino rebels’ kidnapping of Americans and the possible beheading of one hostage. But the overall terrorist trend is down. According to the Central Intelligence Agency, deaths from international terrorism fell to 2,527 in the decade of the 1990’s, from 4,833 in the 80’s.
Nor are the United States and its policies the primary target. Terrorist activity in 2000 was heavily concentrated in just two countries — Colombia, which had 186 incidents, and India, with 63. The cause was these countries’ own political conflicts.
While 82 percent of the attacks in Colombia were on oil pipelines managed by American and British companies, these attacks were less about terrorism than about guerrillas’ goal of disrupting oil production to undermine the Colombian economy. Generally, the guerrillas shy away from causing casualties in these attacks. No American oil workers in Colombia were killed or injured last year.
Other terrorism against American interests is rare. There were three attacks on American diplomatic buildings in 2000, compared with 42 in 1988. No Americans were killed in these incidents, nor have there been any deaths in this sort of attack this year.
Of the 423 international terrorist incidents documented in the State Department’s report “Patterns of Global Terrorism 2000,” released in April, only 153 were judged by the department and the C.I.A. to be “significant.” And only 17 of these involved American citizens or businesses.
Eleven incidents involved kidnappings of one or more American citizens, all of whom were eventually released. Seven of those kidnapped worked for American companies in the energy business or providing services to it — Halliburton, Shell, Chevron, Mobil, Noble Drilling and Erickson Air-Crane.
Five bombings were on the list. The best known killed 17 American sailors on the destroyer Cole, as it was anchored in a Yemeni port, and wounded 39. A bomb at a McDonald’s in France killed a local citizen there. The other explosions — outside the United States embassy in the Philippines, at a Citibank office in Greece, and in the offices of Newmont Mining in Indonesia — caused mostly property damage and no loss of life. In the 17th incident, vandals trashed a McDonald’s in South Africa.
The greatest risk is clear: if you are drilling for oil in Colombia — or in nations like Ecuador, Nigeria or Indonesia — you should take appropriate precautions; otherwise Americans have little to fear.
Although high-profile incidents have fostered the perception that terrorism is becoming more lethal, the numbers say otherwise, and early signs suggest that the decade beginning in 2000 will continue the downward trend. A major reason for the decline is the current reluctance of countries like Iraq, Syria and Libya, which once eagerly backed terrorist groups, to provide safe havens, funding and training.
The most violent and least reported source of international terrorism is the undeclared war between Islamists and Hindus over the disputed Kashmir region of India, bordering Pakistan. Although India came in second in terms of the number of terrorist incidents in 2000, with 63, it accounted for almost 50 percent of all resulting deaths, with 187 killed, and injuries, with 337 hurt. Most of the blame lies with radical groups trained in Afghanistan and operating from Pakistan.
I am not soft on terrorism; I believe strongly in remaining prepared to confront it. However, when the threat of terrorism is used to justify everything from building a missile defense to violating constitutional rights (as in the case of some Arab-Americans imprisoned without charge), it is time to take a deep breath and reflect on why we are so fearful.
Part of the blame can be assigned to 24-hour broadcast news operations too eager to find a dramatic story line in the events of the day and to pundits who repeat myths while ignoring clear empirical data. Politicians of both parties are also guilty. They warn constituents of dire threats and then appropriate money for redundant military installations and new government investigators and agents.
Finally, there are bureaucracies in the military and in intelligence agencies that are desperate to find an enemy to justify budget growth. In the 1980’s, when international terrorism was at its zenith, NATO and the United States European Command pooh-poohed the notion of preparing to fight terrorists. They were too busy preparing to fight the Soviets. With the evil empire gone, they “discovered” terrorism as an important priority.
I hope for a world where facts, not fiction, determine our policy. While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.
Larry C. Johnson is a former State Department counterterrorism specialist.
Comment by Mike K — 6/15/2006 @ 9:30 pm
OK, Socrates. I’ll bite. But can I also assume that the whole statement is true…
That in fact, she didn’t just kill herself, but also, “Once she discovered what a despicable soul she had spawned she apparently saw no other way out.”
I’ll assume yes, for the sake of the discussion. The “apparently” makes it confusing. The person makeing the statement appears because of that word to have some uncertainty himself about why the mother killed herself. Given that, I suspect the person has no way of knowing whether the statement is true, and then it is a vile statement to make.
