MICHAEL DAVIS WORLD

You can't make this stuff up, so we don't!

Good Time Charlie, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise | @MDWorld

January 10, 2015 Martha Thomases 5 Comments

B6wwiJvCEAAyodVLike all people with a soul, I am outraged over the terrorist murders of the cartoonists and other employees of the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, apparently by Islamic fundamentalists.  These are the actions of cowards.  More to the point, these are the actions of people with no sense of humor.

In my pretentious youth, I didn’t want to be funny so much.  I wanted to be delicate and sensitive and poignant. The kind of woman who cries at the sight of a butterfly.  The kind of woman who wrote poetry.

That didn’t happen.  I come from a family that told a lot of jokes.  My mother subscribed to Mad magazine.  I stood up and told jokes in assembly.

In other words, I am not Anais Nin, nor am I Joni Mitchell or Sylvia Plath nor any of the other women I thought were so cool that men could not resist them.  Instead, I am the kind of woman men find it remarkably easy to resist.

Thank goodness.

Humor is one of the most important tools we have in fighting fascism and other totalitarian ideologies.  To quote Tom Sullivan:

“I have long said that loss of the ability to laugh at yourself is the first warning sign of fundamentalism. That applies whether the fundamentalist is a jihadist of the right or from the fringe left. Plus a lot in between. A priest I know once said it was a healthy thing, now and then, to spit on your idols.”

The cartoons that incited the terrorists don’t particularly amuse me.  I suspect I live too far outside the society that inspired them.  There are not a lot of Islamic fundamentalists in my circles.  The Muslims I know do not seem like a monolithic threat, but rather are my friends, neighbors and colleagues.  They are middle class people who go to the same schools as my kid, watch the same movies, and ride the same subways.  It’s not the same environment that exists between Muslims and the rest of French society.  Similarly, I would guess that the assassinated cartoonists would not laugh at the same things I do, like Donald Trump’s claims to being a viable presidential candidate.

It’s possible that even if I lived in Paris and was intimately attuned to the politics, I wouldn’t find the cartoons funny.  I mean, we all have different taste.  A lot of what I’ve seen seems (to my uninitiated eye) to be kind of sophomoric, insulting the Prophet just to get a rise out of people. It reminds me a little bit of the last scene in Time Bandits, where the clueless adults are warned, “Don’t touch that!  It’s evil!”

You can guess what they do.

Anyway, my sense of humor (or lack thereof) is not the point.  If someone makes a joke that I don’t like, I don’t laugh at it.  If someone makes a joke I find offensive, I either engage in conversation about it (if it’s a person) or stop buying/watching the product.  It is possible for me to get seriously offended by someone’s attempt at humor, and still not feel the need to plot that person’s demise.

In France, the separation of Church and state is even more everyday than it is here.  Their politicians, for the most part, do not discuss their “Judeo-Christian” heritage, nor does a mainstream politician discuss his or her conversations with a deity.

There is racism and bigotry, because the French are humans like the rest of us, but they don’t say Jesus told them to be that way.  Their racism and bigotry is pure, undiluted nationalism.

This is a roundabout way to say that I almost understand why some French Muslims are susceptible to the call for jihad.  When a person feels like all reasonable courses of action are closed to him, then the unreasonable ideas gain footing.  If the media seems out to get you, you want to get the media.

We have crazy people in this country who think the media is out to get them.  This includes our own versions of religious fundamentalists.  It includes the New York City police department, certain conservative commentators (who don’t notice they are part of the media) and Michelle Bachman.  For the most part, they are too stupid to justify any attention.

But even they are not stupid enough to think the solution is to kill cartoonists.

Martha Thomases, Media Goddess, can’t draw for shit.

Previous Post

Next Post

Comments

  1. Howard Cruse
    January 10, 2015 - 9:10 am

    A thoughtful, insightful column, Martha.

  2. R. Maheras
    January 10, 2015 - 12:43 pm

    Ditto.

