Billings

In this space in the past, I have expressed less than complete disagreement with Laura Billings of the Saint Paul Pioneer Press.

It's time I fixed that.

The reporter's dictum is to cover the who, what, when, where and why of a story. Today's Billings editorial covers the who, and some what - while ignoring a lot of inconvenient wheres, whats and whys.

Jessica Lange is against it. So is Susan Sarandon.

Bonnie Raitt's not in favor of bombing Baghdad. Neither are Michael Stipe, Madonna and Martin Sheen, who plays a president on television but thinks the real one is a "moron.''

When it comes to the impending war on Iraq, a phalanx of famous faces is speaking out against it

Ever read Jackie Harvey? He's a fictional columnist in "the Onion", a humor 'zine from New York (nee Madison). The fictional Harvey's schtick is that he quotes - and mis-quotes - stars and starlets completely disingenuously, with a wide-eyed joy at the wonder of the whole entertainment industry; it's like reading a column on Pokemon written by a third grade boy.

Billings' column reminds me of Harvey - the same uncritical, ingenuous acceptance of the word of a "star" as the word of gospel, against the benighted dissidents - like giving credence to a psychiatric diagnosis given by Martin Sheen.

Let's pursue this:

Which means that everything they say is being blasted by pro-war pundits, who believe celebrities should confine their opinions to the Zone diet and stay out of demilitarized zones.

Three points here:

• First, Ms. Billings - the demilitarized zones aren't really the problem, here. It's the militarized ones that most of us are concerned about. (Does anyone edit this stuff?)
• Pro-war zealots? Tell you what, Ms. Billings - I'll take that on, if you and Mr. Sheen will call yourself "pro-dictatorship agitants". It fits about as well.
• A good part of the reason their opinions are being blasted from the right is that they're using their stardom to advance opinions that are too ludicrously simplistic to ever see the light of day...if spoken or written by any regular schmuck on the street.

To wit:

Take for instance the shellacking that singer Sheryl Crow recently got after appearing at the American Music Awards in a T-shirt sequined with the message "War is not the answer.'' As she told reporters, "I think war is based in greed and there are huge karmic retributions that will follow. I think war is never the answer to solving any problems. The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies."

Had Moonbeam Birkenstock (St. Catherines, Class of '73) spoken about "Karmic Disturbances" ensuing from bombing Iraq, she'd have been laughed off the set by any sentient reader - or, for that matter, any Pioneer Press columnist. But since it's Sheryl Crow...suddenly, it's credible?

Though Jesus Christ, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. all expressed similar thoughts, they didn't have the misfortune of living in a world with FOX News. Conservative critics were worse to her than music critics, referring to her as a "noted geopolitical strategist" who "probably thinks Saddam Hussein is a New York City cabdriver.''

Two points:

• Ms. Billings - Christ had the Roman Empire and the will of his father both implicit in his "death"; Gandhi faced a Moslem assassin with a pistol; Dr. King had hundreds of years of racism focused at the point of a .243 Marlin in the hands of a redneck zealot. Yep - nothing compared to Fox News...
• Christ, King and Gandhi had redeeming value, and displayed great intelligence and world-altering wisdom. Sheryl Crow sings "Soak Up the Sun".

Seeing a pattern here?

It's true, she might not have been especially eloquent on the subject, but neither is our own president. Just a few days after the Crow flap, Bush was quoted saying the United States had to go to war against Iraq because of Saddam Hussein's "willingness to terrorize himself [see Update, below].'' It's a safe bet no one on FOX News made fun of him.

Because the President's slips of the lip are well-known, quite possibly a type of Attention Deficit Disorder, and amply documented by the likes of Ms. Billings to boot. Now - does anyone honestly think Ms. Crow was the victim of a brain-to-tongue disconnect?

Sean Penn, who seems to have replaced Barbra Streisand as the most hated liberal on talk radio, was in for worse ridicule after the actor placed an anti-war ad in the Washington Post in October. "Bombing answered by bombing, mutilation by mutilation, killing by killing, is a pattern that only a great country like ours can stop,'' Penn wrote in an open letter to the president. He followed up in December with a trip to Baghdad, an attempt to educate himself about the real causes and consequences of a war in that region.

