Flying back into Iraq after R&R in 2005, our pilot makes an inflight announcement: "There's a bunch of shit blowing up by (the post I happened to be stationed at)! I wish you guys could see this! It's really fuckin' cool!"
There was no sympathy or enthusiasm for this in back. Explosions might look really cool from 30k feet, but it's a whole different story when you're on the ground. This reservist pilot didn't know, bless his heart. Now that I look back, this guy didn't have to serve at all. He could have stayed home the whole time. He could've just flown for commercials the whole time. Nobody forced this guy to volunteer. I love him for it.
But I didn't a single nice thing to say about it at the time.
Week or two ago, some guy gets on Rush Limbaugh, calls him a "brainwashed nazi." Rush, startled in his cozy fishbowl, goes straight into ad hominem bluster, and calls the guy "stupid," and "ignorant." I didn't bother to listen to the clip. Don't much care what Limbaugh thinks one way or the other. But contrasted with this here linked clip of him guest hosting the Pat Sajak show, it's fairly obvious how much easier it is to talk a bunch of shit from a controlled access radio booth than it is to do so face to face. I think of it as the cockpit or the foxhole question.
Last week a teabag was talking all internet tough guy about Obama supporters, and I went 'Walter Sobchak' on him. (Walter Sobchak, played by John Goodman in The Big Lebowski)
"Who am I? I'M A FUCKING VETERAN!" -Walter
Felt bad about it, later, to some degree. Wondered if I let a troll goad me into trolling. And I've got some mixed emotions about this. I don't see any reason to humor those who would attempt voter intimidation through explicit or insinuated threats. I don't agree with those who argue the best way to handle people talking civil war and sedition is to ignore them; but I'm learning that the best way to handle a troll is to be calm and ask questions. Really? What evidence do you have to support that? Define "liberal." Who told you that? Ignore the provocation, humor them, question their position, and they fall apart. Hell, when they're obviously dumb as a bag of hammers, I can swallow my bitter pride, and feign enough respect to try and quell whatever frustration they're dealing with.
My father's Republican, one of my best friends is Republican, so are most of the guys I work with. We have great conversations. We don't speak to each other the way people do online, out of familiarity and respect, but also, we know that we're pretty much decent people who disagree about a couple of things. The people who are worth working with tend to be a lot more rational when you're actually looking each other in the eye, when you hear their tone of voice as well as their words, and when you're actually standing close enough on common ground to punch each other out. There's your foxhole. Not so easy to talk a bunch of shit standing face to face as it is from a cockpit or a radio booth, and downright foolish with friends, family, neighbors and coworkers.
I'm new to this online debate stuff, and I'm learning. I'm as guilty as anyone else of taking cheap shots. I know for a fact that many of my Republican friends are just as embarassed by the lunatic fringe of the right as I am embarassed by the lunatic fringe of the left. I know Limbaugh's distorted caricature of a "liberal" doesn't apply to me, I don't want any stereotypes of my own to blot my view of reasonable conservatives. I know I can't bridge the gap between the Republicans I know and work with and a couple of asshole pundits on Fox, and in chat rooms, without keeping my temper in check. So, my litmus test now, would I say the same thing face to face that I would post under a false name online? Am I in the cockpit or the foxhole? Keeps me grounded.
DHS being on the lookout (with rational constraints and legal accountability) for McVeighs at teabag parties, or lefty protests for that matter, is reasonable, because some guys don't have that relative ground anymore. Some guys out there are getting all of their information online, or from television, and when that input isn't balanced with actual face to face human contact, it can induce or maybe exacerbate a very sick state of mind. You don't need to spy on a guy who's making a bunch of threats online, when he just told you he's a fucking threat, and it would be downright stupid to ignore him when you see him coming. I agree that a 'Big Brother' gov't is to be prevented, but I don't buy the argument that paying attention to someone throwing menacing signs is raping his/her privacy. So, I reject Gingrich's suggestion I should be outraged DHS issues a BOLO order for "disgruntled vets" at teabag parties.
In regard to internet tough guys, bout 99% of the time, I imagine a plausible inverse version of that "You've Got Mail" movie, where the pair who hate each other's guts at work fall in love online. I can imagine two neighbors having a friendly disagreement talking to each other over the fence, sharing opinions, and even changing each other's minds about some things. Obviously, the common interest of being decent neighbors is a matter of shared priority. I can imagine these same two neighbors logging on a website under false names, flaming the hell out of each other, and driving each other's blood pressure through the roof. Since they have face to face contact, these aren't the ones I worry about. I about the ones who get all their human contact though the internet, or Fox News, or MSNBC. I worry about the ones who don't get the body language, the tone of voice, and all the other factors in communication. I worry about the ones who are sick, isolated and inundated in information that doesn't pause for the simple considerations paid to dealing with someone, whether you even like them or not, on a casual face to face basis; no matter who the hell they voted for. For almost everybody, pulling the trigger is a lot easier from the cockpit, than it is from the foxhole.