Ever since the passage of the unpopular Health Care and American Bankruptcy Bill last week, the mainstream news media have been having a case of the vapors over right-wing "violence." While, doubtless, there are kooks in any political movement, some of us more cynical types believe this is a manufactured issue. The Democrats want desperately to change the subject: so, please stop talking about Congress' dragging America one giant step closer to Soviet Union-style economics, and let's talk about more pressing concerns, such as, well, those dangerously violent conservatives. And mean. And unhinged. And violent. Did we already say that? And violent.
Of course, Republican violence has apparently been a problem for some time. In this little known incident at the 2008 Democratic Party Convention in Denver, for example, anti-Democratic protesters threw bricks through the windows of charter buses -- sending some people to the hospital -- and dropped bags of sand off of overpasses and onto vehicles passing by. It seems strange nobody heard of this, doesn't it?
Well, not so strange really. It happened, alright. Except it happened not at the Democratic Convention in Denver, but at the Republican Convention in St. Paul. The protesters were not anti-Democratic, but anti-Republican. John Hinderaker writes about it here.
Funny how the narrative shapes the news, isn't it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
About Me
- Lee
- Profession: DBA. Obsession: trombone. Confession: Westminster. Politics: conservative. Church: Presbyterian (PCA). Favorite drink: ecumenical, but no foo-foo, please. Favorite wife: Debbie (since 1983). Favorite pet: Siamese cat. Favorite music: symphonic. Favorite recreation: fishing.
9 comments:
I don’t know what to say except I thought, from reading your blogs, that you were smart enough to have answered your own question. Changing the subject is what politicians, and the media, do. This comes as a shock to you? You somehow feel injured by this? Misdirection – changing the subject – is as important to the smokescreen of elective politics -- and selling papers and advertising -- as oxygen is to life. Why anyone would point that out in purely political terms is beyond me, unless of course all they had going for them was a membership card to a political party.
The “narrative shapes the news?” You bet. So long as political discourse remains the adolescent pissing contest it has become, and that you apparently happily participate in, and perpetuate, so will that be true -- across the board. When the lead story on a local newscast, in these times, is about a football team, there is little hope of usurping the power of the narrative.
First, I would have thought that being a Christian you would be against violence, period. I would have thought that you would take a stand against it regardless of whether it was perpetrated by Republicans or Democrats. If you had said that, you could have, and would have, made an important point. The violence IS the issue. Instead you chose to take up the “cause,” which is of no importance in this matter. What we’re really talking about is a deplorable act of violence with intent to do harm to other human beings. You said nothing about the deed. Who gives a rat’s ass about what political party was behind it, or what some whore reporter had to say about it?
You aren't pointing out any salient critique of the media, or even a political party. Instead you're mouthing the meaningless, and dangerous, vitriol that keeps us gnawing at each others throats, while the discussions we should be having are left out in the cold, where this particular post of yours should be left out in. Your post was just as meaningless, careless and wrong as having thrown the damn sand bags.
Damn it! Why can’t a seemingly intelligent person like you see that what today passes for party politics has become the absolute worst thing about us, and the very reason all the bad things you seem to want to rail against are happening anyway? Why is that, Lee? What you obviously embrace has made you blind and careless, and unfortunately you aren’t alone. The last thing this country needs within the crises that envelope us is a blind and careless citizenry. You read and listen to this shit, and you fall into the trap it sets. You see the misdirection. You recognize it for what it is, yet you buy it just because the package looks all shiny and promising -- because you allow it to define you. I read your words, and I cannot believe that you do not see this.
Even horrible presents come in pretty packages. If they didn’t no one would buy them. You see the lies, but you repeat them as though they were on the tablets Moses carried from the mount. Yet harmless, unsuspecting souls being pelted and injured by sand bags is nothing more than Republicans and Democrats having another tiff. I suppose sand bags, just like money, are free speech.
> ...I thought, from reading your blogs, that you were smart enough to have answered your own question.
Check the rules of the blog. You're getting personal.
> This comes as a shock to you?
I would characterize it as disappointment. It would be mild disappointment since I am more than familiar with Republicans, but the stakes are pretty high today.
