The Clever Badger I'm not dead yet!

Letters To The Editor

The written word is a wonderful thing.  It serves as a transmission vector for knowledge and culture, and allows us to express ourselves in ways that the spoken word can't.  Anyone who has ever gotten caught up in a good book and suddenly realized that it's 3:00 AM knows what I'm talking about. 

The written word can also be dangerous.  When used as a tool of propaganda, it can serve to control and subjugate.  It can challenge authority and can lead to wars. 

The written word can be many things, including strange and vaguely frightening. 

And the written word can be used to make points quite the opposite of what it looks like at first glance. 

The following letter to the editor appeared in the 2 July 2010 Louisville Courier-Journal.  (I'm reproducing it because the CJ eventually archives such things and they become difficult to ferret out.  The letter in question is on page 3.) 

Going Gaga

Lady Gaga is a repulsive image that all people of goodwill should strive to avoid. Her most recent pornographic music video, which features highly sexualized images coupled with Catholic religious symbols, betrays her as nothing more than a mediocre Madonna-wannabe. In the video, she squirms around half-naked with half-naked guys while abusing Catholic symbols. It is clear the singer has now become the new poster girl for American decadence and Catholic bashing, which she perversely fobs off to the world as "creative art." 

When asked in a recent interview by Larry King if she was considering having children some day, she answered "not right now because it would destroy my creativeness." She seems oblivious to the fact that there is nothing more creative for a woman than to have a child. Sadly, fame, fortune and false idolatry have become the heartbeat of American culture. These things seem more important to the masses than life itself. But in the end, they are all only illusions that will wither and fade. In the end, "the first will be last and the last will be first." 

Now, the video in question (here, in case anyone cares to look) is pretty damn tacky - it plays out like some sort of weird sexual nightmare.  Is it offensive?  Probably to many - although I would describe it more as stupid and pretentious more than I would offensive.¹ 

Good Lord! What is That Thing Eating Her Head!?!

It isn't clear why the letter writer chooses interpret Lady Gaga's video as being anything other than a ploy to generate attention (much like her propensity for ghastly and outrageous outfits).  I can envision a conversation between Lady Gaga and her production designers: 

Designers: But Gaga, this video is really pushing the boundaries of good taste.  People are going to go ballistic over the content! 

Gaga: Yes, and for every blog or article criticizing me, a bunch of people will find the video and watch it, and some of those will buy my albums.   I can't lose! 

Designers: But that's just callous manipulation of people's prejudices and sensitivities for personal profit! 

Gaga: And you have a problem with that?  I'm an entertainer.  That's what I do.  It doesn't matter whether people listen to me because they're inspired by my music, or impressed by my dance moves, or want to see me on stage with machine guns attached to my bra. 

Designer:  Sooooo.  Any ideas for your next video? 

The bottom line is that controversy = publicity, and if you're a singer, publicity = revenue.² 

The second part of the letter is more touchy.  The letter writer, who was female, appears dangerously close to defining women in terms of the productiveness of their uteri, and her comment is a direct affront to women who cannot or chose not to have children.  Moreover, it's not clear how Lady Gaga's expressed choice to not have children in any way impacts anyone else's choice.  Gaga has every right to make that choice.  It's also true that the letter writer has a right to her opinion, and a right to express it.   And I have a right to say that I think the letter writer's opinion is just plain wrong and myopic because it makes the presupposition that women are no more than baby factories.³ 

The bottom line is that the letter writer finds Lady Gaga to be a poor role model.  Fine.  Don't listen to her music or watch her videos or read articles about her.  But don't expect everyone else to follow your lead. 

We get to go down a different path entirely with the 11 July 2010 response to the original letter (The letter in question is on page 2.): 

Double-barreled irony

In regard to a letter printed in last Friday's Courier-Journal , I, too, would like to lend my voice to those offended by Lady Gaga's outrageous behavior. While I haven't seen the video in question, I have seen her scantily clad image on the cover of the current issue of Rolling Stone. It is shocking enough that this so-called "Lady" is wearing next to nothing. But the fact she sports a bra bearing two assault weapons is a double-barreled attack against basic American values. More than our flag, the cross or holy scripture, the gun is unquestionably the greatest object of reverence in this great land of ours. Would Ms. Gaga's brazen behavior be tolerated if Dubya and "Dead Eye" Dick Cheney still called the shots? I think not. Thank God and baby Jesus we still have strong conservative role models like Sarah Palin, a lifelong member of the NRA. We can rest assured that her values are just as conservative as her undergarments. 

On first glance, this letter (submitted  by a male)  seems to be the product of a somewhat disturbed individual.  One can almost imagine him muttering out loud to himself as he composed his missive. 

But I don't think the letter is the product of a disturbed individual.  I think it's the product of someone who read the first letter and thought "It's pretty silly to get spun up over a music video and a throwaway comment on Larry King, and it's pretty silly for the newspaper to give a letter about those things any column space.  I wonder if I can get something even more over-the-top published..." 

This, I believe, is a classic example of what has become known in internet circles as Poe's Law.  To wit: 

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing. 

Nathan Poe, circa 2005 

(In point of fact, I think that Poe's Law generalizes well beyond religion and can be applied to parodies of any extreme position. Politics is an obvious example, as suggested by the Sarah Palin reference,⁴ and extreme positions on climate change and anti-vaccination come to mind as other applicable subjects.⁵) 

In other words, the letter writer has successfully foisted himself off as an outlandishly conservative Christian when, in fact, he probably isn't,  but you certainly can't tell that from the writing. 

Why might he have wanted to do this?  To me, the most obvious reason is to make the point that there are more important issues to worry about than the crass behavior of a pop singer. 

 Maybe the writer really was put off by a gun-festooned sports bra.  Maybe he really does think that Sarah Palin is a superb conservative role model and not merely a publicity hungry twit.  It's possible, but I don't think so. 

-Jay 

---------- 

¹"Offensive" is a very ambiguous term, anyway. I find it interesting that when people talk about how a music video, or a movie, or a book is offensive, they're often very detailed in talking about precisely which aspects of the material are offensive.  This suggests that they watched or read it very closely.  And some people seem to be offended a lot.  It's not like anyone is forcing someone to watch Lady Gaga videos against their will.  Personally, on the few occasions I find something to be that offensive, I just find something different to watch or read. 

²Personally, I kinda like some of her songs, but her bizarre costumes and such don't really do much for me. 

³In the last few years, it's somehow come to be fashionable to claim that everyone's opinions are equally valid.  Perhaps nowhere is this so prevalent as in the evolution/creationism debates in school systems around the country where "teach the controversy" or "teach the alternatives" are rallying cries.  The problem is that all opinions aren't equally valid - many are just flat wrong, sometimes dangerously so. 

⁴It is very difficult to separate Sarah Palin's political views from her religious views.  Talk to Action has a number of articles analyzing Palin's religious views and their implications on her politics, if anyone is interested. 

⁵I have an issue with the use of the term fundamentalist. It tends to be used pejoratively, and it isn't as well-defined as many might think. The term evangelical is somewhat less pejorative but is also poorly defined - an acquaintance of mine self-describes as evangelical, but falls towards the extremely liberal end of the Christian spectrum, and has been accused by some of not being Christian enough, whatever that actually means. Even terms like extremely conservative Christian are imprecise enough to be confusing. Nevertheless, given the lack of better, succinct terminology, I'll use these those terms with the caveat that they are broader than I would prefer and inevitably sweep people in which they shouldn't.