Fired!, Treason, and Molly

When bad things happen to funny people, we all come out ahead. Racism honed Chris Rock’s wit; sexism produced Roseanne’s low snarl; and, now, the humiliation of sudden job loss has led to Annabelle Gurwitch’s hiliarious documentary Fired!. A few years ago, comic and NPR commentator Gurwitch was summarily dismissed from a writing job by Woody Allen, who used the occasion to tell her she looked “retarded.” As it turns out, getting fired was the best thing that could have happened to her, because it prompted her to make this movie – in which, by the way, she doesn’t look “retarded” at all, but gorgeous, super-smart, and charmingly daffy.

Turns out comedians get fired all the time, and not just from their night jobs. Gurwitch lines up a host of fired funny men and women – Andy Borowitz, Tim Allen and Sarah Silverman among them – to talk about losing stand-up jobs, waitstaff jobs, retail jobs, and whatever else was paying the rent. Throw in a trip to Michigan to meet laid off and bought out auto workers, and you have the whole panorama of job insecurity in America. It’s all here – the drinking, the depression, the deep feelings of worthlessness. But Gurwitch transforms misery into a wonderfully hot and sour chicken soup for the laid off soul.

Gurwitch, by the way, is a member of the advisory board of United Professionals, the group I helped found for unemployed, underemployed and anxiously employed white collar workers (unitedprofessionals.org.) If you want to see Fired! in a theater, check www.firedthemovie.com. If you’d like to host a house party to view it on DVD, please contact upsupport@unitedprofessionals.org.

* * *

Last night, just as I was about to give a talk about my new book Dancing in the Streets: A History of Collective Joy, I got a cell phone call from my nephew in Minneapolis. “Aunt Barb,” he reported breathlessly, “Newsweek is calling you a terrorist.” I told him to hold that thought, but as I approached the podium I couldn’t help mentally scanning my last six months of to-do lists, where the only remotely terrorizing entry I could find was “trick or treat with granddaughters.”

Fortunately, someone in the audience cleared up the mystery. Newsweek hadn’t called me a terrorist, it had reviewed rightwing author Dinesh D’Souza’s new book The Enemy at Home, in which I am listed as an accomplice of al Qaeda along with dozens of others including Hilary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Cameron Diaz, Sharon Stone, George Soros, Michael Moore, Rosie O’Donnell, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and … well, you get the drift. According to D’Souza, we’ve all contributed to making America into what bin Laden – and apparently D’Souza – see as the “worst civilization in the history of mankind,” riven with fornication, homosexuality, drinking, and gambling. In other words, America deserved that hit on 9/11, and it’s all because of us “enemies at home.”

So let me confess: We do meet regularly, usually at Cameron’s place, because it has plenty of room now that Justin’s moved out. This is a fractious bunch, as you can imagine, with Rosie and Michael in the same room, but Nancy uses her “mother of five’ voice to keep us on track, knitting sweaters for the brave lads in the Taliban.

* * *

I know she’d find a laugh in this, but I sure can’t. Columnist and author Molly Ivins, who’s up there in the funny bracket with Annabelle Gurwitch and her pals, just died at the untimely age of 62. I last saw her at the Democratic Convention in 2004, where we managed to squeeze dinner in between our journalistic responsibilities, cackling inordinately about politics, breast cancer, and the anti-smoking puritans. Molly was a force-of-nature type of gal, and I can’t believe breast cancer finally got the better of her. Help me out, Molly, wherever you are: I know there must be a punch line here but damned if I can find it.

Comments

[Sonya]

Molly's death is a tragedy. Her spirit and wit will be sorely missed.

[Anarcissie]

I'm going to miss Molly. We've all got to find the Molly within and let her out early and often.

As for D'Souza's rant, he was preceded by a number of people including this hilarious item, which has circulated on various public forums and blogs: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/553fragu.asp
It was aptly posted on Usenet under the title "All the Devils, All Together, All At Once". Apparently anyone who is not a rigid, nationalistic right-winger is destroying America and the Western World, but to make it to the Specifically Named Infidels list is a great honor. Congratulations.

[Ron Davison]

D'Souza has you pegged, eh? Well, there it is - the reality show to follow Jon Stewart's - "the celebrity sleeper cell show." Here’s the spiel: Tune in weekly to see celebrities abuse their fame to discomfit parochial Americans. It's shameless, provocative, and terrifying. You could be next. When this takes off, Barbara, you owe me lunch.

[omelas]

Dinesh is hilarious. The person radical Muslims hate the most? Hillary Clinton. He says that, really. Oh, and you should check out youtube to see the pounding he took from Colbert. Cheers!!

