 Columnist Susan Paynter: Highly Selective Outrage By Norman E. Kjono
On
January 29, 2004 Forces posted Norman Kjono’s commentary “Susan
Paynter: Fashionable, Trendy, Smoke-Free, And A Politically Correct Bigot.”
That commentary responded to two columns by Susan Paynter published in The
Seattle Post-Intelligencer regarding her January 26,2004 column
“Like The Phoenix, tobacco issues Rise Again”
and her January 28, 2004 column “Fashion Statement Sends A Hurtful
Message.” Ms. Paynter wrote follow up column “Reaction To ‘Jewish Girls’
T-Shirt Is Divided,”
on January 30, 2004.
Mr.
Kjono sent an E-Mail to Ms. Paynter that provided a link to his January 29
commentary (see E-Mail No. 1 below.) Having not received a response
by the 30th, Mr. Kjono followed up with an E-Mail to a Seattle
Post Intelligencer editor, Stephanie Simons, to whom he was referred to by
the PI’s Features Editor, and on which Ms. Paynter was copied (see
E-Mail No. 2 below.) Ms. Paynter responded to Mr. Kjono on the 30th
after his E-Mail was sent to Ms. Simons (see E-Mail no. 3 below.) Later on
the 30th Mr. Kjono replied to Ms. Paynter (see E-Mail No. 4
below.) Ms.
Paynter can be reached by E-Mail at: susanpaynter@seattlepi.com Ms.
Simons can be reached by E-Mail at: stephaniesimons@seattlepi.com
What
is at issue in Mr. Kjono’s commentary and Duplicitous
standards are the hallmark of tobacco control activism. What tobacco
control advocates and their political supporters apply to others to
“discredit” them, such as receiving any money at any time and in any
amount from a tobacco company, cannot apply to funds that tobacco control
advocates generously ladle out to themselves from the $206 billion 1998
tobacco Settlement Master Settlement Agreement trough. It seems that the
tobacco settlement is a miraculous laundry facility that turns filthy
tobacco dollars into conflict-odor-free activist revenue streams.
Orchestrating the lowest forms of using media to send persistent messages
that intentionally reduce public tolerance for one’s fellow citizens who
smoke apparently rises to a noble cause, when conducted by
special-interest activists and the press (see page 22 from the April 1993
Project ASSIST booklet “Planning For A Tobacco-Free Washington.”)
Even the most transparent conflicts-of-interest, such as Washington
Attorney General Christine Gregoire’s tobacco control task force
explicitly recommending that development of Washington’s tobacco control
policy be coordinated with a
special-interest private foundation that aggressively funds
promotion of smoking bans, are ignored – provided, of course that the
conflicts arise on the part of politically favored financial sponsors (see
page 23 from the November 1998 tobacco control task force report
regarding coordination with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.)
And it appears that mercantile agendas to increase the price of
politically incorrect products and to reduce the opportunities for
consumers to use products that compete those deemed to be socially
acceptable are an acceptable way to do business in Washington (see Forces
previous posting regarding “Estimating the Health Consequences of
Replacing Cigarettes With Nicotine Inhalers.”)
We
believe differently. We believe that transparency of vested-interests
serves the public good through honest disclosure of the full range of
information that citizens and voters consider. We also believe that when
special-interest-supported policy advocates do not disclose a twisted web
of relationships it becomes clear that they either have something to hide
or they do not trust the public’s ability to accept their hidden agendas
as a reasonable approach to governance. And we believe that those who seem
to hide duplicitous standards for how they treat all fellow citizens with
dignity and respect have significant baggage in their personal closets
that influences how they write. All of these considerations are important. In
her January 28, 2004 column Ms. Paynter says “And tolerance of
intolerance is a slippery slope.” In her January 30. 2004 follow-up
regarding who should have a voice in expressing their opinions about
hurtful stereotyping she states “Who gets to draw the line between cute
and insulting? Personally, I'd hand that pencil to the people who feel
the pain." (Highlight added.) Those are admirable sentiments,
when evenly applied to how one treats others. When only applied toward
those one favors, and willfully violated when one writes about a pet peeve
“Target Group,” they become the gong of hollow brass so often applied
by closet bigots – one says what sounds good, yet violates that when it
becomes expedient to push an agenda. Among
those who read this posting to Forces are many smokers who have been
maliciously stigmatized, negatively labeled, and unfavorably stereotyped
by Ms. Paynter’s January 26 column. To date that columnist has not provided
equal voice to smokers who “feel the pain” of her barbs that are flung
in a cavalier and indifferent manner to support a special-interest smoking
ban agenda. Since she has not done so to date, we believe that it is
important for readers to use the above addresses to send a message to Ms.
Paynter and her editor at The PI regarding her hurtful and mean-spirited
column “Like The Phoenix, Smoking Issues Rise Again.” As
you decide what to do please consider an old adage to the effect that :
“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to stand
silent.” Norman
E. Kjono
1.
