Roger Ebert: The anger of the festering fringe

[Pirate Smile]

The anger of the festering fringe

By Roger Ebert on October 1, 2009 2:06 PM



I've had these thoughts for some time, but have been reluctant to express them. Now so many others have voiced them that it's pointless to remain silent. I am frightened by the climate of insane anti-Obama hatred in this country. I'm not referring to traditional conservatives or Republicans. They're part of the process. I'm speaking of the lunatic fringe, the frothers, the extremist rabble who are sweeping up the ignorant and credulous into a bewildering and fearsome tide of reckless rhetoric.

There have always been nuts. Remember when the John Birch society thought Kennedy was a communist? In those innocent days most of the American people were reasonable. They'd shake their heads in wonder at such a weird notion. Kennedy might be one of those liberals, but he wasn't a commie. And when people said Johnson murdered Kennedy? Also ridiculous. But slowly, ominously, things began to change. After his death, it was said that Edward Kennedy was a Soviet agent. These theories have rabid subscribers.

Obama is a Muslim. Obama was born in Kenya. Obama was a terrorist. Obama will destroy Medicare. Obama will kill your grandmother. Obama is a racist. Obama wants atheism taught in the schools. Obama wants us to pay for the health care of illegal immigrants.

These beliefs are held by various segments of our population. They are absurd. Any intelligent person can see they are absurd. It is not my purpose here to debate them, because such debates are futile. With the zealous True Believers there is no debating. They feed upon loops within loops of paranoid surmises, inventions which are passed along as fact. Sometimes those citing them don't even seem to care if you believe them. Sometimes they may not believe them themselves. The purpose is to fan irrational hatred against our president.

Were liberals angry about Bush? Yes. But liberals played by the rules. What are we to make of the recent suggestion on the "respected" right-wing site NewsMax, later withdrawn, that "it might not be such a bad thing" if the U. S. military rose up and overthrew Obama in a coup? That sort of talk belongs on a password-protected neo-Nazi or Klan site, not in a place where ostensibly intelligent people look for information. Where were the editors? What did they think? If they're "conservatives," do they support the overthrow of our government by a coup?

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/10/the_anger_of_the_festering_fri.html

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Kick for Roger

[TeaBagsAreForCups]

2. Powerful...

.... just unbelievably powerful.

It's not only worth a full read, but a kick back to the top.

Let's see this stay at the top tier of GD for the next 24 hours.

Thanks, Roger. You were always one hell of a writer when it was native to your own genre, you have now moved to the level of excellence in cultural and political commentary as well.

[alstephenson]

3. +1

[Owl]

4. K&R

[noiretextatique]

5. roger totally gets it...another excellent piece

he's really been up in arms about the crazies.

[Cha]

65. Roger had an article during the Campaign ..titled,

"Guess Who's Not Coming To Dinner?" that was bloody brilliant!

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080928/COMMENTARY/809289997/-1/RSS

[Liberal In Texas]

6. Two thumbs up. n/t

[Ikonoklast]

7. The PTB want the fringe to do the unspeakable act they themselves speak of

in private.

[Omnibus]

8. I like how he referred to the Southern racists as a "poisoned pill".

"When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, he is said to have observed that with one signature he had lost his Democrats the South. It took moral courage to sign that bill. He did indeed lose the Southern racists, who were to its shame embraced by the GOP -- a poisoned pill, it is becoming obvious."

[Gabi Hayes]

9. I love Roger. he's always known what he was talking about, heh:

''During a 2004 visit to The Howard Stern Show, Ebert predicted that the then-junior Illinois senator Barack Obama would be very important to the future of the country''

[Toucano]

10. +1

Thank you Mr. Ebert.

[Catshrink]

11. K&R

Excellent!

[ThoughtCriminal]

12. I'll never forget his review of "North"

"I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it."

If the Birthers ever make a movie, I'll skip it and just enjoy the review.

[troubledamerican]

13. Ebert's a great writer on many topics.

I have a great many quotes from Ebert stuck in my memory.

From a movie review of "I Am A Camera" -- "... me no Leica."