[Dinesh D'Souza]

I did not call you a terrorist. I wrote that you and your contemporaries were the reason that the terrorists attacked us on 9/11. If you consider yourself a responsible journalist, at the very least, you should read my book, "The Enemy at Home," before attacking me.

Check out my video promos for more information about the book, and where to pick up a copy: http://www.superjagjit.com/2007/02/01/dinesh-dsouzas-promos-for-the-enemy-at-home/

[delagar]

He's trolling blogs now trying to get people to read him? That's so...sad.

I, also, can't get past Molly Ivins' death. She's one of the women who lit the way. How to do without her?

[Millard Fullbore]

Molly's documentary on dildos in Texas should be required viewing for every civics class!

[Anarcissie]

The Colbert D'Souza interview has been removed from Youtube because of copyright infringement, but you can see it on Comdey Central among the Colbert celebrity interviews.

I know Colbert's sending up a dumb right-winger is supposed to be hilarious, but on the whole I find people like D'Souza profoundly depressing.

[chris]

D'Souza is right. It is the Left that enrages muslims.

In the days following 9/11 I spoke with muslims living in probably the largest muslim community in New York City. The muslim enclave is in Brooklyn and many drop by the same coffee sho/convenience story I frequent. It is near my house.

When I spoke with muslims there about the forces behind 9/11, they all told me essentially one thing -- Freedom was the cause. They all told me there is too much "freedom" in the US and that so much freedom is wrong and it angered the terrorists into action against us.

They didn't cheer the terrorists, but they fully understood their anger, and they were sympathetic.

[Sonya]

Yeah... it's "Freedom" that provokes radicals into attacking us... it couldn't POSSBILY our war mongering, our poor foreign policies, our refuasal to accept any culture different than our own, our desire to spread democracy by force, our occupation of another country and the murder and torture of its citizens by American troops....

Couldn't POSSIBLY be those things. It's "Freedom".

[Anarcissie]

Well, you have to remember that "freedom", for many people, includes capitalism. And in the last three centuries, the practice of capitalism has seemed to entail a lot of war and imperialism.

But besides that, liberalism, capitalism and modernity seem to drive a lot of people crazy. Remember that in most traditional cultures, every individual is bound by a complex web of social obligations. I think this includes Muslim ones, where, for instance, very substantial religious charity is one of the "pillars of Islam" and required of everyone. Now liberalism and capitalism come along and say, "Forget that old stuff, it's every man for himself." Even if most of the traditional folk find this repellent, they have to notice and be tempted by the fact that the liberal capitalists (that's us, or rather, our advertising) have lots of cars, nice houses, cool vacations, and above all numerous guns, bombs and rockets. So some go for it, some don't, and pretty soon you have a war. Since the US, or rather its ruling class, government, and larger corporations, has been involved with advancing liberalism and capitalism they (and we, their underlings) become the targets of the antis along with the other people they resent.

Europeans weren't immune to this problem: the driving force behind fascism and Communism was fear and resentment of capitalist and liberal innovations like political equality, privacy, individualism, and so on. But it looks like Europe has made its peace now.

[chris]

sonya, you wrote:

"Yeah... it's "Freedom" that provokes radicals into attacking us..."

Those were the words of muslims living in Brooklyn. No doubt some of them were contributors to charities that support terrorists. There's a lot of muslim money flowing from Brooklyn to middle east terrorist organizations, as the FBI has shown.

Meanwhile, like I said, I'm quoting the muslims. I didn't make any assumptions or provide my own answers to questions. None of them mentioned any of the nonsense you spewed, and of course this was 2001, BEFORE we invaded Afghanistand and Iraq.

You ranted:

"...it couldn't POSSBILY our war mongering,..."

Nope.

You burbled:

"...our poor foreign policies,..."

Whatever those are. Let's see, the US sucks so bad that millions and millions of people are SNEAKING IN, crossing shark-filled waters and crossing burning deserts or allowing themselves to be stowed in the holds of stinking ships from China. Yeah, the people of the world hate the US. Hate the US. We suck. Yeah.

You ranted insanely:

"...our refuasal to accept any culture different than our own,..."

Yeah, we all wear Mao suits here. No respect or tolerance for any life form except white anglo-saxon protestants. Christians and Jews have long preferred life in muslim countries. It's so much better when there's a state religion that's empowered to persecute the infidels. We love that.

You went off the deep end and said:

"...our desire to spread democracy by force..."

I know. Imagine how those overworked dictators must feel when they hear democracy is coming to town? What's a dictator to do when he faces the prospect of a free population that might hang him from the nearest tree limb? It's just cruel how we treat those dictators. Cruel.

You whined:

"...our occupation of another country and the murder and torture of its citizens by American troops...."

