The Fighting DemocratIn which Richard Cohen stomps his little feet and yells, "Oh yeah! Well...so's you're old man!"
"Truth to tell, I peeked into only a few of the e-mails. I did this because I would sometimes recognize a name I thought I knew, which was almost always a mistake. When I guilelessly clicked on the name, I would get a bucket of raw, untreated and disease-laden verbal sewage right in the face..."
So welcome to the online world, Cohen. It's savage, raw and filled with people who say nasty things. Anybody who's run a blog, participated in an online forum or made the mistake of exercising an opinion and revealing their email address could tell you the same.
"Usually, the subject line said it all. Some were friendly and agreed that Colbert had not been funny. Most, though, were in what we shall call disagreement. Fine. I said the man wasn't funny and not funny has a bullying quality to it; others (including some of my friends) said he was funny. But because I held such a view, my attentive critics were convinced I had a political agenda. I was -- as was most of the press, I found out -- George W. Bush's lap dog. If this is the case, Bush had better check his lap..."
I not surprised you missed the point. What Colbert did, in the guise of his television character, is engage in a little "street theatre". He essentially told Bush he was a bully and a lying coward. He then turned to the Washington press and told them they were enabling whores, sitting down and breaking bread with Bush when they should have been out running down the evidence of his little criminal enterprise that he calls his administration. If Colbert was unfunny it is because Bush is not funny. The mainstream Press is not funny.
"What to make of all this? First, it's not about Colbert. His show has an audience of about 1 million -- not exactly "American Idol" numbers..."
Oooo, that had to hurt. I'm sure you have A MUCH WIDER AUDIENCE than Colbert. You sure put HIM in his place.
"The hatred is back. I know it's only words now appearing on my computer screen, but the words are so angry, so roiled with rage, that they are the functional equivalent of rocks once so furiously hurled during antiwar demonstrations. I can appreciate some of it. Institution after institution failed America -- the presidency, Congress and the press. They all endorsed a war to rid Iraq of what it did not have. Now, though, that gullibility is being matched by war critics who are so hyped on their own sanctimony that they will obliterate distinctions, punishing their friends for apostasy and, by so doing, aiding their enemies. If that's going to be the case, then Iraq is a war its critics will lose twice -- once because they couldn't stop it and once more at the polls."
What Cohen does here is advance the RED HERRING FALLACY. In his book "Attacking Faulty Reasoning", T. Edward Damer writes...
"The strange name of this fallacy comes from the sport of fox hunting. A herring is cooked to a brownish-red color and its strong smell is used to train dogs to follow the fox scent. Dogs that can be easily pulled off are not ready for the real hunt. People who oppose fox hunting also use herring to pull dogs off a scent. In argument, using a red herring means consciously or unconsciously steering a debate away from one issue to a different, perhaps related issue in such a way as to make it appear that the related issue is relevant to the issue at hand, but primarily as a means of avoiding the obligation of addressing the main issue or criticism."
In focusing on the bad language and "hatred" of his critics, Cohen plops down a big fat "red herring". In telling us that Colbert was "unfunny" and that his critics are "hateful" he avoids the main argument against Cohen himself: that what he writes is largely irrelevant and pointless and serves the purposes of those who are damaging this country.
Rather beastly of him, what?