    The only place where I disagree is what I think is a phony cry of victimization by European — especially French — Muslims. The most devout — and they are legion — have no interest in assimilating into what they view is a “corrupt” and “secular” (and thus “evil”) French society. Rather, their goal is to ultimately convert/force submission by the French, and those who stand in the way must be destroyed. In the past, they’ve used the French system of freedom and tolerance against them. We’re now at a point where the most radical feel emboldened by the immediacy of social media to begin the dismantilization of French society by force.

    This is also a problem at the Global level, and I fear that we are now at a point of interconnectivity where the world is ripe for a coordinated, en masse attack akin to the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War.

    If that happens, the recent events in France will be nothing by comparison.

  3. Rene
    January 10, 2015 - 3:31 pm

    The cartoons I’ve seen from that magazine, including one of the Pope, seem to be in bad taste and not very funny, and yes, offensive to religious people, but only lunatics would kill over a cartoon (or worse than lunatics, ambitously sane people who want a excuse to fight for power).

    Russ –

    They may try, but dude, those guys can’t topple legimate government at France or any other Western country. Actually, their actions have only emboldened anti-Muslim sentiments and made it harder for non-violent Muslims. Though I suspect this is exactly what they want, to force Muslims to radicalize.

  4. Rene
    January 10, 2015 - 3:43 pm

    There is one other thing that I find very interesting. In Europe and the USA, devout Christians and devout Muslims are mostly on opposite camps, and there is all the talk about a clash of cultures, and right-wing people are often the folks mostly anti-Muslim.

    In my own country, Brazil, things are different, in a very eye-opening way. We never had any Muslim violence here, there isn’t any sense of existential threat to our civilization from Muslims. So, surprise of surprises (or maybe not so surprising) devout Catholics and Protestants in Brazil have shown sympathy for the murderous scumbags that killed the cartoonists.

    Really.

    They have always fought against what they call the “extremes” of free expression, the immorality of, say, gays kissing on TV or in public places, the mockery of religion, so when fellow religionists kill people who have mocked religion, they sort of root for them.

  5. R. Maheras
    January 10, 2015 - 5:08 pm

    Rene — going a bit further with my Vietnam comparison, we didn’t lose any of the battles during Tet, or any of the battles afterwards. Yet we lost the war. These guys don’t care if they lose their lives. Note that the two who shot up charlie hebdo, when surrounded, came out with guns blazing to certain death — like some modern-day version of the film buth cassidy and the sundance kid.

  6. Martha Thomases
    January 11, 2015 - 7:54 am

    In our country, people who call themselves “Christians” blow up women’s health clinics and murder doctors, all in the name of “Christ.” We do not ascribe their insanity to all Christians.

    However, when we talk about poor people, especially when they are part of an ethnic group that is, perhaps, swarthy, all of a sudden, they get lumped together.

    As an example, here is this: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/46-examples-of-muslim-outrage-about-paris-shooting-that-fox-news-cant-seem-to-find/#.VLIgZo8h1x4.facebook

  7. Rene
    January 11, 2015 - 8:12 am

    Vietnam was about the US, the world’s most powerful nation, having adventures in foreign soil and failing to conquer it by force alone. Now it’s the Muslim Bums that are in foreign soil using force alone and they will also inevitably fail.

    The Soviets had a better chance of subverting Western democracies, because they represented an ideology that found admirers in the West. But the Muslims represent an ideology that is absolutely hated by most, and tolerated (but secretly hated) by some.

  8. R. Maheras
    January 12, 2015 - 9:41 am

    Martha — Your comparison with Christians and abortions is absolutely inan.

    How many doctors have been murdered, and how many abortion clinics, have been blown up in, say, the last 20 years?

    Compare that to the trail of blood directly linked to radical Islam during the same period of time.

    Sometimes the incredibly laser-like tunnel vision of partisans boggles the mind. All rational thought and objectivity is totally ignored. That’s why I am so ardently independent. Partisan bias makes true problem-solving impossible.

