Make sure they're nodding when the music stops

I have to admit I've been addicted to Scott Adam's witty comic strip, 'Dilbert', since I first saw it almost ten years ago.  However, until this morning I was unaware that he also kept a blog.  One would think that this would be cause for celebration here at chez treppenwitz. 

One would be wrong.

I found out about Mr. Adam's blog when a friend sent me a link to an entry Mr. Adams had written about Iranian President Ahmadinejad entitled; "A Feeling I'm Being Had".

The post is such a well written bit of irony / sarcasm, and so disarmingly charming (despite the gratuitous swearing) in its mock rage, that one doesn't immediately 'get' that his deadly serious intent is to criticize Israel and Jews. 

Reading the piece through the first time was like being a lone American at a dinner party amidst a bunch of Brits... grinning along with the well-bred banter for ten or fifteen minutes before realizing with dawning horror that the 'colonial' they've been making jokes about all evening is you.

I had started out with the intention of quoting just a few passages of Mr. Adam's blog, but I realized that it would invite the temptation to abandon context... and that would serve neither his meaning nor mine.

So, without further ado, what follows is the 'fisking' of his post (his text appears indented in italics):

"I was happy to hear that NYC didn't allow Iranian President Ahmadinejad to place a wreath at the WTC site. And I was happy that Columbia University is rescinding the offer to let him speak. If you let a guy like that express his views, before long the entire world will want freedom of speech. "

Good start.  If Ahmadinejad comes to the US, he is (in the opinion of most reasonable people) entitled to all the freedoms we boast about to the rest of the world.  The Red Sox can't reasonably invite the Dodgers to Fenway Park and force the LA pitcher's to take a turn at bat while the Bosox trot out their DH!  The house rules must prevail for all! 

Freedom of speech is such a basic liberty that it rightly deserves to be the cornerstone of a piece that will test the reader's (many of them anyway) own tolerance for statements they find distasteful (to the extreme).  To that end, Adams begins with a perfectly reasonable sentiment that I share completely.  What happens afterward... not so much:

"I hate Ahmadinejad for all the same reasons you do. For one thing, he said he wants to "wipe Israel off the map." Scholars tell us the correct
translation is more along the lines of wanting a change in Israel's
government toward something more democratic, with less gerrymandering.  What an ass-muncher! "

Here's where Scott starts to grind his ax (and make stuff up).  He's got you nodding along with the whole freedom of speech thing and now ever-so-casually foists a complete falsehood on you. 

Exactly which 'scholars' provided this translation is left conspicuously unsaid, but so far as I can tell, it is completely unique, having been reported nowhere else that I can find.  I double-dog dare Scott Adams to provide one credible Farsi scholar who can support a direct translation of the 'wipe Israel off the map' remark having been simply a call for early Knesset elections and a more transparent Israeli government.

"Ahmadinejad also called the holocaust a "myth." Fuck him! A myth is
something a society uses to frame their understanding of their world, and act accordingly. It's not as if the world created a whole new country
because of holocaust guilt and gives it a free pass no matter what it
does. That's Iranian crazy talk. Ahmadinejad can blow me."

By this point in the piece, an intelligent reader must realize that what follows will be a recital of Scott Adam's beliefs, packaged in such a way that one might not immediately realize that he is no longer talking about Iran or it's leader.  He takes a repugnant libel (that the Jews invented the Holocaust) and tries to make it more palatable by indicating what those greedy, undeserving Jews had/have to gain from the continued invocation of the Holocaust.  Holocaust denial is beyond the pale... but attributing Israel's very existence and alleged moral 'free pass' to Holocaust guilt is apparently OK.

"Most insulting is the fact that "myth" implies the holocaust didn't happen. Fuck him for saying that! He also says he won't dispute the historical claims of European scientists. That is obviously the opposite of saying the holocaust didn't happen, which I assume is his way of confusing me. God-damned fucker. "

This pivotal paragraph is nothing less than verbal three-card Monty.  We're meant to give up trying to follow the ace of spades at this point and allow ourselves to be led from here on in.  Masterful work.

"Furthermore, why does an Iranian guy give a speech in his own language
except for using the English word "myth"? Aren't there any Iranian
words for saying a set of historical facts has achieved an unhealthy level
of influence on a specific set of decisions in the present? He's just
being an asshole. "

Notice, the Iranian leader isn't saying this... Scott Adams is.  He has completely hijacked the talking points now, but we're supposed to feign conspiratorial ignorance of this fact. 

"Ahmadinejad believes his role is to pave the way for the coming of the
Twelfth Imam. That's a primitive apocalyptic belief! I thank Jesus I do
not live in a country led by a man who believes in that sort of bullshit. Imagine how dangerous that would be, especially if that man had the
launch codes for nuclear weapons. "

Adams is talking about Israel here.  Nuclear ambiguity aside, Israel is the only country in the region with such weapons that has a national religious identity - Judaism - which is at it's core, Messianic. 

"The worst of the worst is that Ahmadinejad's country is helping the Iraqis kill American soldiers. If Iran ever invades Canada, I think we'd agree the best course of action for the United States is to be constructive and let things sort themselves out. Otherwise we'd be just as evil  as the Iranians. Those fuckers"

This non-sequitur has me stumped.  Clearly I'm not too bright, because I've reread it a few dozen times and can't find a constructive purpose for it's presence... other than to confuse. 

"Those Iranians need to learn from the American example. In this country, if the clear majority of the public opposes the continuation of a war, our leaders will tell us we're terrorist-humping idiots and do whatever they damn well please. They might even increase our taxes to do it. That's called leadership."

This is another attempt to get the last few readers on-board his train of thought.  By railing against the Bush administration's heavy handed dealings with the opposition and disregard for constitutional checks and balances, he is saying "If you are anti-Bush and against the war... you probably also share my other ideas".  Not very subtle.

"If Ahmadinejad thinks he can be our friend by honoring our heroes and
opening a dialog, he underestimates our ability to misinterpret him.
Fucking idiot. I hate him."

Here at the end we've come full circle back to the issue of whether or not to allow Ahmadinejad to go to ground zero (the WTC site).  As with his earlier statements about free speech and the right to protest the war without being labeled unpatriotic (or worse), he is essentially saying that if you love the basic principles upon which the US was founded, then you share his other - unrelated- sentiments about Jews and Israel.  It's all about making sure the people are nodding when the music stops. 

Judging by the positive comments at the end of his blog post, it seems to have worked quite well.

Update:  In his follow-up post (insultingly titled "Sorry I confused you", Mr. Adams puts on his tap shoes and says a lot of nothing.  In between riffs on "I didn't mean that", and "of course Israel has the right to exist" he un-does pretty much every conciliatory statement with a big fat "but...".

I'm sure I won't be missed among Scott Adam's mega-fan base.  But I'm leaving just the same.  Bye bye Dilbert.