Rog Coverley, a Republican headquarters manager, will think twice about putting McCain/Palin signs in his yard the next time after his home was shot up for doing just that. Maybe his attackers were trying to send a message about their candidate's stance on gun control.
A Maryland hotel, having the misfortune of being located in a community know as "Obama Country", and drunk with first amendment liberties, posted a McCain/Palin sign under their own. After being savagely called out by community members, threatened with the NAACP hounds, and suddenly finding themselves short on business, they decided to succumb to the protester's fascist behavior.
On a California level: here (in the land of racial, sexual, and religious tolerance), a man in Modesto, Jose Nunez, was broad-sided by an attacker while waiting to distribute YES on Prop 8 yard signs. Before receiving a well-placed black eye, the beacon of equality and understanding yelled, "what do you have against gays?" Supposing the question was rhetorical or, otherwise, the questioner was too impatient to await an answer, he decided to follow it up with a hay-maker. Nunez was mid-answer (albeit it short) explaining that he had nothing against "gays" when he was told what-for and his signs were stolen from him. Liberal "dialogue" can be a funny thing sometimes. Maybe if given the chance to answer, Nunez would have clarified that it wasn't "gays" he had a problem with, it was four rogue judges disregarding the will of sixty-one percent of California voters and redefining the state's popular consensus on traditional marriage. But with a swollen eye and blood coming out of your nose, this is all an after thought.
And finally, on a personal level, my dear girlfriend was driving to her job in West Hollywood on a typical weekday, ill-prepared for the holiday sight that would befall her. We all expect to see Halloween decorations on a crisp fall morning, we do every year: pumpkins, skeletons, and spider-webs. Cute. Zombies, blood, and severed hands. A little more disturbing, but still holding with the spirit of the season. John McCain burning to death in a chimney, and Sarah Palin hanging from a tree. What's that you say? Are you sure? Positive. Halloween can be funny sometimes too, here in Hollywood anyway.
You hear this all the time: but suppose you took these very true, very sad stories and reversed the roles. Reverse the political affiliation of the attackers and victims. Suppose a man in Modesto attacked a homosexual planting NO on Prop 8 signs. Picture a hotel sporting Obama signs being boycotted by a largely white community. And finally, imagine a house decorated with a Biden dummy, burning in a chimney; and Obama hanging from a tree. The implications of these Twilight Zone scenarios are obvious and we would, for sure, have heard about them by now and for years to come. But these actual events you most likely haven't heard of, and much of the country won't. Ever.
Saying there is a vast media blackout when it comes to reporting the wrong-doings of Obama supporters, and supporters of initiatives with a Left-leaning base is like saying the sky is up. If one were to deny such a thing, one would have to be either a very distorted, delusional liar; someone who never reads the news; or someone who is very, very stupid. Media blackouts, Liberal smoke-and-mirror tactics, political diversions: these things are very clear to anyone who considers themselves studious or decent. Yet there is a far more aggravating fact of the matter at hand. It's the devastatingly glaring hypocrisy that always attaches itself to the Liberal star, and somehow never manages to be as devastating as it is. All we can hope for is that the star will burn out, taking the hypocrisy with it when it finally expires in the darkness.
On Facebook, a colleague of mine pondered the woeful "hatred" of the YES on Prop 8 crowd. Hell, even the yard signs that oppose the proposition read, "Stop the Hate, No on 8". To Liberals, an opposition to something they feel strongly about is defined as "hate". I admit, it is much easier to simply call someone that disagrees with me a "poo-poo head", who just "hates me" because they can't see things my way. It's quite another thing to actually talk to the person who "hates" you. More personally difficult, yes, but since becoming an adult, I've learned that the world is full of people who think and feel differently than myself and there are better ways to coexist with them. To be honest, I get a kind of liberating feeling walking around my overwhelmingly Liberal neighborhood on a sunny day, seeing all the NO on Prop 8 signs and Obama/Biden bumper stickers. Though I don't understand them, and almost never agree with them, my first instinct is never to vandalize the sign, or rip off the sticker. I would consider the action a symbolic dissent from the values I cherish as an American. Opposition, debate, election via vote, checks and balances. All the ingredients that were combined 230 years ago to create a democratic union.