> So long as political discourse remains the adolescent pissing contest it has become, and that you apparently happily participate in...
How do you characterize political discourse when you happily participate in it?
> ...I would have thought that being a Christian you would be against violence, period.
Where did you acquire your ideas about how Christianity works?
> ...you could have, and would have, made an important point.
I'm here to make the points I wish to make, not the ones you wish I had made.
> The violence IS the issue. Instead you chose to take up the “cause,” which is of no importance in this matter.
I'll take a wild stab here: the cause isn't important because it isn't your cause. Am I close?
> What we’re really talking about is a deplorable act of violence...
What we have here is tendentious reporting. Conveniently ignored is any violence and verbal assault committed by the Left.
> What we’re really talking about is a deplorable act of violence with intent to do harm to other human beings.
If they're real, they should not only be deplored, but prosecuted.
> Who gives a rat’s ass about what political party was behind it, or what some whore reporter had to say about it?
Me.
> You aren't pointing out any salient critique of the media, or even a political party.
I'm actually pretty sure that, yes, I was.
> Instead you're mouthing the meaningless, and dangerous, vitriol that keeps us gnawing at each others throats...
If what I'm saying is meaningless, how can it be dangerous? As for "gnawing at each others throats", in this and your other posts, you are exhibiting a glorious lack of self-awareness.
> ...while the discussions we should be having are left out in the cold, where this particular post of yours should be left out in.
From you, I'll guess I'll start taking that as a compliment.
> Your post was just as meaningless, careless and wrong as having thrown the damn sand bags.
Then I guess you're not as opposed to violence as you thought, if you equate it to freedom of speech.
> Damn it! Why can’t a seemingly intelligent person like you see that what today passes for party politics has become the absolute worst thing about us, and the very reason all the bad things you seem to want to rail against are happening anyway?
Maybe it's because I don't agree with your points? I hate to mention it because you don't seem to enjoy it when people disagree with you.
> Why is that, Lee? What you obviously embrace has made you blind and careless, and unfortunately you aren’t alone.
I'm not so blind that I can't tell when someone constructs a position out of a sea of question-begging epithets, and then believe it constitutes an argument.
> The last thing this country needs within the crises that envelope us is a blind and careless citizenry.
Maybe first we should specify what the crisis is; it might help us from acting blindly.
> You read and listen to this shit...
People and children at my church read this blog, so please refrain from using profanity. You don't have to prove that my blog is obnoxious by helping contribute to its obnoxiousness.
> ...and you fall into the trap it sets. You see the misdirection. You recognize it...[blah blah blah]
Why not just do what most liberals do? Assume I'm a sputtering madman and then go watch Keith Olbermann instead.
I think I'm done fisking this mess. Drop by again when you can keep the language clean. Don't forget to bring an argument.
Part 1:
> Check the rules of the blog. You're getting personal.
I wasn’t trying to be personal, and I was complementing you even if it came from the left hand. I do happen to think you are smart enough to see what’s happening, and I think you should try harder.
> I would characterize it as disappointment. It would be mild disappointment since I am more than familiar with Republicans, but the stakes are pretty high today.
I’m sure you are. But the problem, as I see it, and not just pertaining to you, is we only know the side we’ve chosen, and that severely limits our possibilities. That doesn’t raise the stakes, but pushes them farther from reach.
> How do you characterize political discourse when you happily participate in it?
I think it’s great! I love it. I just don’t like it they way we do it these days. I don’t like what passes for political debate. There needs to be a whole lot less politics and much more debate. It’s about ideas, not party platforms. If we can’t get beyond the platform we can’t have the debate. Platforms are made of wood, as are the heads of those who devise them, follow them, and then make speeches about them while standing upon them.
> Where did you acquire your ideas about how Christianity works?
I don’t know how Christianity works. I thought I did, but they keep changing the rules. I thought they were against violence of any kind. Nonetheless, I won’t debate religion with you. That’s definitely one area in which we will never agree.
> I'm here to make the points I wish to make, not the ones you wish I had made.