[Arugula Latte]

31. *spray*

Damn, that's clever! :spray:

[Kolesar]

40. Funny!

[LeftinOH]

16. I saw 'North' specifically because of his review- it wasn't great, but it wasn't terrible either.

[Javaman]

33. sort of like a bad donut.

you wanted it, you ate it, but you didn't like it, but in the end, even a bad donut isn't all that bad. Just lost time. LOL

[barbtries]

14. definitely worth the entire read

from the article:
Among the things the schools often don't instill is a sense of curiosity. Too many kids have tuned out. They nurture a a dull resentment against those who know more. Feeling disenfranchised, they blame those who seem to have more information and more words. Some of these victims may in fact be quite intelligent. Some of them may grow up to become fringers. Read the web sites of conspiracy zealots and you will find articulate people who can write well. Their handicap is that they missed the boat when it sailed toward intellectual maturity, and now they're rowing furiously in pursuit, waving a pirate flag. Their screeds are a facsimile of reasoned, sensical arguments. They don't know the words, but hum a few bars and they'll fake it.

roger ebert has really nailed it. i hope this gets a huge number of readers.

[truedelphi]

59. Your post made me more curious than the

OP itself. Will take the time to read all of Ebert's remarks.

[Lilyhunter]

15. Well said, Mr. Ebert

Thank you for your eloquence and your courage.

[eppur_se_muova]

54. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Grassy Knoll]

68. Yes , Welcome !

:hi:

[Echo In Light]

17. Scarier yet in realizing this corporatist admin is considered far Left to the RW herd

[SammyWinstonJack]

18. +1 nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. "muslim" "terrorist" "atheist" "corporatist" "socialist"

It's all the same fringe crap.

[Echo In Light]

28. Depends upon the context in which the terms are applied

Applying "corporatist" to any U.S. admin is precise and factual.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. Yeah, they say the same thing about "muslim" and "communist."

Same loose grip on reality.

[Echo In Light]

34. I'm unaware of the "they" you're referring to, and I'm speaking to the nature of power in the U.S.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. No you're not.

You're just whinging.

[Echo In Light]

37. Run along, right-winger, and go pick a fight with someone who gives a shit about you, cause I don't

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. Right winger? See? More McCarthyist style attacks.

Corporatist. Rightwinger. Muslim. Terrorist. Etc.

You've got nothing.

[DireStrike]

67. Makes about as much sense as claiming the US isn't corporatist.

[noiretextatique]

47. +1

:hi:

[wolfgangmo]

50. Which is kind of like when they mention vaccinations

And you go completely off the rails, isn't it HiFrucPron?

Bwahahahahaha.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. They're usually two separate sorts of nuts.

But sometimes they're the same, yeah.

[Politicub]

19. He is brilliant, and I hope this and Grayson portend a liberal uprising

We've had enough of the rabid right's lies, and we're going to speak out.

No more mincing words or looking at the lunatics as harmless. They are dangerous and should be considered as such.

But they are also bullies. And like any bully, they will back down when confronted.

[Hubert Flottz]

20. "do they support the overthrow of our government by a coup?"

Like what happened on December 12, 2000?

[wolfgangmo]

52. That's a specious question.

Of course they do.

[Kajsa]

21. Roger is a gracious man,

"inventions which are passed along as fact."

That is the most polite description of a lie
I've ever seen.

K&R

[FourScore]

22. Thanks, Mr. Ebert! k/r

[Hidden Stillness]

23. Look in a Mirror, Male

Why do males only get "upset" or "frightened" when anger or hate is directed against other males, but never against us? Why is it "so scary" that Obama is portrayed as Hitler, yet when the Obama campaign itself made an ad portraying Hillary Clinton as a huge, Soviet-like screen projection of a "horrible, ball-busting uppity 'bitch', " all of the "liberal males" just laughed and called it "clever" and "funny"?

What do you think women felt like when O.J. Simpson battered the woman victim for years, male police never helped her but only protected the male abuser, she was murdered and the male got away with it, and we heard crowds all along the streets and on the male media shouting "Go, O.J.!" and cheering? What do you THINK we FELT like? Yet no male was ever "afraid" of that violent, oppressive anger, that I ever read or heard of. I turn on the TV at any time, and find women raped and murdered for "entertainment," commercials whose sole plot-line is that women are "so fucking stupid and trivial," rap and rock songs threatening to rape women if they don't know their place--on and on, and I never hear a sound against it, from males. Guess it isn't scary; it's fun.

What do you think women feel like when here on DU, women are attacked with the most vulgar, anti-women bigotry, and the posts are not even deleted. There is one prick on another thread attacking one of the best posters on DU, by claiming she is upset because of her menstrual period, yet that bigotry is not deleted. Even when horrible people like Sarah Palin are criticized, you can bet that when males join the thread, it will instantly turn to vulgar hatred against women generally.