For his troubles — his earnest intention of finding a peaceful solution, rather than a war that will surely lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis — he has been called a "traitor." No doubt his ex-wife, Madonna, can expect the same treatment when she releases a new single this week with a strong anti-war message.

While Mr. Penn has every right to educate himself in any way he wants, and to travel wherever he will (so far), I also retain the right to call his conclusions simplistic and, I believe, the result of being an inadequately educated man who is capable of being easily manipulated.

Madonna's upcoming effort promises to be...treason? No. Merely a noxious, intellectually-bereft effort to regain lost currency - her stock in trade. Taking it seriously as political speech is a long walk off a very short intellectual dock.

The conservative "Drudge Report" says the video shows her dressed in fatigues and throwing grenades in a landscape of limbless men and women.

The question I have is, why do we so easily dismiss the opinions of famous people, as if they're nothing but "limousine liberals"? (Itself a laughable epithet, as if conservatives are all driving around in Corollas, or being ridiculously rich discounts your opinion on political issues.)

We don't! There are intelligent celebrities! One of them became the greatest president of the last half of the 20th century!

Streisand is continually derided for mixing up Iran and Iraq, and yet no one complains when the president says Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Does anyone remember al-Qaida?

Does Ms. Billings remember the Secretary of State's speech last week?

Though there is a strong anti-war movement in this country, it is also strangely muted. And no wonder.

The way the administration has framed the argument, as good against evil, simply asking why (Why us? Why now? Why them? Why not North Korea?) casts the questioner on the wrong side.

Pundit, blame thyselves. If you find it a cynical, benighted exercise...well, the right learned the lessons of the Clinton Administration well - for better or worse.

Yesterday: Opposing President Clinton equalled a desire to throw children out in the cold, and evict old people into the street.

Today: Disagreement with the President "casts the questioner on the wrong side". Ms. Billings, meet the Carville/Begala Petard. Would you like your hoisting now, or after the ten o'clock news?

Standing up against this march to war takes a big voice, a big ego and maybe even big box office. No wonder Hollywood seems perfect for this casting call.

I urge Ms. Billings to juxtapose that sentence against her previous invocation of Martin Luther King, Christ and Gandhi. Think about it.

After getting a lifetime achievement award in London, actor Dustin Hoffman said, "I believe — though I may be wrong because I am no expert — that this war is about what most wars are about: hegemony, money, power and oil.…

"I believe that administration has taken the events of 9/11 and has manipulated the grief of the country and I think that's reprehensible.''

Critics say a guy like him has no right to weigh in on the issues of the day; as he says, he's "no expert.''

But when it comes to understanding the spin doctoring and cynical manipulations that go on in D.C., Hoffman may have more expert standing than he lets on.

Did you ever see him in "Wag the Dog"?

Yep. "Wag the Dog" concerned a completely fictional war. I have 3,000 reasons this isn't the same.

And Colin Powell is linking those 3,000 dead with Saddam Hussein.

No dog. No wag.

By the way - I know this blog gets read in the Pioneer Press newsroom. Feel free to forward this to Ms. Billings: I welcome the chance to debate this issue with her, via email or any other interactive means. And say "Hi" to Nick Coleman from his favorite blogger, while you're at it.

)I also welcome the Easter Bunny, a free lunch, and Marisa Tomei on my doorstep in a black teddy for all the good it'll do me, but hope springs eternal...)

UPDATE: A correspondent writes about Bush's alleged slip:

The following is more likely a mistake on the part of the person writing down the pres's words than an error on the part of the president. Add a comma after "terrorize" and the clause makes perfect sense. So, either the transcriber/journalist was an idiot when it comes to grammar, or he heard what he wanted to hear and slandered the pres.". Billings said" "Bush was quoted saying the United States had to go to war against Iraq because of Saddam Hussein's "willingness to terrorize COMMA himself..

This makes sense to me.

Posted by Mitch at February 11, 2003 04:45 PM