But, if you take out the apparently so that it reads “Small wonder his mother killed herself. Once she discovered what a despicable soul she had spawned she saw no other way out”, then the statement on its face is not despicable. You give me a hypothetical in which I know nothing about the statement maker or the object of the statement. There are people on this planet about which if you told me their mother killed herself in despair over them, I would not be surprised. I would think the mother had other options. I would feel sorry for her, etc., but I would not be surprised. Given that situation, I would think the statement was reasonable, or, within the bounds of civilized discourse. So, yes, I need to know the circumstances first.
Comment by D Huff — 6/15/2006 @ 9:42 pm
Holy evil smacktalk, Batman.
The Goebbels thing is standard-level stupidity, which deserves condemnation, unless Karl is running Charles Taylor’s old friends or something.
But the crack on the mother…. wow. This is the sort of thing that ought to haunt this loonball until he dies.
Do people ever think that the people on the other side are, well, people? Yikes.
–JRM
Comment by JRM — 6/15/2006 @ 9:44 pm
Sigh. Having done as the attorney asked and not read the extension, though I couldn’t help seeing a couple things in the comments as I went through, I can only say that if X=Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, or somebody on a similar order of magnitude of evil, I wouldn’t care one bit about the comment being made. Anyone else, indefensible. Important to notice, however, that we usually don’t discover a person is/was irreducibly evil until after they’re dead.
Comment by Anwyn — 6/15/2006 @ 9:48 pm
The comment is indefensible regardless of who (whom?) it’s about. Because it’s not about the target, it’s about the target’s mother.
“Soulless” is about right. If anyone thinks politics is more important than common decency, I don’t want them around the levers of power.
Comment by John Stodder — 6/15/2006 @ 10:45 pm
I can only say that if X=Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, or somebody on a similar order of magnitude of evil, I wouldn’t care one bit about the comment being made.
Yeah. The Jersey Girls and Karl Rove aren’t any of them, though.
Comment by Patterico — 6/15/2006 @ 11:03 pm
Yeah. The Jersey Girls and Karl Rove aren’t any of them, though.
I’m glad you’re here to tell us these things.
Can I pleeeeeease get off the witness stand now, Counselor, or do I have to see every speck of it your way first? I bet you’re still mad that I don’t like Glen Phillips, too.
Comment by Anwyn — 6/15/2006 @ 11:39 pm
I’m madder that the discussion motivated me to look up some upcoming concerts, and I will be out of town for a Toad the Wet Sprocket reunion concert. But I may reschedule a plane flight to see it. Which would make me happy again (except for the rebooking fee).
And yes, everyone must see everything my way or I will never give up.
Comment by Patterico — 6/15/2006 @ 11:42 pm
Ironically, Fiance has told me before that I pluck one thing out of a disagreement–usually the one he doesn’t give a damn about–and use it to beat him about the head and shoulders with. I never really ran into much of anybody who was better at it.
Alas, ’til there was you.
Comment by Anwyn — 6/15/2006 @ 11:45 pm
Google up “Karl Rove” and “dirty tricks” or “dishonest” or “weasal” or some such thing with his name, maybe you’ll learn something about the slithering, decpeptive manipulator of elections and so much more. He is truly a hideous creature.
I truly believe it wasn’t for his slimy tricks that got Bush into office, there would not be so many thousands of people dead and/or maimed for life, not to mention the many new cases of cancer, and birth defects of those involved with the war’s families, from depleted uranium. I blame the whole cabal for these horrors, since it was a lie that made it happen and Rove is the “architect of the neo-con victories.” Do some research on the guy. Since you guys just read the conservative lying sources, and the lying MSM being your sources, you probably don’t know the sh** he is responsible for.
Comment by blubonnet — 6/16/2006 @ 12:04 am
Did his mom kill herself because Rove was so despicable, blubonnet?
Comment by Patterico — 6/16/2006 @ 12:11 am
I don’t know. Maybe he was so despicapble because he didn’t have a mom. I’d heard his grampa was actually a Nazi. I guess I’ll look that up and see what I come up with, and tell you where I heard it, if you’re interested.