You caused this by never opposing it until now, but exploiting it against women and girls because it worked for you then. Male violence is the problem, not some sub-set of "them." This is just reaping the later developments of what all males have sown by using it against the victims they have never cared about, and now finding it out of their control. None of this is new.

[Dumak]

36. Yeah, right

You caused this by never opposing it until now, but exploiting it against women and girls because it worked for you then.

So Roger Ebert, one of the most kind-hearted people in existence, hates women? I guess you've never watched his movie reviews. Your hatred of all men seems to be based on a few examples seen in the media.

[Kolesar]

39. I didn't "laugh" at that "campaign ad" and it was not made by the Obama campaign

The Macintosh-takeoff, I presume you mean

[katkat]

48. Hidden Stillness

If a post is over the edge, email the admins. I don't think they can review everything. I did that when another poster called me a whore and the post was deleted.

You make an excellent point. There is an enormous amount of anti-female bigotry tolerated in society and DU. One has only to read the Roman Polanski threads to see that.

However, although it is minor in comparison, there are any number of females promulgating hatred as well - Palin, Coulter, etc.

We have a long way to go as a society - misogyny, racism, it's all still out there.

[Hidden Stillness]

53. Thank You for This Reply

Thank you for the thoughtfulness of your reply, understanding that the problem is of many types, and the bigotry against women, no matter how violent and sneering, is not treated with the seriousness and outrage as the bigotry against male racial groups, for example; total hypocrisy. Also, I have no problem with strong anger against Palin, Coulter, etc.--they are disgusting people, but as you also understand, there is a difference when the anger is not just deserved, against these sickening individuals, but instantly becomes hatred against all women, excused.

Also, by the way, to the poster of reply #36, despite your inability to grasp anything I wrote about, the one point you made was to remind me that people might have taken it as an anti-Ebert remark, which it certainly was not. I love Roger Ebert, have many Ebert books, ("Roger Ebert's Book of Film" is one of my favorites), and have prayed countless times over the years for Ebert's state of health. Your denial of the existence of bigotry, claiming, yet again, the tired old line "hate all males," really impresses no one who does not already agree with your attacks on women. To clear it up, though. it was a general statement--even about "the liberal males" on DU!--and not directed even slightly at Roger Ebert. When there are threads specifically about violence and bigotry against women, though, males like you don't read them.

[Doctor_J]

60. Are you in the right thread?

:shrug:

[Richardo]

24. One of the best American writers today

Read the web sites of conspiracy zealots and you will find articulate people who can write well. Their handicap is that they missed the boat when it sailed toward intellectual maturity, and now they're rowing furiously in pursuit, waving a pirate flag.

The man knows his way around a metaphor.

[Stumbler]

25. Two thumbs up!

[Stuart G]

26. Please take the time to link to the entire article..read it all. very important...

Thanks if you do..Stuart

[Vidar]

29. K&R

[redqueen]

32. Huge K&R (nt)

[Amonester]

41. Besides, since the bu$h/cheney junta did not impose Martial Law

after ALL THE CRIMES THEY DID

I'm pretty confident nobody else would...

[colsohlibgal]

42. Maximum Thumbs Up! Five Stars!

Tell it Roger.

[hypocrisyandlies]

43. Loved it!

Reading the comments at the bottom (on the actual link, not here) is a little disheartening, though. It truly scares me that there are people out there that believe this crap.

[Strelnikov_]

44. Damn, if they ever remake "Mother Night" . .

Obama would look damn good as "The Black Fuhrer of Harlem".

Hell, with that look, maybe we can pitch a spinoff . .

Time to get Ari Gold on the phone . .

[BREMPRO]

45. this reminds me of when i was a teenager in the 70's

and me and my friends would laugh at the televangelist and the idiots who followed them. They were a crazy fringe and were treated as such by the mainstream media.

Then something happened.

THe mainstream media started taking them SERIOUSLY, and especially in the area of public policy and politics. Politicians (Republicans) embraced them and their ideas in an effort for votes and power. They realized they could exploit and grow their numbers for power by giving them mainstream legitimacy. This was about the same time that the MSM was bought out by corporations, (6 corporations controlling most of the media), and RW talk radio started blanketing the country. My believe is that they were adopted by corporate elites because they opposed many democratic reforms that were not in their direct interest, pushed policies that benefited those corporations, and their followers were fanatic and easily manipulated. They could be organized to diminish liberal influence and policy.