I know what you mean. The Germans and Japanese were just livid when we decided to stick around after WWII. And the people of Europe were simply irate . That Marshall Plan drove them all over the edge. How dare we! And our image didn't improve much after we kicked the communists out of South Korea either. But they got the North and 55 years later, everone can see we should have just turned over the whole peninsula to the communists. Better for everyone, don't you think?

You finally hit the nail positioned in the middle of your forehead when you said:

"Couldn't POSSIBLY be those things. It's "Freedom"."

Yep. there's nothing scarier to a dictator than freedom. There's no telling what free people will do next.

But all that aside, how did such monumental stupidity overtake you? Are you just a natural, or did you study for this?

[Barbara E]

Dinesh: It's true that my values -- feminist, humanist, secular, etc. -- are antithetical to the jihadists. Too bad.

[teffie-phd]

About your terrorist knitting circle, and to mangle a cliche:

With enemies of the state like you, I've got some friends in high places.

[teffie-phd]

About your terrorist knitting circle, and to mangle a cliche:

With enemies of the state like you, I've got some friends in high places.

[Susan O'Doherty]

Chris, I live in Brooklyn too and also spoke to a number of Brooklyn Muslims immediately after 9/11. My impressions were that a) most repudiated the attack completely, stressing that Islam is essentially a nonviolent religion; b) the most frequent explanation (not endorsement) was fundamentalists' rage over uncontrolled capitalism and greed in the face of worldwide hunger and need, symbolized by the WTC; and c) many thoughtful people believed that such destructive policies as US sanctions of Iraq, causing the starvation and death of innocent civilians, would almost necessarily lead to hatred of the US and attempts at retaliation.

Feel free to attack me personally, as you did Sonya. That furthers civilized discussion in measurable ways.

[chris]

Susan, you wrote:

"Chris, I live in Brooklyn too and also spoke to a number of Brooklyn Muslims immediately after 9/11."

What was the occasion of your discussions? Were you speaking to the vendor who sells you newspapers? Where you eating at a muslim establishment on Atlantic Avenue? Were you speaking with muslim acquaintances?

Meanwhile, lots of muslim money had been funneled from Brooklyn to various terrorist organizations over the years before 9/11. The cash speaks much louder than conciliatory words from the muslims with whom you do business.

You concluded:

"My impressions were that a) most repudiated the attack completely, stressing that Islam is essentially a nonviolent religion;"

Since muslim dictatorships wage war in the name of allah, it is more than a little ridiculous to claim islam is a religion of peace. Moreover, islam itself was founded in violence. In short, any muslim who told you that little fib was patronizing you, which is not an uncommon experience.

Moreover, prior to 9/11 over 1,000 Americans had been killed by muslim terrorists since 1968, when sirhan sirhan, a palestinian, killed Robert Kennedy. Some years later yassar arafat attempted to have sirhan sent to Gaza to serve his sentence there.

You claimed:

"b) the most frequent explanation (not endorsement) was fundamentalists' rage over uncontrolled capitalism and greed in the face of worldwide hunger and need, symbolized by the WTC; and"

Oh. And somehow you fail to see that this explanation boils down to the widely held muslim view that "we got what we deserved."

Like muslims come to the rescue after hurricanes, earthquakes and other natural disasters kill thousands. Of course there's a reason so many muslims die when earthquakes hit their countries. There are few if any building codes that protect people from living in unsafe structures. Even simple structures can be built in an unsafe or SAFER manner. But muslim goevernments show only contempt for such basic concepts. Hence, the massive death tolls when they get hit.

Your acceptance of their statement shows how little you thought about its meaning. In fact, it differs little from what I was told, which is that we were attacked because we enjoy too much freedom.

You have shown some sympathy for the motives of murderers who slaughtered thousands of Americans to satisfy their own rage.

You really got me with this one:

"c) many thoughtful people believed that such destructive policies as US sanctions of Iraq, causing the starvation and death of innocent civilians, would almost necessarily lead to hatred of the US and attempts at retaliation."

I see. The members of al-qaeda were then representing people in Iraq who were stuck under the boot-heel of saddam. Since saddam was the cause of all the suffering in Iraq, it makes complete sense to kill people who worked in the World Trade Center.

All in, your sympathies with the terrorists are obvious. You have joined the chorus of people who believe that brutal dictators have rights and we should let them go their merry way no matter how much suffering they cause in the world.

Based on your post, it seems you think we should have simply hung our national head in shame after 9/11 and asked the world for forgiveness.

You are one of the nitwits who doesn't grasp the simple fact that if the US did not assume the role of the world's big cop, aspiring dictators would try a lot harder to seize power.

[Anarcissie]

Chris, the U.S. government, ruling class, leadership, big corporations and so forth have been messing around with the rest of the world at least since the days of Woodrow Wilson. After World War II, the U.S. inherited the mantle of the British and French empires as well. The general theory was that somebody had to "keep the world safe for democracy", that is, capitalism.

