[From Collecting My Thoughts:]
And if you are a Greenie, accept the credit and take a bow for these prices. You’ve kept the oil refineries from being built. You’ve stopped the drilling for oil on American soil. You’ve halted a lot of industry in the USA so we could have cleaner air, chasing people out of the cities where they had public transportation. People are reducing their driving because of you, especially poor people driving older, less fuel efficient cars. Be proud and puffed up when you hear your co-workers bitching. Smile. It’s all your fault.
I don’t know about all their fault, but nevertheless…
This country, too, is seized with collective paranoia. President Bush knows, as Ferdinand, Isabella and Torquemada knew, that constant warnings about secret terrorists are a powerful deterrent to dissent and a useful tool for consolidating political power.
So that’s why there is no dissent in this country! Yep, everyone marches in lockstep to the President’s iron-fisted will to power. Probably, James Reston has already been arrested. Be careful, you could be next. Karl Rove is watching…
There are far too many things about this article that scare me. [article seen on No Government Cheese] (This is, by the way, far scarier than Silent Hill, which I saw last night. I’m not recommending it, but it is the most provocatively thoughtful “horror” movie I think I’ve seen.)
I wonder why there are many “[expletive]’s” in the article, but “good goddamn” doesn’t merit one?
But the most disturbing part about the whole article is this section:
Her husband, Adam, who works as a lighting technician in Hollywood and is generally calmer about things, comes in from the kitchen. “I have an announcement,” he says.
“The disposal is fixed?” she says.
She gets up, hugs him, comes back, sits down, checks the latest responses.
Nearing 50 now.
The front door opens and in comes her 6-year-old son, Terry, home from school, who starts batting around a blue balloon at the other end of the living room, batting it closer to her, closer, closer. She searches through her iTunes library until she finds one of her favorite downloads — not music, but a speech by a character named Howard Beale in the movie “Network.” She presses “play” and turns up the volume. “I want you to get mad!” Beale shouts at one point. “I want you to get mad!” she shouts along, startling Terry. “What?” he says, backing away with his balloon.
…speaking of those who are usually classified as “liberal,” (but since that word has little or no concrete meaning, we’ll just call the people I’m talking about the “Homosexual-Special-Rights-Kill-Grandma-and-Baby-Keep-Your-Religion-to-Yourself-Every-Little-Thing-Offends-Me Death Lobbyists”):
The guy behind BlameBush! has some wicked satire about using your child to make a statement. Best lines:
I was struck by how thoughtful and open-minded gay families are compared to heterocentric ones. By using their own children as weapons in the war against the Christian Right, same-sex couples make the world a better place for all of us. Hetero couples, on the other hand, procreate for purely selfish reasons and their offspring serve no political purpose whatsoever.
“Hypocrisy” might be a good word for it. “Ignorant” and “bigoted” are also good words. You might wonder, and justifiably so, whether Sally Jacobsen believes destruction of abortion clinics qualifies as “free speech.”
She said, “I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom of speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to.” According to the article, “She declined to say if she took part.” And yet, in this article, the photograph shows her taking part in the destruction of one of the signs. No wonder she declined to say whether she had taken part. Some might call her non-admission lying. Some would be right. One wonders what taking down pro-life crosses has to do with British Literature, the class which she was supposedly teaching at the time.
The Cincinnait Enquirer’s editorial is quite right:
Her own “outrage” at a display she found offensive pales beside the outrage students, college staff and the rest of us should feel at her behavior. What she called a “silly display” is symbolic speech clearly protected by the U.S. Constitution, as precious as any other right Jacobsen might say she was advocating for.
She said she was offended by the display. So what? Does she think she has the right to obliterate someone else’s expression just because it offends her? Would she deface a painting she didn’t care for? Smash a statue she didn’t like? Burn books in the library if she disagreed with them?
I think stereotypes are generally a bad thing, but it’s hard not to stereotype when there are comment exchanges like this one at The Northerner. As usual, a complete lack of proportionality on the part of those who dislike the pro-life group’s display. All reputable pro-life organizations consistently condemn violence to advance their cause, yet their critics accuse them of hypocrisy for being upset about Jacobsen’s vandalism. The charge simply doesn’t stick.
Or there’s the ridiculous notion that pro-life students (who may or may not be Christians, let’s remember) only have the right to their speech if they attend a Christian university. That’s nice. Sure, your speech is allowed, but not here–not at a public university.
Irrationality knows no bounds.