Comment by blubonnet — 6/16/2006 @ 1:27 am
Maybe the fact that Bush and Rove’s grandfather’s being Nazi or Nazi connected shouldn’t be relevant since THEY are not their grandfathers, BUT, this NSA thing kind of creeps me out along with torture and invading a country that as all weapons inspectors and Joe Wilson, and the whole Bush cabal knew, was not a threat, which by international law standards (except for the “no uniform, not a real war” excuse)makes our country war criminals. Kind of Hitleresque. These are just a couple of links I pulled up. There were lots more of course.
http://www.geocities.com/bushfamilynazis/
http://www.unknownnews.org/050118a-dn.html
Comment by blubonnet — 6/16/2006 @ 1:54 am
But did Karl Rove’s mom kill herself because Rove was so despicable, Blubonnet?
Comment by See-Dubya — 6/16/2006 @ 2:04 am
OK, if Coulter said that, you have finally come up with something she said that is beyond even the modern bounds of normal discourse.
But that doesn’t make me hate her the way you seem to. I would lose a lot of repect for her, but she’s still not comparable to Ted Rall who thinks American soldiers are just another kind of terrorist.
For the record, I don’t hate Ted Rall either.
Comment by Doc Rampage — 6/16/2006 @ 2:16 am
OK, Patterico. I vowed that if you had one more post on Ann Coulter I was going to go buy her book instead of checking it out of the library like I usually do. Just so she can get the profits. This tirade has really gone far enough.
To answer the question you posed, being the contrary soul I am and realizing immediately that you were trying to equate someone mocking a person’s mother’s death with “enjoying the deaths of their husbands,” I don’t think the statement is going too far. It’s hyperbole. Perhaps in polite company you don’t think certain things should be said. But, truthfully, I wouldn’t tell an old lady she’s a wrinkled up prune, either, because it wouldn’t be polite. In other words, we’re not talking about politeness with AC’s statement. It’s accurate. Your continued haranging about it proves her point repeatedly. Don’t you get it?
“Yeah. The Jersey Girls and Karl Rove aren’t any of them, though.”
True, but the Jersey broads are just the latest bunch of victims who (I guess) had an epiphany because of their personal tragedies so that they get to blast the POTUS, demand an investigation, and excoriate anyone who doesn’t agree with them. And we can’t criticize them because they’re victims. Thanks for buying in.
Comment by sharon — 6/16/2006 @ 4:31 am
That sort of comment is beyond the pale. No excuse for it in any sort of conversation or writing. Anything short of a full apology is wasted breathe.
Comment by HD Wanderer — 6/16/2006 @ 5:44 am
it seemed like a really nasty thing to say, nothing that would ever have occurred to me to say.
the way patterico set this up, i sense a trick, it will turn out to be hitler’s mother, somebody like that.
comment #6 about larry c. johnson; hey, everybody gets to look stupid in retrospect at least once in their lives. i was on public record that the tech boom would go on forever and that the nasdaq would eventually overtake the dow. still waiting for that.
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 6/16/2006 @ 7:11 am
ok, now that i peeked, i don’t care for the subject of the comment at issue either, but i feel that the comment diminishes the commentator much more than it diminishes the subject.
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 6/16/2006 @ 7:17 am
Media double standard on over the top rhetoric…
Of course we all remember the howls of outrage from the mediots over Ann Coulter’s comments about the “Jersey Girls” – but what I’m wondering is: where’s the outrage over this (emphasis added in bold)?
Sacrificing Our Troo…
Trackback by Sister Toldjah — 6/16/2006 @ 7:18 am
Media double standard on over the top rhetoric…
Of course we all remember the howls of outrage from the mediots over Ann Coulter’s comments about the “Jersey Girls” – but what I’m wondering is: where’s the outrage over this (emphasis added in bold)?
Sacrificing Our Troo…
Trackback by Sister Toldjah — 6/16/2006 @ 7:18 am
Media double standard on over the top rhetoric…
Of course we all remember the howls of outrage from the mediots over Ann Coulter’s comments about the “Jersey Girls” – but what I’m wondering is: where’s the outrage over this (emphasis added in bold)?
Sacrificing Our Troo…
Trackback by Sister Toldjah — 6/16/2006 @ 7:18 am
To keep things fair, I’m going to respond to your original questions right now, before I’ve followed the link or read any comments that might tip me off to who you’re talking about, or why.
