October Notes: Clyde “Psychoquack Freakspiricist” Lewis, Redskins, and the Malala Haters
“I know that I spent an entire show speaking about a pattern that I am seeing and that statistically we are seeing more shootings under Obama’s presidency than any other administration.” – Clyde Lewis
Ground Zero Radio with Clyde Lewis: Driving home late at night I was listening to this Clyde guy rant about how Obama and the anti-gun lobby was behind recent shootings such in Chicago and Washington D.C.: The U.S. government orchestrates mass killings so they can eventually ban all guns and disarm the populace. Wow! It’s mighty tough to come up with a stupider conspiracy theory. So I went online to check out Clyde. Hear it is, straight from the Clyde’s mouth:
“After the Sandy Hook shootings and the literal gagging of all information about the case, I realized just who the soulless individuals capable of committing such atrocities are. They are the evil people that rule us and use these horrible and traumatic events to further their extremist political agendas.” – Clyde Lewis
The Redskins Are Going? Poll after poll weigh in on whether the Washington NFL team nickname “Redskins” is offensive to Native Americans. Redskin denotes dye on the face, or war paint, and whether it honors Native Americans or insults them seems a matter of opinion; not as clear as other racial slurs. Should they change the name? In North Dakota the state college’s Fighting Sioux changed their name, despite the Sioux nation approving the name in 2010. Namely, the Sioux voted to keep the name and the P.C. bick-ditches had to champion a moral placebo. This is a case of a democratic not racial minority trumping the majority. As to the Redskins, racism is a serious problem, and though the controversy seems to diminish actual victims and troubling history, the headlines and controversy disappear with a name change. I’d change the name, but the government and the law should not intervene. Media and free speech, though, can go full attack on the issue.
“Dronophobia: The irrational, abnormal and persistent fear of drone strikes.” – Kunwar Khuldune Shahid
Why I Hate Malala: “The sight of white men in suits applauding and gushing at Malala Yusufzai’s speech at the United Nations, the gushing media frenzy and vociferous support on social media was nauseating for me,” Sofia Ahmed.
Drones? The use of drones in warfare has brought vociferous protests . From the assassination of Anwar Al Awlaki in Yemen to their use in Afghanistan and Pakistan. All killing demands moral questioning. Why do drones cause more outrage than terrorists, suicide bombings, and conventional weapons? The Malala crowd seems to think the West is exploiting Malala’s story to justify drone attacks, oversimplifying by far. And, in another game of Tag, You’re Racist, they focus on an absurd racial element.
Racism: Malala’s supporters, white or not, are human, enough said.
“Anti-Malala vitriol is a direct expression of misogyny,” Lejla Kurić
Exploitation of Malala: Now let’s get this erect pencil straight, the West already has many reasons to intervene against extremists. But Malala is a net force for positive. Malala in no ways approves of killing civilians. To criticize drone strikes, in many ways, defends extremely violent terrorists. Sebastian Junger has written about how the Taliban discovered a site was to be bombed, and how the Taliban made sure children would be at the site to make “martyr propaganda.” But how to process or trust the data? The civilians are stuck between one big damned rock and an incredibly hard place. What to do against evil? What to do about the response to evil? Tough call.
“No Ordinary Violence” – Sam Harris