  9. Susan
    January 12, 2015 - 3:06 pm

    I agree that this is an insightful, thoughtful column, one that I admire, but I have only one minor quibble. I don’t know why you say “These are the actions of cowards.” I don’t see anything cowardly about what they did. Hostile, aggressive, oppressive, vicious, even evil, perhaps, but not cowardly. After 9/11 many commentators called the actions of the plane hijackers cowardly. What can be braver than to kill yourself for a cause you believe in? Even my father, who usually chose his words carefully, called them cowards. I don’t get it.

  10. Martha Thomases
    January 12, 2015 - 3:14 pm

    Susan, I call them cowards because they do not engage. They hide their faces. They use guns, not words. They fear their ideas won’t stand up to scrutiny, so they don’t deal I. Ideas. They take their guns to shoot at unarmed people.

    Cowards.

  11. Martha Thomases
    January 12, 2015 - 3:22 pm

    Russ, according to the data collected for this source (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/americas-10-worst-terror-attacks-by-christian-fundamentalist-and-far-right-extremists/), George Tiller was killed in 2009. Barnett Slepian was killed in 1998.

    The article also cites hate crimes against Sikhs, the government, and others. Not abortion, but terrorist violence by Christian fundamentalists.

    Sometimes the incredibly laser-like tunnel vision of partisans boggles my mind, too. Especially when it makes them blind to problems in their own backyards.

  12. Rene
    January 13, 2015 - 4:43 am

    Nah, Russ is right.

    I don’t doubt for one second that there are some Christians (and some atheists, for that matter) who wish, in their heart of hearts, to live in a culture where they have encouragement and permission to kill their cultural enemies.

    But Christian institutions, and the huge majority of Christians themselves, are not engaging in murder. The ones that do are very few, so rare that they’re rightfully identified as anomalies in the Christian communities.

    Contrast that to Muslims, and any honest observer will see that the minority of Muslims who engage in murder of innocents is considerably larger, so that they HAVE to be taken seriously.

    Of course you can try to bypass religion completely and say that Western aggressions in Iraq and Palestine should be counted as Christian and Jewish aggression, respectivelly, but I don’t buy that either. I’m leftist enough to see economic interests, and heartless and myopic socio-political chess, as causes for the Iraq War, but I can’t see Bush killing somebody because they mocked Jesus.

    Susan – I would consider their disregard for their own lives and their ability to reduce other thinking people to objects to be removed in the name of their cause as a symptom of both despair and sociopathy. It’s not “bravery” in my personal dictionary.

  13. R. Maheras
    January 13, 2015 - 11:02 am

    Martha — The article goes back 30 years to get a “10 worst,” and one of the 10 was probably even a leftist — not a Christian fanatic. the total carnage was maybe 200 deaths — only because of McVeigh’s single incident in Oklahoma City.

    Conversely, if you tallied up the body count of people killed by radical Islamists during the same period, it’s probably at least a magnitude of a-thousand-to-one, or higher.

    Worse, most of the victim were other Muslims! Why? Several reasons. One is that radical Islamists believe that any collateral damage is God’s will. Another is that Sunnis do not believe Shiites or Kurds are true Muslims, and thus deserve to die a “non-believer’s” death. Shiites and Kurds, in turn, return the favor in kind.

    No, the attempt by liberals to make such “one-for-one” comparisons is inane, and is why their policies in the war on terror have failed so miserably. They are twisting themselves like pretzels to ignore the reality of the threat, or to compare apples to oranges. And they are embarrassing themselves, and the United States, in the process.

    The GOP’s failures in the war on terror were simply due to bad planning and incompetence. The Democrat’s failures are due to naiveté, avoidance and wishful thinking.

    Neither is doing this country any good.

  14. Martha Thomases
    January 13, 2015 - 2:08 pm

    Russ, I didn’t say that Christian (or Jewish, for that matter) had killed an equal number of people. I said that when they kill, the other people in their group get a pass.

  15. Rene
    January 13, 2015 - 3:14 pm

    Martha –

    Maybe because devout Christians committing killings in the name of God are enough of a rarity to be considered an anomaly in the present time.