Does it matter whether the pundit is Ann Coulter or Ted Rall?
No.
No, but as a practical matter, if the statement was out of line I’m more likely to be upset if it was made by someone I generally like. If Coulter did it, I’ll be pissed. If Rall did, I never expected better of him anyway, so in my best Valley Girl voice: “what-EVER.”
Hell yes.
With that, I’ll now go follow the link and read the statement in context. If I have to completely gut my original answer as a result, so be it.
Comment by Xrlq — 6/16/2006 @ 7:21 am
OK, I’ve read it. Johnson is a class A prick, and Rall just got demoted to what Hugh Blewitt might call a “solid B+.”
Comment by Xrlq — 6/16/2006 @ 7:38 am
You said the other day that what Coulter said was “hateful”. Although I didnt reply, I disagreed. What Coulter said was wrong because she knew it could be read as hurtful (although she’s smart enough to have couched in a clever double entendre, allowing herself to wail that she was misinterpreted).
Larry Johnson’s comment is truly hateful.
Comment by bains — 6/16/2006 @ 8:09 am
The quote could work if applied to Hitler or Stalin, but the fact that the only examples I can think of where it would work are analagous to those two underlines the point: the remark is far outside the bounds of civilized discourse.
Comment by aphrael — 6/16/2006 @ 9:37 am
It’s worth reading the context just to help evaluate who’s worth reading (and who isn’t).
Comment by GearDaddy — 6/16/2006 @ 11:37 am
Too bad the mindless comment by Johnson diminished his credibility, putting him in the same category as SatANN Coulter. She is more shameless in my opinion because she also is a liar. Much of what she has said is proven as false. I think she is witty and attractive, and she is getting paid to write a book, and not just from the publisher.That i s my opinion.
Comment by blubonnet — 6/16/2006 @ 12:12 pm
Is it ok to say something similar about fictional characters on TV? For viewers of “24,” remember when President Logan took out the revolver and seemed ready to leave the series and its awful script-writers once and for all? Well, it would have been easy to conclude that his contemplated check-out had nothing to do with scandal, and everything to do with the fact he was married to what’s-her-name (Jean Smart’s character) and was just trying to find a way out of Designing Women hell. Am I a bad person for thinking such a thing?
Comment by TNugent — 6/16/2006 @ 12:42 pm
Damn. I just realized that, this being the blogosphere, there’s a better than even chance that most of the commenters here are too young to have any idea of what I was writing about in my last comment.
Comment by TNugent — 6/16/2006 @ 1:05 pm
Do you mean we’re too young to know what Designing Women is? I’m not, if it makes you feel any better.
Comment by Anwyn — 6/16/2006 @ 1:12 pm
Thanks, Anwyn . . . now I can enjoy the weekend.
Comment by TNugent — 6/16/2006 @ 1:27 pm
I shouldn’t admit it in public, but I actually liked Designing Women. I know it was a chick show, but it was a well-done comedy anyway.
Comment by Doc Rampage — 6/16/2006 @ 2:16 pm
Designing Women ?
That name rings a faint Belle !
Comment by Alasdair — 6/16/2006 @ 3:58 pm
OOPS ! Bad Alasdair !
On topic – my take – only justification for the statement is if it is known to be the truth, preferably personally known … as rhetorical technique, it takes ad hominem all the way way past bad hominem …
Comment by Alasdair — 6/16/2006 @ 4:01 pm
wow, Patterico…looks like blubonnet who occassionally trolls my site with nonsense born of complete BDS is here peddling her pernicious wares.
Comment by Darleen — 6/16/2006 @ 11:04 pm
I’ve said some cold, callous, cruel things in my ilfe…but that crack’s well beyond the pale of the acceptable.
Comment by Erick Oppeen — 6/17/2006 @ 9:05 am
Despicable, but not uncommon.
Comment by Geek, Esq. — 6/17/2006 @ 9:15 am
[...] Check out the latest at Seixon. Larry “Your mother killed herself because she hated you” Johnson writes Seixon: I know where you are living. You forget that I do work for the European Union and friends in Interpol. I’ve offered you a mature way to deal with this situation. You’re obviously too immature and inexperienced to recognize the offer for what it is. Too bad. [...]
Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » Larry Johnson Returns — 7/26/2006 @ 6:13 am