January 31, 2001
Yitzchak Q. Public

He is most certainly a self-loathing Jew; the worst kind of Semitic malignancy. Two months ago, the political scene held so much promise for Jews in America: Joe Lieberman. He energized our self-consciousness and inspired us that within the lifetime of Jews who survived the Holocaust, that a Jew could rise to the second most powerful political post in the world; Joe was going to put Jews on Capital Hill; we were all going with him.

And now the big Jew in the news is George Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer. Mr. Fleischer [or should I just call him Ari... no that won't work either... his entire name is just too Jewish to be working for George Bush... he couldn't have a more Jewish name unless he was named Rabbi Shlomo Mordechai Mohel] has become the mouth of George Bush; his parents must be proud. If Joe Lieberman stood for everything good, liberal and right [to be read correct] with the world, then as G.W.'s press secretary, Mr. Fleischer represents all that is conniving, evil and right [to be read conservative] with the world.

New York Times recently published a brief biography of Mr. Fleischer on its web site on January 22, 2001, titled "Public Lives: Careful Steps Took Press Secretary to the White House". I have read it thoroughly since I anxiously scrawled the two paragraphs above. And have concluded that I don't know enough about Mr. Fleischer to make such callous and leading remarks as the ones you've just read.

A colleague of mine agreed, when he wrote in an email, "Well you have to be careful there because labels like those are often unfair and inaccurate -- see for most obvious example Noam Chomsky, someone who, from the very beginning, took an anti-Israel-occupation-of-Palestine stance, and was *immediately* called a self-loathing Jew by his detractors. Critics always try to diminish their opponents by spreading falsities that easily slip down the collective throat. Also using Chomsky as an example, you'll find his sternest critics take a strikingly (and tellingly) aggressive posture and use words like "conspiracy theory" to denounce his ideas by association without evidence or explication. The reason is simple: the herd *prefers* easy explanations or catch-phrases that require less thinking. The herd hears "conspiracy theory" and immediately (because of pop and political culture) assumes "he must be nuts" -- pretty clean and easy, right? But if the herd researched Chomsky (which they'd never do) they'd find that he supports every contention with carefully collected and ruminated (and unreported -- at least in the USA) evidence while his opposition proves nothing and merely spouts (over and over) the same power-serving propaganda that conditions belief. I would venture that Ari Fleischer (I know very, very little about him) might be something less despicable -- perhaps a slave, a cog, a cultist, someone who cannot see beyond the reach of his hand because of the conditioning that has raised him (and you and me and everyone else in America for that matter)."

After reading that response, you will notice a reference to Noam Chomsky [see tirade #15 "George W. Bush Declares War on Iraq"], and also a reference to media/government propaganda [see tirade #14 "Reagan is Dead" and again #15 "George W. Bush Declares War on Iraq"]. For fear of being inconsistent, I must accept that I am a product of our "media-culture". Before I go further, I need to provide a working definition of "media-culture". If it was a word in Webster's dictionary, it would read like this:

media-culture: n.; The cumulative knowledge and understanding possessed by a select group of individuals as it relates to the information, which affects the knowledge base and value system of this group, disseminated in the form of ideas, reporting on events, and descriptions of trends in thought which are broadcast from one or multiple sources; acts as the blueprint by which a group of people perpetuates their existence as a distinct and viable social group.

Here were are talking about American citizens, which is critical; a colleague of mine had a French coworker in town last weekend who had never heard of Jay Leno or David Letterman. Conclusion: culture and media-culture are LOCAL events and have local influences. The term "broadcast" is intentionally leading, but let us consider that a homeless man yelling across the street is broadcasting as surely as CBS and NBC are broadcasting.

If this idea of "media-culture" is reasonable, then we must all acknowledge that in addition to the nurturing by our parents and families, our "culture" is sustained, maintained, and directed by this conditioning [the media-culture] that has "raised... you and me and everyone else in America...". When we think about ending up "just like our parents", think about the possibility that, because of its pervasive influence in our life [the positive and negative affects of this influence are better left for another tirade] we may be ending up a lot like our media-saturated society; that is watered down and digestible, but wholly devoid of any "real" cultural value. And if we have any sense that it might be important to look at what we put in our bodies [be it food, chemicals, or information] then are we not then obligated to look at what kind of media-culture information goes in, how much, and where it comes from?

Recent reports suggest that diabetes is on the rise in this country; nearly epidemic according to some studies. Doctors blame this rise on the sedentary lifestyle of the American public and their obesity. Can we expect Americans who don't care what they put in their bodies to care about what they put [or have put] in their minds?

When I verbally attack Ari Fleischer, how can I be sure that I have not been fed some dietary informational supplement by the local news stations? Perhaps I'm only spouting someone else's ideas? Do I even have any ideas of my own? These are not easy questions to answer. Arguably, there are no answers at all. The poignancy of these questions is the process of asking them and leading "an examined life".

Maybe Ari Fleischer is a wonderful human being. How would I know?