If I gave that impression, I’m sorry. All I was saying is that your point could have had a lot more meaning, and perhaps impact, had you covered all the bases instead of leaving it cloaked in political cloth. There’s more below on this item.
> I'll take a wild stab here: the cause isn't important because it isn't your cause. Am I close?
Well, if being against violence is an unworthy cause, then, yes. Which goes back to my previous point. You didn’t say that and I think you should have. That’s all I was saying.
> What we have here is tendentious reporting. Conveniently ignored is any violence and verbal assault committed by the Left.
That’s what they did, and tendentious it certainly was. But you don’t refute tendentious reporting by doing some of your own.
> If they're real, they should not only be deplored but prosecuted.
And no matter which side they’re on. Amen to that.
> Me.
Yes, I know. I do too, but obviously for very different reasons.
> I'm actually pretty sure that, yes, I was.
Yes, you were. I take that one back. But I still think you didn’t go far enough. The smell of party politics fouls everything it permeates.
Part 2
> If what I'm saying is meaningless, how can it be dangerous?
I covered this a bit in a post on the other topic. I won’t repeat it here.
> As for "gnawing at each others throats", in this and your other posts, you are exhibiting a glorious lack of self-awareness.
No. I know when I go too far, and this time I did. The gnawing thing isn’t even a very good metaphor. But lets face it, the left and the right don’t get along. It takes no great intelligence to see that. The manner in which they don’t get along is not a good thing, is my point. Shoulda just said that, huh?
> From you, I'll guess I'll start taking that as a compliment.
That came out worse than it looks. It’s just that your original post left me wanting to know more about the story and you. You stopped short, and sold yourself short by making it only about partisan politics, and some question-begging epithet ☺ about the narrative shaping the news. These are givens. By doing so, you left me to paint an unflattering picture of you in my mind. A picture of you that I sense is not a reality.
> Then I guess you're not as opposed to violence as you thought if you equate it to freedom of speech.
I abhor violence, unless it’s a clean hockey hit. I wasn’t equating free speech to throwing sand bags at innocent people. I was saying that if we can make money free speech, why not tossing sand bags? If you can do one you can do the other. I don’t want either to be construed as free speech.
> Maybe it's because I don't agree with your points? I hate to mention it because you don't seem to enjoy it when people disagree with you.
I don’t imagine you do. But then I don’t think you understand them thus far, and that’s because of my shortcomings. I love when people disagree with me. I enjoy the challenge.
> I'm not so blind that I can't tell when someone constructs a position out of a sea of question-begging epithets, and then believe it constitutes an argument.
The politics of obstruction is a valid argument. It happens every day, and it is counterproductive to progress. So too is it a valid argument to be against the blindness that is often inherent in party politics, for the same reason. Perhaps you aren’t guilty of either, but you don’t do enough to make that clear. Your post was the party line. That’s how you wrote it, and I felt cheated because of it.
> Maybe first we should specify what the crisis is; it might help us from acting blindly.
First of all I said crises – plural. So pick one. They are all dangerous. We could keel over, as a nation, from any one of them. So what’s most important? How do we decide? I can tell you it’s going to all be guess work, because we don’t know. In any event the more we know the better the odds.
> People and children at my church read this blog... You don't have to prove that my blog is obnoxious by helping contribute to its obnoxiousness.
Your blog isn’t obnoxious, but I was, and I’m sorry. I can get carried away and lost in my thoughts, too.
> Why not just do what most liberals do? Assume I'm a sputtering madman and then go watch Keith Olbermann instead.
First of all, please do not equate me with a right-bashing leftist, or vice-versa. I’m neither. I don’t believe in hanging labels on myself, or anyone else. I don’t care about political affiliations. I dislike them all. In fact I think they are anathema. Why not just paint a target on your back? Have I called you anything other than a Christian, or what you’ve called yourself, or inferred otherwise, in any of my posts? Second, I don’t like Keith Olbermann, Rush Limbaugh or any of their ilk. They represent all that is bad about politics and the political mood in our country. They aren’t even smart, they’re smug.
> I think I'm done fisking this mess. Drop by again when you can keep the language clean. Don't forget to bring an argument.