The U.S. engaged in hostile military operations in something like thirty countries between the end of World War II and the present.

You can't do stuff like that forever without somebody kicking back. Moreover, you can't get involved in the possibly violent politics and cultures of other nations, tribes, and parties without being mixed up in them, without having them do things to you as well as suffering whatever you do to them. You -- we -- aren't invulnerable gods.

It's not a matter of hanging one's head in shame after 9/11. It's a matter of asking ourselves whether we want to pay the price for trying to run the world. If so, let's see a stiff upper lip and a rational discussion of what kind of world we're going to force on everyone else. If not, let's knock off the war and imperialism games and see about developing some other kind of world in cooperation with those who want to cooperate with us. And leave the others alone.

[chris]

Anarcissie, you wrote:

"Chris, the U.S. government, ruling class, leadership, big corporations and so forth have been messing around with the rest of the world..."

Gee. I had no idea. Really. Not a clue.

You wrote:

"If not, let's knock off the war and imperialism games and see about developing some other kind of world in cooperation with those who want to cooperate with us."

Based on your last post, you're part of the foolish class of people who believe that all power in the world flows FROM the US, and hence, all occurrences in the world are either a direct result of US power or an echo, sometimes a perverse echo of that same power when it is reflected back in our direction.

When the US does not project power, dictators, tyrants and punitive ideologies gain traction in whatever country or region they inhabit.

The US has never sought to conquer and annex other countries. It has sought to expand the presence of democracy and capitalism, both of which make it possible for people to thrive and live their individual lives as close to ideally as a person can on this planet.

You're crowning comment:

"And leave the others alone."

Sure. In other words, make the world safe for dictators and tyrants and murderous ideologies.

Singapore is a dictatorship. But it is as close to a benign dictatorship as we have ever seen. At least the leader of the country does not fear the fact that his citizens avidly pursue wealth. He understands how well capitalism can work, and work to his advantage. But Singapore is a city/state of only about 5 million people, much smaller than New York City and its 8 million citizens.

You can be sure if there were more benevolent dictators like Singapore's leader, the US would have much less work to do with respect to shoving its nose into the affairs of other nations.

But it isn't that way. And as long as there are truly evil leaders either in power or seeking power, the work of the US will continue.

[Antigone]

Yeah, the hero US, busy saving the world for capitalism. We don't care if you're a ruthless dictatorship, as long as the money flows.

Chris, I have seen no evidence that you actually KNOW a Muslim, much less talked to one.

[Anarcissie]

Chris: '...But it isn't that way. And as long as there are truly evil leaders either in power or seeking power, the work of the US will continue.'

Well, then, take it as a matter of course: We bomb them, they bomb us. 'An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind.' What's your complaint? Everything is as it should be. And at least _our_ leaders are utterly pure in heart, unlike those of all those other nasty types.

[chris]

Antigone:

"Chris, I have seen no evidence that you actually KNOW a Muslim, much less talked to one."

As the reader of a message board filled with anonymously posted messages, you would have NO way to know if anything anyone posts here is true for false.

I couldn't care less if you think I've met muslims or not. The fact is I've met many and encounter them daily and I've been in muslim countries.

I live in a section of Brooklyn, NY that is adjacent to a large muslim neighborhood -- probably 65,000 muslims. They own and operate shops nearby and their kids go to the same public school one of my son's attended.

Meanwhile, the al-qaeda types walk the streets -- the men with their al-qaeda beards and dress, the women covered head-to-toe in black hijabs, chadors, whatever, with nothing by their eyes showing, as they walk well behind their husbands.

Police presence in the area has increased a lot because there is a strong base of fundamentalist muslims here who are the likely suspects for committing the next terrorist attack in NYC.

[Monica]

You can't really tell who the suspects are. If they are smart, they will try to dress normally (the 911 hijackers did that), and perhaps will not risk their lives if they have a family. Muslim women are supposed to cover their body, even the shape of it and the hair, because they don't want to be seen as sexual objects. A woman in what is now considered fairly decent American attire may still show things like the shape of her breasts and rear end, her legs in pantyhose, and so on. Muslim women are just trying to cover up even that. And while many Muslim scholars agree that showing the face is permitted, a beautiful woman's face is still attractive and some Muslims are just being consistent by hiding that, too. The decision to do so is not necessarily coerced, and you don't know whether those women were forced to dress like that or they actually like it. In fact, not worrying about having a bad hair day or being fat could be seen as a form of freedom. You may not agree with their fashion sense, but that does not necessarily mean that these people are terrorists or otherwise criminal. Those who know how to talk to you and seem moderate may be the bad guys, or maybe they are really OK. You can't tell.