    However, when a specific crime is frequent enough to merit it, Christians don’t get a pass. For instance, sexual abuse of children and the recent scandal in Ireland of the orphanage full of children’s remains, certainly has attracted criticism to all Catholic clergy.

  16. R. Maheras
    January 13, 2015 - 5:14 pm

    Martha — I don’t know about any free pass for Christian fanatics. McVeigh, the most notorious scumbag of the bunch, sure didn’t get one. He was reviled by almost everyone — right or left.

  17. Basil Reid
    January 13, 2015 - 5:28 pm

    Unless one doesn’t include groups such as the Lord’s Resistance Army, the Christian Identity lot or people like Anders Behring Breivik, there is no such thing as christian extremism. The first thing everyone says about any act of violence committed by such groups is, “Well, they’re a cult aren’t they?” Odd how no denomination want to be associated with fellow congregants who commit murder, and engage in terrorism, unless of course you’re the I.R.A., U.V.F., or an abortion doctor killer. Then they literally sing your praises from the pulpit. But let’s just keep the tally to the 20 years shall we? Would hate to bring up tricky wickets such as Bosnia and that minor dust up in the Balkans.

  18. Rene
    January 14, 2015 - 4:50 am

    Russ –

    To me, more than bad planning or incompetence, the GOP is guilty of using tragedies to go after older objectives that had little to do with said tragedies, like the fracas in Iraq. For all his talk, Bush’s efforts against Al-Qaeda always seemed half-hearted.

    Now, the modern Left has big ideological problems. Their response to Islamic Terrorism has been either to try and blame all religion, or to consider the terrorists (or even all Muslims) as zombies devoid of responsibility, mere mechanized playthings of larger forces.

    But Obama has little to do with the Left, really. Can we even call him a real Leftist? His idea that large-scale intervention in fractured foreign countries almost never is worth the bother is just good, old common sense to me, even though Right-Wing folks see it as cowardice or treason. We already had Vietnam and Iraq. They really think number 3 will be the lucky one?

  19. Bill Mulligan
    January 18, 2015 - 11:22 am

    Martha, as others have pointed out, it’s painfully silly to try to draw even the tiniest parallel between Christian and Muslim extremists. The numbers are…I can’t even say “lopsided”, it’s an insult to lops. In the last 30 days enough have been killed by Islamic extremists to make the ratio insanely unequal.

    Whenever someone mentions false rape charges, liberals often freak out and claim they represent only a tiny minority of case (such judgement often based on little or no data and the completely subjective view of what “insignificant” means) but for some reason they feel the need to mention irrelevancies like the crusades when talking about events that happened yesterday. We get it. You don’t lose your liberal cred condemning Islamic atrocities. It’s ok. Have respect for your readers.

    Here’s an example for today. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/16/in-graphic-videos-and-on-twitter-isis-members-record-and-tout-executions-of-gay-men.html

    (Of course, Harvey Milk was killed by a Christian so who’s to say we are any blah blah blah)

    Enough. If anyone tries to pin all atrocities done by Muslims on all Muslims here’s a simple reply (drumroll). “You’re wrong. That’s stupid. Try again.” Easily peasley. And if any Muslims whine that reporting this makes them look bad, well, you’re part of the problem then. Worry more about how your own people are being butchered than what outsiders might think about it.

  20. Rene
    January 18, 2015 - 1:15 pm

    Bill, you gotta understand that “but Christians do it too!!!” is used as punctuaction for Liberals. It’s almost like a reflex. Can’t be helped.

    Yeah, I also get tired of folks trying to say that Christian prudes looking embarassed when two guys kiss in public is the same as that African country that is applying the death penalty to gays.

    (But false rape charges still ARE a tiny minority of cases, buddy.)

  21. Bill Mulligan
    January 19, 2015 - 5:01 am

    Of the cases that go to court? I’m pretty sure they are. (Which is not exactly the same as saying everyone charged is guilty of the charge…though again, I’m likely to think the vast majority of people tried for high crimes are guilty of said crimes,which is why you don’t want me on a jury).