My apologies for the first, and for the second, I did. You missed it, but that was my fault.
> I do happen to think you are smart enough to see what’s happening, and I think you should try harder.
So far, all of what you've given me is a perspective of sorts. I don't share it. Your entire spiel seems to consist of this:
1. Policy and ideology don't matter because people are corrupt.
2. Party politics is unremittingly bad.
3. If I were smarter, I'd see things the way you do.
It's okay with me if you think that.
> There needs to be a whole lot less politics and much more debate.
I'm fine with lots of debate, too, but unfortunately, policy is what matters. That's why it's called "politics."
> I don’t know how Christianity works. I thought I did, but they keep changing the rules.
The rules are the same as always. Some wish they were different.
> I thought they were against violence of any kind.
Some Christians are. However, you'd have a hard time making a Biblical case that this is so. Even Jesus felt it necessary to become violent on at least one well-documented occasion. But this is a red herring, anyway. There are allegations that Tea Partiers and conservatives are committing violence or threatening violence; to date, that's all they are, allegations.
> Well, if being against violence is an unworthy cause, then, yes. Which goes back to my previous point. You didn’t say that and I think you should have. That’s all I was saying.
I wasn't addressing the issue of violence.
> That’s what they did, and tendentious it certainly was. But you don’t refute tendentious reporting by doing some of your own.
I'm not reporting; I'm commenting. When writing opinion, it's appropriate to be opinionated.
> The politics of obstruction is a valid argument. It happens every day, and it is counterproductive to progress.
It depends on what you define as 'progress'. Unless you can convince me otherwise, I have to stick to my guns: all change is not for the good. Some change is for the bad. If someone is changing things for the worse, then obstructionism becomes a good thing. This follows very logically from the premises. To paraphrase Barry Goldwater, obstructionism in the avoidance of bad policy is no vice.
> Perhaps you aren’t guilty of either, but you don’t do enough to make that clear. Your post was the party line.
It's funny that you say that, since in the previous post I lambasted the Republican Party. Do a search of "Republican" in my blog, read what I have written, and then let me know whether you think the GOP would welcome me into their star chambers.
Regarding labels: I don't mind being labeled, as long as I think the label is accurate.
> I won’t debate religion with you. That’s definitely one area in which we will never agree.
From the Reformed perspective, a Christian is responsible for proclaiming the Good News: that man is dead in sin, and our only hope and comfort in this world and the next is to love the Lord, repent of our sins, accept the salvation offered by Lord Jesus, and submit to the Holy Spirit as He works in us to change us into the people we need to become.
But I'm not responsible for converting you or failing to convert you. I try not to be a stumbling block, but I would imagine that happens pretty often anyway. But converting you is the Lord's job, not mine.
Interesting exchange. But back to your point about bogus reporting in the media. The Seattle Times reported a doozy:
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/03/seattle_times_reports_rock_thr.php
It was reported that a rock was thrown through the office window of Democrat Steve Dreihaus. With a little investigative reporting, one would have found out that the office is on the 30th floor. That's a heck of a throw. Instead of being a domestic terrorist, the perpetrator (if indeed there was one) should try out for the NY Mets...they can use the help. Mike
I read about that super-throw, Mike. Guy should try out for the Reds. Which, come to think of it, is not a bad name for the Democratic Party's team either.
My rhetoric is full of evidence – good evidence. A few hours of C-Span will prove it. I’m sorry if I can’t be brief. I don’t think blogging is my arena. I can’t see the other guys eyes, and, if you can suspend your disbelief, I really do hate the typing. I’m the face-to-face-over-a-good-glass-of-scotch type. This was sort of my first full-fledged foray, and aren’t you glad I chose yours to try it! But, I’m old(er), and I don’t easily grasp the nuances and conventions of newer venues and technologies. I have a tendency to ignore them. I’m a terrible texter, too. And, I was never one for conventions, and yes, that is a double entendre.
The gulf between us is very wide, too wide to address in a blog, for me anyway. Party-planned one-liners don’t do anything but annoy me. If they charge you by the word I’m sure I incurred a few extras. You can send me the bill ☺.