I'll leave the fascistic arson and vandalism of the opposition and, thereafter, media coverup to the Liberals. They're much better at demonstrating that the other side is wrong by employing the same tactics they're supposed to be against. Fighting racism with reverse racism, war with violent demonstration, free speech with doublespeak, gun control with guns (to name a few). Most importantly, preferring denial to accountability. I guess I have too much simplistic good will.
2 comments:
The "female McCain campaign worker" attack was an outright fabrication by the "victim." So, there's one hole in your "Obama Liberal Violence" thesis. Frankly, I'm shocked that you cite this thoroughly debunked story that in fact implicates a McCain employee of a hoax aimed squarely at inciting racist feelings in white McCain supporters. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Not a good way to start.
The Rog Coverly story is reported by ONE source, an extremely partisan blog titled "therightsource," which also happens to have a "Defeat Obama Central" category for its posts. The only "witness" is the "victim," who is a McCain supporter. This is very weak sauce.
The Maryland hotel story is at least true, I'll give you that. But your characterization is laughably histrionic, employing words like "savagely called out." Come on, be honest. What happened here was that the hotel in question, which does business in an area that is over 70% Democrat, posted ON THEIR MARQUEE in bold black letters a pro-McCain line. This wasn't some innocuous yard sign, as your post leads readers to believe. Some Democrats in the community responded to the hotel's public declaration with public denouncements of their own, denouncements that you've mischaracterized in this post, and that certainly were not savage. Some unhappy community members "threatened a boycott." So savage!
Regarding the Nunez story: Good, you've cited two honestly-reported stories in a row. But what you fail to say is that Nunez wasn't simply punched by someone. First, his signs were stolen. Nunez chased the thief. The two "struggled" with the signs. Then Nunez was punched in the face. We don't know if the other guy has stitches. We only know what one person in the altercation has to say. Who knows what really happened during this tussle as we only have Nunez's report. And even if he is giving us the full, complete story, it is illogical, unfair and intellectually lazy of you to project the actions of one alleged asshole onto all "liberals," all "Obama supporters," or all "gay supporters."
I don't know what to say about your girlfriend's eyewitness accounts, except that they are just that: Based on one person's testimony with no further evidence or deeper analysis into context. This is like a math "story" problem where the only applicable answer is "not enough information" because vital details are unavailable. Assuming that the burning McCain and hanging Palin are true (I have no reason to question your girlfriend's honesty or motivations aside from a "guilt by association" charge based on the fact that she is the girlfriend of a conservative, anti-Obama blogger, which would be unfair), the truth is we know nothing about who put them where they are or why.
I think I can take a guess at the motivation behind such displays, however. It makes me think of various revolutions that have taken place throughout human history. When a class of people gain power, become corrupt and then lose power, their effigies are often desecrated in some way. McCain/Palin represent a class of people (conservative white folk) who have ruled this country since its inception and who have done so by restricting the rights and freedoms of a whole host of other people, starting with the decimation of Native peoples, continuing with the enslavement of Africans, and stretching all the way to denying gays the right to openly and legally declare their loving partnerships in modern America. What we are seeing is a rejection of Conservative White Rule, and that rejection is bound to echo rejections seen in past revolutions.
This is also why your comparisons between hanging Palins to hanging black folk is not only sad but rather violently ignorant in its own right. To hang the effigy of someone who represents the dominant ruling class is in no way similar to hanging the effigy of someone who represents an oppressed class, especially when that oppressed class was in fact hung repeatedly, in reality, by militant supporters of that dominant ruling class. I'm rather appalled by your moral relativism on this point. The only thing "Twilight Zone" going on here is how a creative, intelligent, witty person like you could possibly be motivated to try and draw such comparisons without a tinge of irony or sarcasm.
As a white, straight, conservative male, you hardly surprise in your anti-liberal leanings, as modern liberalism flies in the face of the white, straight, conservative male power base in this country, a power base that seeks to wage wars, limit equality and pour money into the highest echelons of the wealthy in hopes that some will trickle down onto the upturned faces of the poor below.