    I can’t quite say the same about rape or assault CHARGES, simply because I know of too many instances. And I may know more, the only reason I know of any is from either direct confession or casual admission from the people who did it. (The difference being whether or not they thought they did anything wrong). And if anything I think it may have gotten worse, my examples were from when one could still argue that being a sexual assault victim carried a great stigma. The number of admitted hoaxes on campuses these last few years suggests that, among some, being a victim carries certain currency..

    The greatest victims of this, besides anyone falsely accused, are those who ARE rapes and assaulted and who now face the doubts raised by the actions of the hoaxers. Which is why I would hope that even if one thinks everything I have said is nonsensical balderdash would agree that anyone who does that needs punishment of a nature and severity that would discourage any other idiots from following suit.

    For years rapists could count on shame and doubt to get away with it (as Bill Cosby is unsuccessfully attempting even today). Now so e are trying to swing the pendulum in another direction, one noted liberal even pointing that it would be maybe a GOOD thing for a few guys to get falsely accused, keep the rest on their toes. Since most people are not insane,that attitude is likely to lead to a swing back, too far back.

  22. Martha Thomases
    January 19, 2015 - 7:51 am

    Bill and Rene: I refer you to my current column, on this site. The reason to compare Muslim terrorists to other bigots (including ourselves) is not to excuse their behavior, but to understand its roots so that, perhaps, we can create change.

    And also, this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html

  23. Neil C.
    January 19, 2015 - 11:09 am

    What I find interesting is the same people who say that ‘moderate Muslims’ must speak about the extremists are the same people who accept everything their side at face value. Death panels, birtherism, immigrants with calves the size of cantaloupes, Benghazi conspiracies all ‘may have a point.’

  24. Rene
    January 19, 2015 - 6:19 pm

    Martha –

    The guy makes points that seem relevant only until you think twice. In the first part he keeps repeating that Muslims have carried a tiny minority of terrorist attacks, but more important than the number of attacks is the number of people killed. And more important than the number of people killed, is the number of “bystanders” killed.

    Contrary to what he says, the media pays attention when lots of people die, particularly ordinary people. Some separatist guys sending bombs that don’t actually kill anyone, or a radical leftist party killing a couple of members of a radical right-wing party will not capture people’s attention like an attack that kills lots of bystanders at once.

    I want to see a breakdown by number of victims, not by attempts.

    And in the second part of the text he shifts gears without warning and compares victims of Muslim terrorists to the much larger number of victims of ordinary crime or even accidents. If his point is that people have become desensitized to ordinary crime, I completely agree with him. They shouldn’t. They also shouldn’t become desensitized to terrorism.

  25. Bill Mulligan
    January 19, 2015 - 8:37 pm

    I certainly don’t think moderate Muslims have to do or say ANYTHING about the actions of the radicals. And since they are by far the majority of the victims of these lunatics, there are excellent reasons why they should not.

    They may NEED to do so if Islam is to continue to be a major factor. It’s a little hard to argue that the brand has been damaged and the fact that there are majority Muslim countries that feel the need to enforce the death penalty for apostasy suggests that even the radicals know this. Keeping people in the fold by threatening death is not the mark of an ideology confident in it’s future.

    Martha, I would never suspect that you would excuse the actions of these lunatics. As for their motivations, I note that it has been the case quite often that many of the radicals did not come from impoverished backgrounds. Some grew up in privilege, some have attained a level,of education undreamed of by many of their countrymen. Their motivation is the same, I suspect, as those Christian clinic bombers you mention; they haven’t gotten their way through persuasion so they resort to violence. Something is broken in their heads that keeps them from seeing the human collateral damage as anything worth being concerned about. I doubt that any culture breeds more or less of these damaged people but some probably provide enough opportunity that they can become successful politicians and gym coaches. And westerners get the message that killing people for their ethnicity is bad so even the crazies are aware that they are in the minority, while in some countries the unrelenting Jew-baiting propaganda might make sociopaths think their impulses could have an allowable outlet.

