Lars Larson blames James Kim for taking a wrong turn. But not George Bush.

According to conservative talk show host Lars Larson, James Kim is at fault for trusting a government map. What an idiot. I’m talking about Larson, not Kim.

Kim died when he and his family tried to take a treacherous Oregon back road after they missed a turnoff to Gold Beach via state Highway 42. They ended up stuck in snow. After a week, no rescuers had appeared. Kim left the car and set out on foot to seek help.

He succumbed to hypothermia. A tragedy. Thankfully, his wife and two children survived.

Wednesday Larson talked about the Kims on his local Portland show. I heard some of it live. Last night, while watching “Survivor,” we saw KOIN promos for the 11 o’clock news. They showed Larson criticizing Kim. But there wasn’t anything about this on the actual news.

Maybe Larson or KXL complained. Indeed, Larson comes off sounding like an insensitive right-wing blowhard. Which is exactly what he is. An archive of his December 6 show can be listened to here (click on the bottom 12/06/06).

I didn’t have the time or intestinal fortitude (Larson often makes me want to barf) to listen to the whole four hours. But I sampled segments of the show and got a pretty good feel for how Larson spun Kim’s death. Here are some excerpts from after the 3:44 mark.

Should this have happened? Should we tell people “you’ve got to make good decisions” and not be so dependent on the government?...He [Kim] looked at a map, which is a document not always generated by the government, but usually government is involved, and he decided based on a map to drive up a road that he’d never been on. He knew nothing about that road.

Larson then goes on to criticize the decisions Kim made. Not turning around and going back the same way when the snow got deep. Taking a side road instead (which, I heard elsewhere, was a rational attempt to get to a lower elevation). Trying to walk out instead of staying with the car.

At the 3:10 mark a caller says that it makes sense to look for help after a week of being stuck. The omniscient Larson responds that Kim’s family was rescued on Monday, so if he had stayed put for two more days he wouldn’t have died.

And if George Bush hadn’t invaded Iraq on the basis of faulty intelligence almost 3,000 American troops wouldn’t have died. But I don’t hear Larson castigating the Idiot in Chief for making that wrong decision. Not to mention all the wrong turns Bush has made subsequent to the invasion.

Nobody is infallible. Not Kim. Not Bush, And certainly not Lars Larson. But Larson and Bush think that they are. They have 20-20 vision when it comes to pointing out the supposed mistakes of others, yet manifest complete blindness when they look at their own shortcomings and misunderstandings.

For some other views on Larson’s uncompassionate conservatism toward Kim’s death, check out Metroblogging Portland and Where’s Your Brain?

Comments

[Rain]

Larson sounds like a nut. Kim was from the city, not familiar with backroads. He and his wife, together, made a tragic choice but he did all he could to save his family and deserves only credit. The far right amazes me. How do they get anyone to listen to them? Why do we have to put up with the likes of this or Limbaugh on the other news programs? I am sick of their ugly and nasty personalities. They better hope karma doesn't exist.

[Idler]

OK, Larson is crass for making copy of Kim's misfortunes. But what on earth does this topic have to do about Bush?

[Brian]

Idler, isn't it obvious? Larson never tires of speaking about personal responsibility--how people have to be held responsible for their decisions and not expect government to bail them out.

Larson has been harping on how James Kim should have known better than to drive up an unfamiliar road that he knew nothing about. He says that Kim should have been better prepared and known when to turn around when conditions got worse (they ran into snow).

Yet Larson doesn't similarly criticize Bush for driving the United States into a war based on false information. He doesn't fault Bush for failing to reverse course in Iraq when everybody but El Presidente (and maybe his dog) recognizes that he's into deep doo-doo.

Larson is a hypocrite, like most right-wing talk show hosts. They preach the importance of individual accountability for one's actions, but fail to insist on this when it comes to Republican elected officials.

[Idler]

But if Larson doesn't think Bush should change course, then there's no hypocrisy. Error you can argue, but not hypocrisy.

[Brian]

Idler, everyone agrees errors have been made in Iraq. Everyone. Lars isn't an idiot. He knows what is going on in Iraq. So he must be a hypocrite. Even Gordon Smith recognizes that the "path to victory" is a dead end.

Thus I stand by my indictment of Larson. He is a true right-wing believer who will stand by Bush until his Iraq policy crashes head on into the wall of reality. That disaster is a heck of a lot more serious, and less defensible, than John Kim's error of judgment.

[Rain]

and now it has come out that someone, probably who liked to go four-wheeling in snow, or was cutting wood or trees without permits, had cut the chain on the gate that would have made it obvious to stopped the Kims from proceeding. That 'someone,' who decided rules weren't meant to be obeyed by them 'should' be feeling really guilty about now... the accent is on should.

[Idler]

Brian, I think the best you could do is call attention to the irony of someone committed to an error on a larger scale while criticizing one on a smaller one. I think you indulge yourself in both a discreditable emotion and an incoherent thought when you seek to make it hypocrisy. You may reasonably deplore the cost Larson is willing to endorse without imagining that he's going to commit his credibility to something he believes must fail.

An ironic approach could have salvaged some commentary along these lines. But by seeking a bigger bang of indignation you've forced the issue into a Procrustean bed. If I can stress the metaphor a little, the concept is a bit of a stretch.

[Brian]

Idler, we seem to agree that Lars Larson is off-base. So it comes down to what word is used to describe his error. I still like "hypocrisy," because it sums up for me what is most objectionable about conservatives today.

My dictionary says that hypocrisy is the practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess--falseness.

Larson professes that he believes in personal responsibility. People need to be held accountable for their actions.

Yet he is wildly selective in how he applies this professed belief. This leads me to the reasonable conclusion that he doesn't really believe in what he claims to believe.

As I said before, there is zero room for disagreement that Bush and his cronies have made many wrong turns in Iraq. Many thousands have died as a result. Yet Larson refuses to hold his beloved Bush accountable for these errors.

Just James Kim. Conservatives used to have backbone and actually live their beliefs. If they believed in small government and fiscal responsibility, they didn't run up the national debt and budget deficits.

Larson epitomizes the new conservatism. Spout platitudes but don't act on them. So, yes, he's a hypocrite. You'll never convince me otherwise. And on this blog, I'm the decider.

[Idler]

I affirm your right to make up your own mind, Brian!

[cc]

i think that this was just a wrong turn and nothing bad about his decision and bush has nothing to do with this