These stories you highlight are either outright false, questionably true, or misinterpreted examples of "liberal violence." They are very weak indeed. Far worse than any of them is telling millions of people that they cannot marry the persons they love. Far worse is decimating communities by underfunding infrastructure at home while financing wars abroad. Far worse is supporting policies that serve only to entrench inequality rather than embrace the totality of what America really is: A big brown-covered pile of confused human beings who are attempting to get through life with the least amount of suffering.
Prop 8 is hate. If you truly were "studious or decent," you would recognize that truth, and you would own your own hate-based support for a measure that is squarely aimed at one thing: Lessening equality and ghettoizing millions of American citizens into a lower quality of life. You and your straight peers who have enjoyed a monopoly on the benefit of loving openly and proudly your opposite-sex partners seek with Prop 8 nothing more noble than to deny others the benefit of loving openly and proudly their same-sex partners. Support for Prop 8 cannot be accurately defined any other way, including by your weak attempt to appropriate it to a rejection of activist judges (another tired conservative meme).
News for you: When a judge upholds the basic tenets of our culture (Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness; All men are created equal), they are NOT activists. They are doing their job. To call them activists for doing their job is to rail against the reality of what judges are and what they are supposed to do.
Finally, your ongoing tirade against "liberalism" is utterly confounding to me. Can you explain why you are against the idea of liberalism? How about starting with a definition of liberalism? Then maybe you can reject that definition in clear terms, rather than with the hyperbolized, righteous rhetoric visible in this post.
I'll help you out with the definition part. Start with this: "Liberal" descends from the 14th Century Middle English word "liberalis" which means "of freedom, benefitting the free." The modern word, and its related political viewpoint, still references the same idea. As proof of this, witness the following senses of the word "liberal" from dictionary.com:
"Favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties." If you find this disagreeable, why?
"Favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression." If you find this disagreeable, why?
"Of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies." If you find this disagreeable, why?
"Free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant." If you find this disagreeable, why?
"Open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." If you find this disagreeable, why?
"Characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts." If you find this disagreeable, why?
"Given freely or abundantly; generous." If you find this disagreeable, why?
And finally:
"A person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion." If you find these people disagreeable, why?
What in the definition of "liberal" could you possibly find objection to as the thoughtful, funny, creative American citizen you are? Can't you see how you leave someone like me with very little conclusion except to embrace the only plausible theory: That you dislike those who are not like you. This is what you charge "liberals" with, but that charge flies in the face of the very definition of "liberal." It makes no sense for you to do so. What "liberals" are against is the despotic effects of a conservative mindset that seeks to limit equality, to limit each citizen's right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
That's Liberalism, no matter what your conservative blogs tell you.
Here's the question: What are you so afraid of? The only way of life that is threatened by "liberalism" is that which is held by those in power who risk losing monopolies on freedoms and liberties denied to others. Yes, as a straight, Christian, white male, you will, in time, lose your monopoly on being able to freely, openly, proudly and honestly love your partner. This will happen in time, just as you lost your monopoly on voting, on attending the best schools, on eating at all restaurants, on riding all busses, on drinking from all water fountains and on living a life free from violence directed at the color of your skin. Your monopoly on freedom is being eroded, and this is a good thing, nay a great thing. It proves that America, as an idea, does indeed work, however incrementally, however slowly, stubbornly, inexorably.
It can be painful to lose your monopoly on freedom, to lose absolute power, to share with the other kids on the playground, to fall into the morass of the common. We white people are experiencing that process right now, and have been since the American Civil War. And how we respond to this process reveals everything about the personal character of each of us.
Why aren't you writing about that? Then again, I think you are, however indirectly. Posts like the one you wrote here do nothing but illustrate and propagate the darkest, most fearful aspects of your character.
Oh, and as a follow-up, here's a story of a woman who, while waving a pro-Obama sign, was 4 inches from being run over by a man driving a van with a pro-McCain bumper sticker.
Will I falsely draw the conclusion from this story that all pro-McCain folk are attempted man-slaughterers? That anti-liberal violence is on the rise? Will I use this story to write a blog entry aimed at creating fear and more inter-party divisiveness? No. Why? Because the reasoned response to these stories is this: Assholes will be assholes, no matter who they support. And we should all be against violent assholes.
Post a Comment