Original E-Mail From Kjono to Columnist Susan Paynter at The work referred to, and for which a link was provided, is Kjono’s commentary From: Norm Kjono [mailto:normkarl@earthlink.net]
2. E-Mail from Kjono to Seattle-Post-Intelligencer editor Stephanie Simons: A link to my January 29, 2004 commentary regarding the above-referenced columns is provided at top of this page. Full content of that response is therefore available to both The PI and Ms. Paynter. I am writing a follow-up column regarding this subject and would appreciate comments from The PI and Ms. Paynter. The PI is free to publish what it chooses, and neither Ms. Paynter nor The PI have a duty to respond to my request for comment. It seems to me, however, that in light of the particularly controversial and - in my view - unseemly content of Ms. Paynter's January 26, 2004 column, "Like The Phoenix, Smoking Issues Rise Again," a response is warranted. As mentioned in my column of the 29th, it is clear to me that Ms. Paynter intended to craft a stereotype of persons who lawfully consume legal tobacco products as hopeless marginals in our society who raise their "yellow-stained" hands to light a product that is so allegedly toxic it deprives their fellow citizens of the right to life. Many who read the January 26 column that negatively labeled and unfavorably stereotyped persons who smoke were outraged by its hurtful statements and such blatant pandering to pharmaceutical nicotine and anti-tobacco special-interests by both The PI and Ms. Paynter. A consistent view expressed regarding Ms. Paynter's two columns is that those two works clearly illustrate the duplicitous values and deceptive standards applied by the National Socialist Party, to which Ms. Paynter ostensibly objects. While raising the specter of brown shirts in a column about Jewish people immediately after writing a classic Goebbelesque propaganda missive about her "Target Group" of choice may serve as Ms. Paynter's cultural sensitivity cover, such writing also directly applies the self-serving propaganda contradictions that provided the Nazi press voice to support herding 6 million human beings into the gas chambers of Auchwitz and other camps. Such writing demeans and insults the intelligence of decent and good Jewish people because it anticipates they, too, embrace and accept the duplicitous personal values that lead the German people to stand silent while millions of their fellow-citizen Jews, Gypsies, and other "undesirables" were first stigmatized, second ostracized, and then systematically eliminated. Once again, six decades after the rest of humankind "got it," we read in Ms. Paynter's column that those who willfully demean, vilify, ostracize, and humiliate their current targets for economic rewards and to garner political advantage are "concerned" and genteel heroes. In contrast, Ms. Paynter's chosen targets, persons who smoke, are characterized as hopeless "marginals" who are stigmatized by a characteristic unique to them (yellow-stained hands.) Indeed, Ms. Paynter even chooses the same color - yellow - to stigmatize smokers as the little corporal's SS used in the 1940s to stigmatize Jewish people. The content of Ms. Paynter's January 26, 2004 column, "Like The Phoenix, Smoking Issues Rise Again," speaks for itself, however the depth of the apparently bigoted and duplicitous personal values behind it do not become apparent until comparing that work with her column of January 28. My father is an immigrant from Kristiansund N. Norway. Most of my family survived the Nazi occupation of that country. Members of my extended family served in the Norwegian resistance. In light of that family history I find it to be particularly repugnant and alarming to read a Quisling-equivalent column about persons who smoke in the State of Washington, United States of America, Seattle-Post Intelligencer. What was so hated about the Quisling administrators of the Reich regime in Norway was that, like Ms. Paynter, they turned on their own - Quislings found it fashionable and expedient to stigmatize, demean, ostracize, and "report" on their own neighbors and members of their own communities. Such behavior was engaged in, much like anti-tobacco supporters today, to garner the economic and political benefits that touting the party line without question according to the new and "proper" order assured. Quislings were not any more concerned about the truth of "facts" that they spewed about Norwegian citizens than Ms. Paynter appears to be about the absence of credible proof regarding any material and bona fide risk from secondhand smoke. Similar to Ms. Paynter, Quislings were also masters at crafting schemes to incite public opinion against their "Target Group" of choice through skillful writing and repetition of propaganda themes that liberally employed junk science. Fortunately, and to the benefit of decent members of humankind, such self-serving bigots were by and large rounded up and summarily dealt with once the jackbooted bigot-thugs where thrown out of Norway. I note with interest Ms. Paynter's column on Friday the 30th of January 2004, "Reaction To 'Jewish Girls' T-Shirt Divided." I challenge The PI, and particularly Ms. Paynter, to follow her own words from that column: "Who gets to draw the line between cute and insulting? Personally, I'd hand that pencil to the people who feel the pain." (Underline added.) I believe that Ms. Paynter owes at the least giving an equal shot at using her pencil to persons who feel the pain of being demeaned and stigmatized in her column as she provided for those who may be offended by what is printed ion a T-Shirt. Why not rerun Ms. Paynter's column again, as published on January 26th, with a similar survey question as appeared for the T-shirt column? The survey question should read "Does this column unfairly stereotype and negatively label persons who smoke?" As I think about that possibility a few thoughts come to mind. First, following that recommendation would provide a plausible and golden opportunity to reinforce through a second publication current tobacco control propaganda about smokers, which should delight pharmaceutical and Nicotine Replacement Therapy advertisers in The PI. Second, depending on how the survey question is worded, we could get a good indication of public sentiment on the subject. Will the results show justified outrage over such blatant stereotyping and labeling, or will smokers finally be forced to come to grips with a new, chilling reality: tobacco control's much vaunted and well-funded media access has already crafted a cultural environment where persons who lawfully consume legal tobacco products now confront their own Crystal Night? Regardless of how The PI or Ms. Paynter respond to the above please be
assured that Forces will continue to report on this subject for its Thank you for your attention to these matters. I appreciate that you took the time to read my views and recommendation as expressed. Best Always, Norman E. Kjono
3. Ms, Paynter responded to Kjono’s E-Mail of
January 29, 2004 on January 30th. That response was not received, however, until after a follow-up E-Mail was sent to an editor at the PI (see No. 3 below), on which Paynter was copied.
4. Kjono’s
January 30, 2004 response to Ms. Paynter’s reply: Well,
what you could do is obvious: have the grace to consider my recommendation that you republish your commentary with a reader's survey response. You could also present the junk science that it appears you believe unquestionably proves persons who smoke deprive nonsmokers of the “basic right to life.” A retraction of your hurtful, mean-spirited stereotypes of persons who smoke, whether intended or not, would be very much appreciated. |