|
[Previous entry: "Cyber-Kim"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Twin Towers and Blackbirds"] 02 April 2003: "Something Rotten in the State of Washington"
It seems that Rachel Corrie will not be allowed to rest in peace for the foreseeable future; as Bill Herbert notes in COINTELPRO Tool, "comments suggesting that this young woman got what was coming to her were wrong, regardless of her [...] misplaced sympathies." Hear, hear. The "Darwin award" jokes aren't really doing anything besides give this idiot [Antonia Zerbisias of the Toronto Star] a case.Again, hear bloody hear. One of the people to make a "Darwin award" remark (if it was an attempt at a joke, even one intended to be in bad taste, it failed utterly) is Hans Zeiger, of Puyallup, WA in his column, titled "Mourning Rachel Corrie: a tragedy of the radical Left" Zeiger actually directs most of his vitriol—there is no other word for it—at The Evergreen State College, of which Carolyn, my wife, is a graduate. She was so dismayed by Zeiger's invective that felt compelled to write a rebuttal to Zeiger's piece. I should note that, of the two of us, she's the reasonable, classy one. You see, from my point of view, Zeiger has a very special talent: he made me want to change my stance on the death of Rachel Corrie, the war against Iraq, and various other issues, for no other reason than that I did not want to be on the same side of the issue as him. (Warning: the rest of this entry contains strong, spiteful and vicious language and probably violates Godwin's Law.) My revulsion piqued by Zeiger's column, I perused some of his other stuff, and I could only conclude that Hans Zeiger is one of the most odious little pricks to utter a political opinion in the media since a 16 year-old William Hague held his toe-curling speech at the 1977 Tory Party conference in Blackpool. The association was an obvious one, since—according to his (self-authored) bio—Zeiger is 17 years old himself. Now, it's nothing out of the ordinary for a teenager to be opinionated, but the set of opinions Zeiger espouses seem more appropriate to a middle-aged member of the John Birch Society than a 17 year-old. In his article "Protesting the Protestors" (printed in the Seattle Times, probably in some misplaced attempt at even-handedness*) Zeiger shows his colours in more way than one: I carry the flag in downtown Seattle because I believe in what it stands for: republican government, unity, faith, liberty and justice for all.What's this? I may be a recent immigrant, but I was led to believe the flag stood for the Republic, not for "Republican government." I'd better check my copy of the Constitution... Ah, I see, Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government [...]Zeiger's injudicious use of language—an impediment to one who practices Lincoln-Douglas debate, one would think, so Zeiger evidently needs to keep practicing—might lead one to believe he meant something else. Maybe he actually believes the Constitution says the Republicans should be in power; given that the present-day Republican Party wasn't founded until more than sixty years after the ratification of the Constitution, though, that interpretation would be hard to maintain. While I'm flipping through the Constitution anyway, there's something called "Amendment I" here: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [...]So much for the flag standing for faith, then; matters of faith concern the individual, not the state. Clearly, there is too much time on the hands of such groups as Paddlers for Peace, Peddlers for Peace, Poets for Peace and Nudists for Peace.Given that Zeiger's in downtown Seattle to protest them, I'm not sure who has too much time on their hands. Hasn't he got homework to do? Of course, Zeiger's hypocrisy best comes to light in his claim that he somehow supports liberty; he may support it for himself and others who think (and I use the term loosely) like him, but when it comes to the freedoms of people with different worldviews, he is less interested. No, his "principles" as he erroneously insists on calling them, "are the forces of good that are at odds with terror, slavery and oppression." By implication, of course, the anti-war protestors—indeed, anyone who subscribes to the (to paraphrase) "overwhelmingly hideous leftist worldview"—embodies the latter category, and thus the First Amendment does not apply to them. Of course, I say "them" but since I'm pretty certain I stand well to the left of Zeiger, clearly my worldview must be "overwhelmingly hideous" as well, my support for the war against Iraq notwithstanding. But rest assured, dear reader, even when faced with this "overwhelming hideousness," Zeiger remains undaunted: I chuckle and thank God these people are not in the majority in this country.I mean, how does anyone get quite so conceited in only seventeen years? Is there some "dietary supplement" you can take? As Carolyn pointed out, this kid refers to Rachel Corrie as "young and fragile"; I wonder how Hans Zeiger would cope with living rough in the Gaza Strip for two months. Oh, without any problem of course, because Hans is—as he does not hesitate to point out with false insouciance—an Eagle Scout. Though as far I'm aware, the BSA doesn't give merit badges for "Maintaining an exposed position in the face of live fire." Even better, he's the founder of the Scouting Defense Coalition, and