Now enter the internet, where not only sane reasonable people could share ideas and create community, but these island of idiocy could also organize and create communities. Instead of taking their marching orders from the TV church, their alternate universe is now coming from Faux News and RW talk radio, mainstream media that reflects their fears and prejudices, their ideas of liberty and freedom and are echoed and reinforced online at Free Republic. Their reality is now so much out of the mainstream, and strongly shared among their community, that when they are confronted with anything that has a whiff of liberalism, they go berserk. They are pawns in a pathological corporate game, and yet they don't know it because their reality if framed and reinforced by these certifiably psychopathic corporations and media. They are armed and dangerous. Add to this a deep economic recession, loss of jobs that is being exploited to great effect with blame now being shifted to Obama for his efforts to repair the damage to our economy.

The right is losing the demographic game and their only hope is the fanaticism of their followers. They are now playing that card. Hence the birthers, death threats, marxism/fascism conspiracies, assault rifles at public meetings. All of this given mainstream legitimacy by faux/RW radio and what's left of the Republican party (radicals) after years of moderates being voted out for conservative democrats (blue-dogs).

Corporate power is at the heart of this problem,and the only way I see to diminish their influence is to reverse their status as persons, utilize the ability of congress to disband corporations who break the law, and have publicly financed elections. Lets get to work!

[SlingBlade]

46. Yep, Call Them Out !

[laughingliberal]

49. Kick nt

[Overseas]

55. K&R. //nt

[Initech]

56. Bravo for Ebert for sticking it to the teabaggers!

[Richd506]

57. Liked Roger Ebert before. Like him even more now

[SlingBlade]

58. Yep, K & R Bigtime :)

[LaPera]

61. Roger Ebert truly a fine writer & liberal-Also here's Roger's review on Michael Moore's new film

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090930/REVIEWS/909309994

(Excerpt)

The loudest voice in Michael Moore's latest film speaks to us from the grave. It belongs to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, less than a year before his death, calling for a Second Bill of Rights for Americans. He says citizens have a right to homes, jobs, education and health care. In measured, judicious words, he speaks gravely to the camera.

Until a researcher for Moore uncovered this footage, it had never before been seen publicly. Too ill to deliver his State of the Union address to Congress in person, Roosevelt delivered it on the radio, and then invited in Movietone News cameras to film additional footage in which he advocates for the Second Bill of Rights. It was included in no newsreels of the time. Today, eerily, it still seems relevant, and the improvements he calls for are still unachieved.

In moments like that, Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story" speaks eloquently. At other times, his message is a little unclear. He believes that capitalism is a system which claims to reward free enterprise but in fact rewards greed. He says it is responsible for accumulation of wealth at the top: The richest 1 percent of Americans have more than the bottom 95 percent combined. At a time when America debates legalized gambling, it has long been practiced on Wall Street.

But what must we do to repair our economy? Moore doesn't recommend socialism. He has faith in the ballot box, but believes Obama has been too quick to placate the rich and has not brought about substantial reforms. The primary weapon that Moore employs is shame. That corporations and financial institutions continue to exploit the majority of Americans, including tea baggers and Town Hall demonstrators, is a story that hasn't been told.

Here are two shocking revelations Moore makes. The first involves something that is actually called "dead peasant insurance." Did you know that companies can take out life insurance policies on their workers, so that they collect the benefits when we die? This is one form of employee insurance they don't have a problem with. Companies don't usually inform a surviving spouse of the money they've made from a death.

(More on Ebert's review of Moore's new film)

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090930/REVIEWS/909309994

[myrna minx]

62. K&R n/t

[butterfly77]

63. Kick &Recommended!!!

[Cha]

64. I knew this would be very good from Roger Ebert..

thanks Pirate Smile.

Did he have to have those drawings of PO to go along with his article?:( Is that like the New Yorker article with Obama and Michelle made up as Muslims on the cover?

[DireStrike]

66. Haha, I love his pithy responses to the comments

To a long screed about how liberals "broke the rules" by saying bush lied, should be impeached, stole an election, violated the constitution... that such things are examples of the hatred and lies coming from the left, Ebert says only"

Ebert: Was the 2000 election stolen? Did Bush lie to get us into war? Did Bush violate the Constitution?

Yes.


Also this:



Now is the time for the naming of names. Now is the time for the telling.

You are a key fulcrum, Herr Ebert. Keep it up.

By the way, was there not another Ebert, about 70 years ago or so, who did not stand up? Look what happened then.

Ebert: As Freidrich Ebert died in 1925, he didn't get much of an opportunity, did he?

I congratulate you, Comrade Seidel, on your relative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Seidel