    So, in short, I think this motivation is that they are sick, possibly born sick, and there is little we can do about that. I think you can argue that we COULD change the culture that idealizes the actions of these sickos.

  26. Rene
    January 21, 2015 - 5:06 am

    Bill is right. Every human society has to contend with the fact that about 4% of their population is made of psychopaths. In Western societies, those psychos can become executives (if they’re smart) or football hooligans (if they’re not). In a not-so-jokey way, I wonder if we’re really that better off with greedy, unescrupulous execs, politicians, lawyers, and stockbrokers…

    About the “false” rape charges, can you point me to a site that mentions those confessed hoaxes, Bill? What I see a lot is unclear situations with she-said-he-said (most times with more than one she, so there is a conspiracy of calculating women trying to ruin a poor innocent guy’s life? I think not).

    Lack of definite proof isn’t automatically a “hoax”. The sad thing about sexual or emotional abuse of all kinds, even when men are the victim, is that the victim often comes accross as lunatic and unbalanced and the predator as a perfectly balanced and respectable, at least in broad daylight. Because LOTS of people refuse to believe that people can’t easily escape abusive situations and relationships, or they don’t believe that there are people who are so vile in the first place as to abuse their lovers and family. So the accusing person is the one who comes accross as paranoid, ungrateful, hallucinating.

  27. Bill Mulligan
    January 22, 2015 - 6:46 pm

    It’s an interesting question, Rene, I don’t know where one could get an accurate assessment of real/false accusations. It’s a VERY dicey issue! the kind of thing people really don’t even want to think about much.

    I mean, I could give you some links to cases where there was no doubt about false rape charges, but that doesn’t prove much. One could,d argue that two of the most famous rape cases that became national news–the Tawana Brawley hoax and the Duke rape scandal– show how easy it is to make false charges that are believed. But one could also argue that the same elements that made those cases so newsworthy also increased the likelihood that they were fake. (Similarly, the disaster of the Rolling Stone story fiasco can be explained by the fact that the writer was looking for The Big Story, not necessarily the True Story).

  28. Rene
    January 24, 2015 - 2:43 pm

    One common argument of feminists is that every false rape claim is given a lot of publicity, while there is an almost infinite number of unreported cases, but I think that has less to do with a patriarchal conspiracy of the press, and more to do with the more sensationalist cases or the ones involving celebrities to be the ones slightly more likely to be hoaxes.

    Most rapes and abuses are more likely to be sordid, pathetic, sad affairs that don’t make the victims into media stars. There is little motivation for engineering them.

    My deep conviction that there are vastly more rapist and abusers than false claimers isn’t out of some misguided notion of the superior morality of women, but the more cynical view that most people follow the path of least resistance. To commit a rape doesn’t take a lot of smarts. Many times a person with a broken mind, most likely inside that 4% of poor impulse control psychos, will have lots of opportunities to do it. Sometimes it only takes some scumbag the “guts” to walk down a shadowy corridor or to take advantage of the passed out lady right there.

    Now, engineering a false rape takes some smarts, quick thinking, a large dose of premeditated malice, chutzpah and cold blood to face the police and friends and all the circus that will form around yourself.

    One interesting story is that of the career start of Sigmund Freud. Some of his first studies where in his findings that pointed to a epidemic of sexual abuse of women and children in the 19th century. Seeing how adult males had all the power back there, I am absolutely convicted that Freud’s first impulse – to believe that that epidemic was actually happening, was the correct one.

    But Freud soon managed to convince himself that the victims were “hystericals” that managed to convince THEMSELVES that they were abuse victims. It’s tempting to say that is just because Freud was a sexist pig. Well, he sort of was, but it’s far more likely that he reacted this way because it was vastly more comforting than to face the truth, that behind all the closed doors of those normal houses, monsters lurked.

  29. Bill Mulligan
    January 25, 2015 - 2:05 pm

    I would agree with everything you said.

    We are now entering a weird place where if two people have drunken sex, the first one who reports the sex to the authorities is the victim, the other the rapist. Those cases would not be hoaxes…not entirely sure what I would call them.

Comments are closed.