Stability for the Unstable

By William L. Garvin

The late comedian and social critic, George Carlin, used to contrast the pastoral sport of baseball with the violent world of football. In light of the “hair trigger” sensitivity of the mentally unstable to words and rhetoric, he might want to reconsider his previous riff. After all, “strong armed” pitchers fire “missiles” and “darts” with “laser” accuracy at 100 miles per hour. Batters are armed with “clubs” with which they attempt to “smash” balls out of the park and runners “crash” into shortstops and second basemen to “break up” a double play. Let’s not forget the sanctioned violence of the “collision” at home plate with the runner “launching” himself into the catcher at full speed.

Football is of course full of violent, warlike terminology. Coaches “target” opponents’ weaknesses. Linemen are in a “war” in the “trenches.” Short, fast passes are “bullets” and long throws are “bombs.” Players themselves resemble “gladiators” and are clad in “armor.” The percussive collisions are a centerpiece of the game.

Ice hockey is similarly concussive and soccer is reliant on both “kicking” and “tripping.” Both statistically track “shots” on goal. Basketball is rife with “pushing,” “shoving,” and “slamming” down thunderous dunks. It must be obvious that fans everywhere have been preconditioned by their sporting environments to act out their latent violent tendencies.

In truth, this preconditioning to violence started much earlier. You probably thought “snap, crackle, and pop” was just a clever marketing ploy for Rice Krispies. It is actually the trigger phrase for the mentally unstable Manchurian candidates to unleash their previously implanted antisocial desires. This is further reinforced by Quaker Puffed Rice and Quaker Puffed Wheat which were “shot from guns.”

Children were brainwashed with images of Big Bad Wolves devouring helpless young Red Riding Hoods and wicked witches intent on consuming Hansel and Gretel. Exactly how did the Old Woman in the Shoe end up with so many children? Was she the inspiration for the Octomom? And where was the father(s)? Does this sanction and encourage promiscuity? And what’s with Donald and Daisy Duck running around without any pants? Does this encourage exhibitionism? Pornography? Where was PETA when Elmer Fudd was running around with his weapons “hunting wabbits”? Speaking of rabbits, let’s not even consider the implications of Jessica and Roger!

High school teachers may also be complicit in their enabling of unchained violence by requiring their students to read TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD and MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS. The works of Shakespeare are also full of murder and social mayhem. Does THE TAMING OF THE SHREW and the more contemporary WHO’S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOLFE? inspire domestic mayhem?

Obviously, sports, nursery rhymes, cereal, cartoons, and literature should not be banned. The point is that there is no behavior or belief so bizarre, aberrant, or perverse that a pointy-headed intellectual somewhere won’t surface to rationalize and support it. There is an increasing trend to absolve individuals of accountability for their own actions and to conjure up a way to blame society for their shortcomings. Equally troubling is the tendency to take tragic situations and combine them with facts and comments taken out of context to suit a political agenda. Politicians and pundits repeatedly make technically accurate statements with the intent to deceive.

There is a responsibility on the purveyor of words to communicate a message. There is a responsibility on the part of the recipient of the message to define the message and then to assess its accuracy and relevance. If they actually think the drunken fan shouting “kill the umpire!” means it, why are they out in public without a caretaker?

Furthermore, why did the media pundits repeatedly caution the public against “rushing to judgment” in the Fort Hood massacre and then immediately rush to judgment in the Tucson massacre? Now that it is known that the Tucson shooter never listened to the news or talk radio, why haven’t they apologized to those they maligned, Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle, Mark Levin, Beck, Rush, et al? Why didn’t they list Mathews, Schultz, Olberman, Maddow, Krugman, and Scarborough by name in their indictment? Why didn’t they recognize that the words and manner in which they rejected the purported vitriol served only to “target” the conservative voices with which they disagree? If one of them is subsequently harmed by one of their “mentally unstable” listeners or readers, will they accept personal responsibility? As usual, they will not.