You still have someone, or something, somewhere within this system, or this government, that you trust. I do not. You obviously believe in this system as it sits. I do not. While I’ve read where you consider yourself cynical, well, there’s cynical, and then there’s cynical. You’re the former, and I’m the latter.
We both still have hope, you more than me, I’m sure, but those hopes are very different too. Whereas I hope this will all just die and come back as something useful, you hope to make the best of what we have, and think the way we do things is pretty much okay. I no longer share that view.
You’re right, I do believe party politics is “unremittingly bad,” and I will until they plant me. I will never hesitate to say so. I’ve been hip deep in it much longer than you, and I used to think much better of it. I even used to vote, and for all the right reasons. Can you imagine that? It’s tearing us apart and it needs changed, or the hope that lives now will eventually disappear. That process has already begun.
You’re also right that politics is about “policy.” When that returns I might learn to like it again. And lobbyist don’t lobby because they are over-regulated, they lobby, cash in hand, to curry favor, get it, and make bigger profits for their industry. If they didn’t there would be no reason to ensure certain legislators, or agendas, get elected repeatedly. They’d just be there looking for help. One actually is “lobbying,” the other is bribery, and the last time I looked, it was against the law.
I beg your indulgence for my few parting shots.
I do, however, take offense to your other two points, and if that’s what you see then I didn’t use enough of the right words.
Anyway, if all those things seem trite to you, or you think I’m begging out because you inferred I’m a pointless wind-bag, and one-trick pony, one other thing I should have considered with more scrutiny, is that you are my son’s friend, or acquaintance, and I should have known better.
Perhaps I am long-winded and flowery, but I choose to accept that as a compliment, and I thank you. I also thank you for the use of the hall.
Nez, I've been struggling now for over a week about how I should answer your last post, or if I should. I figure I'll give it a try now. I do apologize, though, for my previous less-than-gracious rejoinders.
> I’m the face-to-face-over-a-good-glass-of-scotch type.
I'm find with that approach, too. Scotch, bourbon, Irish, rye, gin, beer, wine -- I'm ecumenical.
> You still have someone, or something, somewhere within this system, or this government, that you trust. I do not. You obviously believe in this system as it sits. I do not.
The Constitution was written by (mostly) Christian men who tried their best to conjure up a government in which the mendacity and wickedness of men would be restrained. That's the "system" I believe in, but belief only goes so far. We've had two hundred plus years to poke and prod at its weak points and render more and more of it powerless and meaningless. I don't know how much more it can take without collapsing altogether.
> While I’ve read where you consider yourself cynical, well, there’s cynical, and then there’s cynical. You’re the former, and I’m the latter.
A Christian should not be cynical at all, and if I weren't a Christian, cynicism would rule the day with me. We should, however, be aware of man's depravity, in ourselves first and foremost, and understand that without God's grace, we would become unutterably corrupt.
> You’re right, I do believe party politics is “unremittingly bad,” and I will until they plant me.
It depends on what is meant by "party politics". Standing on an important principle can be labeled as party politics by those who are opposed to the principle.
> You’re also right that politics is about “policy.” When that returns I might learn to like it again.
Oh, it's here, alright. It never left. We've got policies everywhere, mostly bad.
> And lobbyist don’t lobby because they are over-regulated, they lobby, cash in hand, to curry favor, get it, and make bigger profits for their industry.
But that matters only because Congress has assumed so much power in the economic sector. If Congress had less power to grant favors, lobbyists would be less interested in lobbying for favors.
> I do, however, take offense to your other two points...
I didn't mean to give offense. Why not take the time to refute my observations?
> Anyway, if all those things seem trite to you, or you think I’m begging out because you inferred I’m a pointless wind-bag...
Neither one. I'm just trying to understand what that point is. All I see so far seems to be a recipe to despair.
> one other thing I should have considered with more scrutiny, is that you are my son’s friend, or acquaintance, and I should have known better.
It's difficult for me to be gracious when you hit me with a broadside like that. But let's give it a shot: who is your son, that you would have so little faith in him and whom he has befriended?
Are you Todd's father? Then we've met, haven't we?
Post a Comment