Contrite Hitler Apologizes Tearfully; Book Deal Next?

[from 5/12/10]

I'm trying to understand the reactions of my fellow Seattleites to the "I'll beat the [expletive f-word] Mexican [expletive p-word] out of you homey" story. As we all know now, Gang Unit Officer Shandy Cobane said such words to an unarmed Hispanic-looking suspect lying in compliance on the ground, whose entire resistance to arrest consisted of saying he hadn't done anything. Then Officer Cobane kicked the man for resisting so much, or for looking Mexican, or for being in view on a Saturday, or who knows why. Then, another Seattle officer stomped on the man's leg. Then, they all figured out the man actually HADN'T done anything, and let him go.

My fellow Seattleites reacted to this with, "How could our police get away with using such offensive language?" The uproar about the offensiveness of Officer Cobane's language was so great that he was trotted out before cameras to tearfully apologize for his bad mouth. This apology came swiftly, if, by "swiftly", you only count the time from the broad public dissemination of the reporter's video of the event, and not the time from the event itself (3 whole weeks).

Does everybody in Seattle keep their brains on their dressers at home in formaldehyde, just to bring out for show at parties?

This just in: Hitler has been found alive and well, running Adolf's "Blitz" Storm Door and Marriage Counseling Service near Pissatchoo, WA. He was confronted yesterday in Seattle with a video juxtaposing images of 1945 concentration camp victims being buried in a mass grave with him making speeches offensive to Jews. Mr. Hitler was overcome with remorse, and told the Seattle audience "I know my words cut deep and were very hurtful. Please know that I am truly, truly sorry." He went on to promise that, if allowed to direct the affairs of a modern nation again (in spite of his advanced age), he would arrange for the slaughter of its unwanted people with decency and dignity, using respectful language at all times. Seattleites, although calling for an investigation, we're nevertheless impressed by the deep shame Mr. Hitler showed for using improper language while exterminating a people.

Doesn't anybody out there know what the word "offensive" means anymore? Are you all too busy demanding that Mexicans learn English to take the time to learn it yourselves, and how to think with it?

"Offensive" = relating to an offense or an attack. It concerns attack, primarily. It can also refer to insult, but note that the original meaning of insult was also to attack. Literally, "in-sult" - leap upon, assault.

WHY IS IT EVER WRONG TO INSULT PEOPLE? This isn't a rhetorical question, Seattle, this is homework. The question being asked here is, what is the purpose of avoiding the use of so-called offensive language? Wherein lies the offense? Is it just so you don't have to make tearful apologies at press conferences? Is it so that you don't hurt the feelings of the people you kick in the head? Or is there another reason you haven't thought of? [HINT: There is another reason. Find it.]

Can anyone at all anymore distinguish the concepts "derogatory" and "offensive?"  Is there more than 30% of the population that can even parse the situation at hand well enough to realize that calling someone a Mexican is not an insult in any sense of the word at all? That the insult came from the identification of that nationality with waste fluids, not simply from making a personal identification?

Questions to Further Put Down Seattle

1. True or False (reading comprehension): The author is a bleeding heart liberal, who thinks it's never OK to beat a man who's down and not posing a threat to anyone.

2. Essay question (critical thinking): If someone's feeling was that it's OK to beat someone when they're down and not a threat, would it ever be OK to hurt that feeling?

3. Which are more important? Feelings, or people? Think carefully before answering.

Also Against Ending All Life On Earth

We here at Adventures in Poetry want to proudly go on record as being firmly opposed to eating babies. We are also against torturing animals, raping in general, pillaging, maiming, arson, stealing, and breaking other people's things for the fun of it.

We bring this up now because this week a bunch of folks suggested that I write today in support of the Seattle Times' decision last week to run Tami Silicio's photo of flag-draped coffins of deceased U.S. soldiers on their way home from Iraq. Yes I, Dr. Wes Browning, will personally stick my neck out right here on this page, and take a stand in favor of free speech and opposed to totalitarianism.

Let me sum up my position up right now, so that those of you who need no convincing can go back to eating your egg salad sandwich or making out or whatever you were doing before this column interrupted you: Totalitarianism, bad. Government propaganda, bad. Government censorship and lies, bad. Free Speech, good.

As you surely know by now, as it's been in all the papers, Tami Silicio put the Times on the fast track to its next Pulitzer by giving them the opportunity to defy the Pentagon's ban on printing photos of flag-draped coffins of U.S. soldiers.

I'll tell you how clueless I was. I was so clueless it never occurred to me that the Pentagon had a ban on printing such photos. Oh, I figured there was a rule against printing photos in which the identities of the fallen soldiers were indicated, sure. But surely not photos where you couldn't tell who was in the coffins.

But, no. Our government has a rule against it, and commercial military contractors like Maytag Aircraft are understandably afraid to defy the Pentagon that hires them, so they let Silicio and her husband go, and they would have fired her little dog too, if she had one and it was in range.

Now, some kinds of censorship I expect. I'm not saying I'm in favor of any kind of censorship, but I won't get all huffy about it if the Times is denied their First Amendment right to show naked people copulating on their front page. While personally I believe it should be up to the Times to decide whether that would be a good choice, I'm willing to let the opposition have that one.

But this instance of censorship is inexcusable.

Yet, the government is making an excuse, and we are forced to answer it. The excuse is that the photo could offend some people among the families of the dead.

Answer number one: Very few relatives of dead U.S. servicemen have stepped forward to claim offense in this particular case, probably in part due to the fact that YOU CAN'T TELL WHO THE DEAD IN THE PICTURE ARE, FOR PETE'S SAKE. Hello, you can't even tell if the coffins are occupied. Sheesh.

Answer number two: The freedom at the press is at stake here. The first amendment doesn't say its OK for the government to practice censorship if someone might be offended by something.

By the way, it probably would offend George W. Bush's sensitivity were he to read this column (which can't happen 'cause he don't read, he only looks at pictures) if I were to say that he deserves to be impeached for dealing with the Saudi oil producers to influence the next election. Should I therefore be prevented from saying it? No, because the importance of being able to say such things outweighs any offense it may give George W. Bush.

I care much more about the feelings of the families of fallen servicemen than I do about those of Bush, but the principle remains the same. Their feelings, whether appropriate or not, don't trump the national interest. And in this case the national interest does not lie with the Pentagon. It lies with freedom of the press and the freedom of speech.