thus presumably the author of its mission statement, the first paragraph of which reads: To inform the general American public about the dangers that threaten to destroy the Boy Scouts of America moral code, the family, the value of honor and the first amendment right to the freedom of assembly. These dangers include the movements for homosexuality and atheism.Because, as we all know, it's impossible to have any moral code or honour if you're an atheist (like me), and as Hans has already pointed out, "perversion nor disgusting are adequate words" where homosexuality is concerned. (Considering that the seminal work of Scouting movements worldwide is a book titled Scouting for Boys, I've always wondered whether the ladies at the BSA did not protest too much, to put it bluntly.) But of course, the Scout Oath must be protected—it's tradition! Never mind the fact that Baden-Powell himself explicitly wrote it as a promise rather than an oath, and that the original text of the Promise reads: [...] I will do my best to do my duty to God and the King(Evidently, old B-P never considered the possibility that any Scout would not be a subject of His Brittanic Majesty.) So, as we see, the BSA has made two rather major modifications to the original Scout's Promise already, and it might be noted that the ideals of Scouting do not seem to have been compromised by Scouting organisations in the rest of the world no longer requiring their members to believe in God. It also seems rather incongruous that the BSA has (or at least professes to have) no problem with Buddhists, despite the fact that Buddhists don't believe in any god either. What's also incongruous is that the BSA, in its "Fact Sheet: Scouting Around the World" states that the first two "Worldwide Principles" are:
(Don't bother e-mailing to tell me the BSA is a private organisation, etc. I've heard it all before, and I'll accept that argument the moment the BSA stops accepting subsidies in the form of special rates for camping on state and federally-owned land, etc. and openly admits it's become a bigoted, intolerant paramilitary youth organisation, but not before.) Of course, that leaves a question of cause and effect; is Hans Zeiger such an enthusiastic little brownshirt because he was already a bigot, or did he get that way in the BSA? Perhaps a mixture of both. Back to conceit: Hans also bills himself as the Research Assistant at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF), a public policy think-tank organization in Olympia, Washington, dedicated to improved education, accountability in state government, and individual responsibility.Interestingly, a quick look at the EFF's staff list shows that Hansel is not listed as an EFF staff member, let alone as "the Research Assistant"; there is one "Research Assistant" on the list, and that is one Joel Sorrell. (It might be noted that the Evergreen Freedom Foundation—not to be confused with the Electronic Frontier Foundation which handily managed to nab all the "EFF" domain names—has been described by Media Transparency as a private interest law firm masquerading as a non-profit organisation; the organisation's primary focus of privatising public services has not prevented it from benefiting from its 501(c)(3) nonprofit tax status.) His absence on the staff list notwithstanding, Hans goes on to describe himself as "the youngest public policy research expert in the country"; I can only wonder what he considers himself an "expert" in. Presumably nothing to do with the Foundation's primary focus, since Hans attends a public high school; perhaps he's really good at operating the fax machine and the coffee maker. (I'm tempted to set up my own "think tank" and hire one the kids from down the street as a consultant, just so that Zeiger would have to remove that line.) Unsurprisingly, Hans' other activities include agitating against equal rights for homosexuals and against abortion rights (where does he find the time?); he refers to abortion as "infanticide," for instance in this article (an 11-paragraph argumentum ad populum). I'll just quote a line: [1985] was the year I was born, and the year that 1.6 million of my fellow American citizens were murdered in abortion clinics.That pretty much sets the tone. From the Constitution of the United States, Amendment XIV, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.When I point out that actually being born is necessary prerequisite to American citizenship, I'm not just being pedantic. I mean, really, has this kid even read the Constitution? What, in concluding, can I possibly say about Hans Zeiger that isn't glaringly obvious already? He's an opinionated, bigoted, hypocritical, odious and at times mendacious little prick. And I just know that, for all his stated disapproval of "pornography," he owns a copy of Slander. Considering that the word "pornography" is derived from the Greek πορνη (prostitute) and γραφειν (to write or draw), and what an utter media whore Ann Coulter is, I find the irony nothing less than sublime. * - In its defence, the Seattle Times "NEXT" section also provided me with some atropine in the form of this bliss ninny to counteract the dose of Zeigklon B, and also this article which made me change my mind about entirely forsaking the "next generation." Thank you, John Hieger. |
Navigation: home archives backgrounder Blogs:
au currant Miscellanea:
Care to contribute |
